Jonah Lehrer and the social brain
I am even more excited than usual about our forthcoming lecture programme. In two weeks we award the RSA Benjamin Franklin Medal to Elizabeth Gould, the discoverer of neurogenesis, the process by which the brain generates new neurons. Professor Gould is one of the world’s leading neuroscientists but tonight we have a world leading populariser of research on the brain and behaviour: Jonah Lehrer. As well as his two fantastic books, ‘Proust was a neuroscientist’ and ‘The decisive moment’ (the latter of which he is in town to publicise) Lehrer has his own website and blog, The Frontal Cortex, and is editor at large of SEED magazine.
As I’ve said in past blogs, I am working away with my colleague Matt Grist on the RSA Social Brain project. We are still at the stage of identifying the conceptual framework for the project. The aim now is to distil what we see as being the key insights from recent neuro-scientific and behavioural research as we try to develop an integrated model to challenge a cluster of myths about human agency derived from the overlapping perspectives of Cartesian philosophy, neo-classical economics and common sense.
This was in part the focus of my annual lecture in 2008 but we need to move beyond myth-busting, and citing of individual bits of research, into the development of a model which could be of practical use to decision makers, organisational leaders or anyone else interested in influencing behaviour and developing human capability.
For myself I already have a sense of some of the key broad insights that we need to be using as the foundations for our new model:
- Human decision making takes place on many levels. Although the conscious level is much less important than common sense tells us, one of the things that makes human beings different is that we can, within limits, determine which bits of our mental apparatus does which job. For example, learning a skill is about making something we start off trying to do through conscious effort – and as a consequence do badly – into something that becomes automatic and effortless (like learning a language or musical instrument) by hard wiring our learning
- Our personalities are much less fixed than we tend to think they are, but our sources of well-being are much more constant. In a recent blog Lehrer quotes philosopher Alva Noe “Consciousness is not something the brain achieves on its own,” Noë writes. “Consciousness requires the joint operation of the brain, body and world. … It is an achievement of the whole animal in its environmental context.”.
- More controversially, human decision making strategies in organisations (defined simply as a group of people trying to achieve something together) derive neither from a single way of viewing the world (as is asserted in neo-classical economics) nor by an infinite number of possibilities but by way of a limited array of (antagonistic but mutually reinforcing) paradigms.
By the end of the month I hope we will have developed and refined a list of about ten of these broad foundations and then started to look at how they link together, or possibly, are in tension.
It’s good to talk
One of my minor achievements in politics was having the idea of the Big Conversation. This was an attempt by the Labour Party to reconnect with its supporters in the wake of the divisive decision to invade Iraq. I remember writing a chunk of text for Tony Blair’s conference speech calling for a national debate over future policy and being both flattered and terrified when he delivered it verbatim.
The Big Conversation was successful in one way and a failure in another. It helped to accelerate the shift away from politicians engaging primarily by delivering speeches to the process of participants engaging with each other, with politicians responding to the points raised by the groups. This process helped to identify some key issues which Labour leaders then agreed to push up the agenda – for example, expanding flexible working rights for parents and carers. The process was seen to fail as a way of developing detailed policy recommendations, which was slightly unfair in that no one sensible would ever have thought such a thing was possible in the first place.
I was reminded of the Big Conversation when reading ‘Conversation: how talk can change our lives’, a book of lectures by Theodore Zeldin. It’s one of those books that is impossible to summarise, so full it is of fascinating perspectives and insights. But running through each perfectly formed lecture is a simple assertion that runs doubly counter to intuition. We tend to think of conversation as easy but unimportant; in calling for a ‘New Conversation’ Zeldin says the reverse: conversation is vital to well being, growth and social harmony but it is also hard to do well.
‘Conversation is a meeting of minds with different memories and habits. When minds meet, they don’t just exchange facts; they transform them, reshape them, draw different implications from them, engage in new trains of thought. Conversation doesn’t just reshuffle the cards it creates new cards…It’s like a spark that two minds create. And what I realty care about is what new conversational banquets one can create from those sparks’
Yesterday I had a conversation with Matt Grist who is running our ‘social brain’ project here at the RSA. We are at the difficult early stage of the project, trying to develop a conceptual framework both for the ideas themselves and for the method and purpose of the project. It is a good investment of time to work away at this but the sense that we might never crack it generates anxiety. We were discussing the three levels from which human action emerges: the physiological (hard wired-automatic responses), the socio-cultural (the norms which tacitly determine behavioural options) and the cognitive (the decisions we choose to make).
Human development can involve moving actions from one level to another, and, interestingly in both directions. Learning a skill, for example, a new language or musical instrument or sporting prowess involves moving down the levels. We start off having to think about everything but – if we persist – more and more becomes automatic. Cognitive and behavioural therapy involves a reverse process by which patients are given insight into dysfunctional hard wired mechanisms, which they must learn to identify and deliberately block if they are to relieve anxiety or depression.
Good conversation involves action at all three levels. Research in neuroscience and psychology has shown the powerful automatic processes of empathy taking place when we enjoy speaking with other people. A conversation will also conform to powerful cultural rules governing what is appropriate. And, of course, during the conversation there will be moments (although probably not as many as we tend to assume) when we ‘decide’ to listen or speak in a particular way.
In my annual Chief Executive’s speech last year, I offered the inelegant phrase ‘neurological reflexivity’ – the idea that important consequences would flow from more of us better understanding the ways our minds work. I am planning to have lots of conversations today, ending up with a Fellows’ evening in Leeds. I’ll report back later on whether thinking about conversation affects the way I experience it.
Neuroscience and lifelong learning – some impressions from an RSA / NIACE event
We co-hosted (with NIACE) a great event here last night on neuroscience and lifelong learning. For me it confirmed a few earlier impressions:
• Awareness of the basics of neuroscience, and of the big and undisputed discoveries it has made in recent years, is spreading more and more widely. It is becoming a branch of science that many non-scientists in areas like education and social policy feel they need to understand.
• This is also true of the general public. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore talked about the ‘seductive allure’ of neuroscientific explanations and Paul Howard-Jones told us that teenagers were not just fascinated but motivated when they better understood the relationship between learning and brain function.
• However, the main thing that will stop the insights of neuroscience making a major impact on society is hype about neuroscience. For example, I have Mark Earls to thank for a link to some research reported in the New Scientist which exposes the ‘voodoo correlations’ underlying claims that certain emotional traits and pre-dispositions are hard-wired into specific and identifiable parts of the brain.
• A good example of this is the brain training industry. There is some evidence that some methods have some effect on cognitive capacity but nothing that justifies the claims made by the retailers of the various devices on the market.
• The contribution of neuroscience to policy and everyday life is better understood and less subject to exaggeration when its insights are explored alongside those coming from areas such as developmental and social psychology.
These aren’t just random insights but they are shaping our social brain project here at the RSA.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.