Discussion Forum > Your Brain at Work
<<insights from neuroscience>>
The time will come when somebody will call shenanigans on using neuroscience (whatever that means) to make generalized, blanket statements on how to perform better in bed, at the office, etc. It would seem all soft Science and Arts oriented fields have Penis, er, Science Envy and/or have publishers telling them: "You won't sell a thing if you can't justify your claims with some Neuroimaging.
Because of my wife's occupation (psychiatry) we're friends with all types of mental health folk. During casual conversation (no mics, reporters or fund granting bodies), the general consensus is... the best we can say is, we know some stuff, and don't know lots about most stuff.
Hell, even Freud is making a comeback: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201105/the-idea-wouldnt-die
The time will come when somebody will call shenanigans on using neuroscience (whatever that means) to make generalized, blanket statements on how to perform better in bed, at the office, etc. It would seem all soft Science and Arts oriented fields have Penis, er, Science Envy and/or have publishers telling them: "You won't sell a thing if you can't justify your claims with some Neuroimaging.
Because of my wife's occupation (psychiatry) we're friends with all types of mental health folk. During casual conversation (no mics, reporters or fund granting bodies), the general consensus is... the best we can say is, we know some stuff, and don't know lots about most stuff.
Hell, even Freud is making a comeback: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201105/the-idea-wouldnt-die
November 13, 2011 at 19:20 |
avrum
avrum
Avrum:
The self-help industry could do with an enormous helping of Science Envy! Not everybody is as committed to testing their theories as Mark.
Why do you feel that neuroscience represents pseudoscience? I would have thought that it would be a useful tool for psychiatry?
The self-help industry could do with an enormous helping of Science Envy! Not everybody is as committed to testing their theories as Mark.
Why do you feel that neuroscience represents pseudoscience? I would have thought that it would be a useful tool for psychiatry?
November 13, 2011 at 20:59 |
therevisionguy
therevisionguy
I suppose it's an irony that Freud's theories weren't predictive (in the sense of, say, physics) but arguably formed the basis of so many modern approaches to psychotherapy. And yet, as I understand it, the best indicator of a successful outcome in psychotherapy is the quality of the relationship to the therapist. And then again (I'm on a roll) one of the main recommended therapies on the NHS is a 6 week course of CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy). Haven't we come a long way? (rant over)
November 13, 2011 at 21:13 |
michael
michael
Okay now I'm confused.
therevisionguy:
Why do you feel that neuroscience represents pseudoscience?
I just don't see how you get to that from what avrum posted. your post is the only one with that statement in it, so i don't think it is correct to project that onto avrum.
I thought avrum was complaining about the prospect of too-broad-conclusions being drawn from some measurements taken/observations made.
By all means correct me if I've misunderstood (please!).
therevisionguy:
Why do you feel that neuroscience represents pseudoscience?
I just don't see how you get to that from what avrum posted. your post is the only one with that statement in it, so i don't think it is correct to project that onto avrum.
I thought avrum was complaining about the prospect of too-broad-conclusions being drawn from some measurements taken/observations made.
By all means correct me if I've misunderstood (please!).
November 13, 2011 at 21:18 |
John Angus (Anguish)
John Angus (Anguish)
John Angus:
"neuroscience (whatever that means)" is a dismissive statement.
"neuroscience (whatever that means)" is a dismissive statement.
November 13, 2011 at 21:41 |
therevisionguy
therevisionguy
John Angus:
I think when someone refers to "neuroscience (whatever that means)" there's definitely a feeling that they think there's something a bit "pseudo" about it.
We don't after all qualify chemistry, astronomy, quantum physics or bacteriology with "whatever that means".
I think when someone refers to "neuroscience (whatever that means)" there's definitely a feeling that they think there's something a bit "pseudo" about it.
We don't after all qualify chemistry, astronomy, quantum physics or bacteriology with "whatever that means".
November 13, 2011 at 21:44 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
How I understood avrum`s "neuroscience (whatever that means)" is "neuroscience (whatever it means for "neurocoach" David Rock who founded NeuroLeadership Group (sic!)" Look at his web pages, it clarifies to me what avrum meant by his comment. For somebody who ever been just in brief contact with real neurosciences, it is ridiculous. I cannot agree more with avrum: >>the best we can say is, we know some stuff, and don't know lots about most stuff.<< Moreover, neuroscience results can be nowadays applied well in clinical psychology or medical field, or diagnostics, but definitely not for areas like leadership, time management, cooking or soulmate searching.
Maybe Dr. Rock`s book contains interesting ideas - I have not read it. However connecting neurosciences with leadership/coaching/time management or any disparate areas is at current level of understanding definitely marketing/fabletelling much more than science.
Maybe Dr. Rock`s book contains interesting ideas - I have not read it. However connecting neurosciences with leadership/coaching/time management or any disparate areas is at current level of understanding definitely marketing/fabletelling much more than science.
November 13, 2011 at 22:08 |
Daneb
Daneb
Daneb:
So the way our brain works has no relevance to leadership, time management, cooking or soulmate searching?
Ok - if you say so. Seems odd, though.
So the way our brain works has no relevance to leadership, time management, cooking or soulmate searching?
Ok - if you say so. Seems odd, though.
November 13, 2011 at 22:14 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Full afternoon/evening of clients, so this will be short.
I was dismissing the use of neuroscience - as a marketing ploy - to dress up subjective ideas. Most people do not have the time, resources or energy to explore these claims... to review the literature.
Let me put it this way... there will be little debate, and scant literature, should someone create a pill, technique or therapy to get us to do all those good things we're avoiding. The proof will be in the results... we'll be too busy jogging on a treadmill, or putting final touches on that movie script we've been avoiding.
I was dismissing the use of neuroscience - as a marketing ploy - to dress up subjective ideas. Most people do not have the time, resources or energy to explore these claims... to review the literature.
Let me put it this way... there will be little debate, and scant literature, should someone create a pill, technique or therapy to get us to do all those good things we're avoiding. The proof will be in the results... we'll be too busy jogging on a treadmill, or putting final touches on that movie script we've been avoiding.
November 13, 2011 at 22:16 |
avrum
avrum
<<main recommended therapies on the NHS is a 6 week course of CBT>>
It's the cheapest, most efficient form of therapy. Training is often a weekend course, often taken by non-therapists i.e. nurses, OT's. An HMO's dream come true. Currently, the trend is to administer CBT via computer, not clinician. Both to reduce bias while collecting evidence, as well as cost effective purposes.
Side note, I have extensive training in, and use, CBT and mindfulness techniques.
It's the cheapest, most efficient form of therapy. Training is often a weekend course, often taken by non-therapists i.e. nurses, OT's. An HMO's dream come true. Currently, the trend is to administer CBT via computer, not clinician. Both to reduce bias while collecting evidence, as well as cost effective purposes.
Side note, I have extensive training in, and use, CBT and mindfulness techniques.
November 13, 2011 at 22:21 |
avrum
avrum
<<However connecting neurosciences with leadership/coaching>>
My neurology friends would have a good laugh at this. They're quite self-deprecating, and humble about what they know and don't know.
My neurology friends would have a good laugh at this. They're quite self-deprecating, and humble about what they know and don't know.
November 13, 2011 at 22:23 |
avrum
avrum
Mark:
Our brain definitely has relevance to all of these areas, however neuroscience results at the moment not (or not above the level of basic correlations, broad generalizations or unproved claims - definitely not on the level of applications/treatment/neurotherapy in these suggested areas...)
Our brain definitely has relevance to all of these areas, however neuroscience results at the moment not (or not above the level of basic correlations, broad generalizations or unproved claims - definitely not on the level of applications/treatment/neurotherapy in these suggested areas...)
November 13, 2011 at 22:26 |
Daneb
Daneb
Daneb:
My response to what you say is that all the advances in leadership, time management, cooking and soulmate searching so far in human history appear to have been made by people who aren't neuroscientists, usually by a process of trial and error.
So just when is it that neuroscientists are planning to have some part in this process?
I mean we're not still waiting around for the aforementioned chemistry, astronomy, quantum physics and bacteriology to produce some useful results in the real world, are we?
My response to what you say is that all the advances in leadership, time management, cooking and soulmate searching so far in human history appear to have been made by people who aren't neuroscientists, usually by a process of trial and error.
So just when is it that neuroscientists are planning to have some part in this process?
I mean we're not still waiting around for the aforementioned chemistry, astronomy, quantum physics and bacteriology to produce some useful results in the real world, are we?
November 13, 2011 at 23:31 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
I think neuroscience has very useful and practical results like chemistry or astronomy. But we would be too optimistic to expect neuroscientists to give us answers for cooking, time management or leadership, as we would be naive if we expect these answers from chemistry or quantum physics (with the only exception of molecular gastronomy:). We feel that brain is responsible for all these processes so that neuroscience should know the answers. But zillions of chemical processes take part in brain and we do not expect chemists to tell us about time management. Many quantum processes also take part in brain at subatomic level and we do not ask quantum physicist to tell us about leadership. So I think neuroscience is great, fruitful science, but with practical results applicable (as usually) to its own area of interest - human brain functions. And telling "everything is human brain functions" is the same like saying "everything is based on chemical process" or "everything is based on quantum phenomenons"...
I think neuroscience has very useful and practical results like chemistry or astronomy. But we would be too optimistic to expect neuroscientists to give us answers for cooking, time management or leadership, as we would be naive if we expect these answers from chemistry or quantum physics (with the only exception of molecular gastronomy:). We feel that brain is responsible for all these processes so that neuroscience should know the answers. But zillions of chemical processes take part in brain and we do not expect chemists to tell us about time management. Many quantum processes also take part in brain at subatomic level and we do not ask quantum physicist to tell us about leadership. So I think neuroscience is great, fruitful science, but with practical results applicable (as usually) to its own area of interest - human brain functions. And telling "everything is human brain functions" is the same like saying "everything is based on chemical process" or "everything is based on quantum phenomenons"...
November 14, 2011 at 8:18 |
Daneb
Daneb
Daneb:
No, I don't expect chemistry or quantum physics to tell me about time management, etc.
But I do expect neuroscience to be able to tell me something about how the brain works which would be useful in time management in the same way that physiology can tell me something that will be useful for playing sports.
To say that neuroscience has no results which can be put to use in the real world after several centuries of research just strikes me as perverse. No one waited until our knowledge of electricity was complete to start lighting the world. The practical use of electricity and the increase of knowledge about it went hand in hand.
No, I don't expect chemistry or quantum physics to tell me about time management, etc.
But I do expect neuroscience to be able to tell me something about how the brain works which would be useful in time management in the same way that physiology can tell me something that will be useful for playing sports.
To say that neuroscience has no results which can be put to use in the real world after several centuries of research just strikes me as perverse. No one waited until our knowledge of electricity was complete to start lighting the world. The practical use of electricity and the increase of knowledge about it went hand in hand.
November 14, 2011 at 8:32 |
Mark Forster
Mark Forster
Mark:
OK, I would correct my all-or-nothing statements: what is better to say, is that we witness SOME applications from neuroscience for these areas. We know about role of some neurotransmitters or frontal lobes structures for executive functions (connected with will and executing actions), we know quite a lot about roles of structural damages in various phases of attentional span and similar areas, which is theoretically interesting for managing our attention and our time. But still, claiming that we are ready to publish book on time management or leadership based on these results is the same like claiming we are ready to publish book on nuclear fusion by renaissance alchemist.
Electrical engineers did not provide us with cheap electro airplane comparable with common noisy airplane after more than hundred years, but they provided us with many other useful things. Similarly, we have many tremendous results from neuroscience (medical, diagnostics, brain imaging etc), so we cannot criticize it for not providing us with practical knowledge. OK, nothing much important about time management, which is probably not research priority for neuroscientists at this moment...
OK, I would correct my all-or-nothing statements: what is better to say, is that we witness SOME applications from neuroscience for these areas. We know about role of some neurotransmitters or frontal lobes structures for executive functions (connected with will and executing actions), we know quite a lot about roles of structural damages in various phases of attentional span and similar areas, which is theoretically interesting for managing our attention and our time. But still, claiming that we are ready to publish book on time management or leadership based on these results is the same like claiming we are ready to publish book on nuclear fusion by renaissance alchemist.
Electrical engineers did not provide us with cheap electro airplane comparable with common noisy airplane after more than hundred years, but they provided us with many other useful things. Similarly, we have many tremendous results from neuroscience (medical, diagnostics, brain imaging etc), so we cannot criticize it for not providing us with practical knowledge. OK, nothing much important about time management, which is probably not research priority for neuroscientists at this moment...
November 14, 2011 at 9:08 |
Daneb
Daneb
Thanks folks, that was quite illuminating - I wasn't expecting to open such a can of worms!
Despite the marketing jibberish (I also did an exaggerated 'oh brother' eye roll when I read the word neurocoach) the book is clearly the result of a lot of research, which is what makes me wonder whether the problem is his overly enthusiastic interpretation of the facts.
I would be interested to sort the science from the neurofiction, so if you do get the chance to read it, please let me know what you think.
Despite the marketing jibberish (I also did an exaggerated 'oh brother' eye roll when I read the word neurocoach) the book is clearly the result of a lot of research, which is what makes me wonder whether the problem is his overly enthusiastic interpretation of the facts.
I would be interested to sort the science from the neurofiction, so if you do get the chance to read it, please let me know what you think.
November 14, 2011 at 19:17 |
therevisionguy
therevisionguy
Mark makes an important point, because as long as we play by the rules of experimental science, it will be very difficult to apply the results of laboratory findings to the wonderful messy inter-related complexities of leadership, cooking and fnding a soul mate. And what good is that to the rest of us?
I'm a social science researcher in a field that cannot be studied by experimental methods. We often rely on research from a variety of fields and research methodologies on a given topic. To gain a broader understanding of an issue like family violence or addictions, for example, you ultimately have to have some kind of theory that is informed by this diversity of research. It involves, at times, metaphorical reasoning and intuitive thinking, and, in my field of social work, is also guided by certain values (it is not "objective" in the sense of the science researcher).
Properly done and documented, this approach has its own rigour and relies on the academic discourse for methodogical and theoretical critique and to move our understanding forward. Of course, many of my colleagues in fields that use experimental methods (which I have also been well trained in) dismiss this approach as not being science. And according to their paradigm, it's not. But while they can make reliable and valid statements about the neurological mechanisms involved with aggression or disinhibition, for example, they can never make statements about family violence that account for the wide array of research across the many disciplines. My field can draw on all this research to make broader theoretical claims, but we also tend to not claim to have the only answer.
What irritates me, though, is when this is done without a proper contextual understanding of the original pieces of research. And it's important to explain the leaps you are making in cobbling different types of research together and having some kind of rationale.
So if I were to read David Rock's book, I would want to see how he handles the research and his rationale for the way he applies it. I would see if that made sense to me and then test it out in my own life, observing the results.
I believe that this forum uses a similar process. People bring in all kinds of ideas, research, and theories and some of us experiment with the ideas and report back on them. We have a healthy discourse that helps us all to gain a better understanding of how to get things one in our own lives. We also know that there is not one size fits all answer for everyone (except perhaps for Mark's Final Version!), so I really appreciate the messier approaches to creating knowledge.
I'm a social science researcher in a field that cannot be studied by experimental methods. We often rely on research from a variety of fields and research methodologies on a given topic. To gain a broader understanding of an issue like family violence or addictions, for example, you ultimately have to have some kind of theory that is informed by this diversity of research. It involves, at times, metaphorical reasoning and intuitive thinking, and, in my field of social work, is also guided by certain values (it is not "objective" in the sense of the science researcher).
Properly done and documented, this approach has its own rigour and relies on the academic discourse for methodogical and theoretical critique and to move our understanding forward. Of course, many of my colleagues in fields that use experimental methods (which I have also been well trained in) dismiss this approach as not being science. And according to their paradigm, it's not. But while they can make reliable and valid statements about the neurological mechanisms involved with aggression or disinhibition, for example, they can never make statements about family violence that account for the wide array of research across the many disciplines. My field can draw on all this research to make broader theoretical claims, but we also tend to not claim to have the only answer.
What irritates me, though, is when this is done without a proper contextual understanding of the original pieces of research. And it's important to explain the leaps you are making in cobbling different types of research together and having some kind of rationale.
So if I were to read David Rock's book, I would want to see how he handles the research and his rationale for the way he applies it. I would see if that made sense to me and then test it out in my own life, observing the results.
I believe that this forum uses a similar process. People bring in all kinds of ideas, research, and theories and some of us experiment with the ideas and report back on them. We have a healthy discourse that helps us all to gain a better understanding of how to get things one in our own lives. We also know that there is not one size fits all answer for everyone (except perhaps for Mark's Final Version!), so I really appreciate the messier approaches to creating knowledge.
November 19, 2011 at 14:51 |
silviastraka
silviastraka
Sorry I was just searching for a forum about the book mentioned in the first post. I liked it.
April 18, 2012 at 6:19 |
Mrtn
Mrtn
avrum's statement resonated with me, but the meaning I took was simply that not everybody's work needs to resemble that of a laboratory physicist.
<<It would seem all soft Science and Arts oriented fields have Penis, er, Science Envy and/or have publishers telling them: "You won't sell a thing if you can't justify your claims with some Neuroimaging.>>
By training, I'm all science/math, but I have also spent a lot of time in some very squishy areas such as internal kung fu (qigong, etc.) which some would say are the complete opposite ("focus on the feeling of energy in your hands ..."). As avrum says, results are the gold standard. If you train in these esoteric methods, you get results. Cinder blocks break (not the the special brittle ones form martial arts catalogs, but the sturdy ones off the shelf at Home Depot), people fall over, heart rates fall to impossible levels, etc. I own a floor-standing heavy bag that I had karate-kicked and punched at full force for years without even imagining it falling over, then after my first workshop of internal kung fu, I knocked it down with one hand by following a specific method of body mechanics and "relaxing and not trying too hard." And the mechanics do *not* work without the mentality. Results.
Thing is, no sooner do (modern) people in these disciplines start getting results than they start inventing pseudoscience to explain it. You should *hear* the b.s. they come up with, quantum mechanics this, and "magnetic currents" that. Um, there are no known magnetic currents. Except for one experiment by A. A. Michelson's grandson (I think) that no one's been able to reproduce, we've never seen a magnetic monopole. And their understanding of quantum? They may as well use the term "magic."
All this does is *detract* from their results. The methods work, and we don't know why. Putting forth bogus science-sounding explanations only makes them look like frauds. It is wonderful when scientists investigate these things for real, using the methods of actual science, and they find some astounding things that make our "knowledge" of human physiology look woefully incomplete. But, their evidence is *miles* away from producing a theory.
And that's okay. It takes time and sweat and mind-wringing to pull a theory out of a bunch of data.
Well, maybe that's nothing like what avrum meant. But when I go around saying that it's a shame all these "soft" disciplines have "science envy," that's what I always mean by it.
<<It would seem all soft Science and Arts oriented fields have Penis, er, Science Envy and/or have publishers telling them: "You won't sell a thing if you can't justify your claims with some Neuroimaging.>>
By training, I'm all science/math, but I have also spent a lot of time in some very squishy areas such as internal kung fu (qigong, etc.) which some would say are the complete opposite ("focus on the feeling of energy in your hands ..."). As avrum says, results are the gold standard. If you train in these esoteric methods, you get results. Cinder blocks break (not the the special brittle ones form martial arts catalogs, but the sturdy ones off the shelf at Home Depot), people fall over, heart rates fall to impossible levels, etc. I own a floor-standing heavy bag that I had karate-kicked and punched at full force for years without even imagining it falling over, then after my first workshop of internal kung fu, I knocked it down with one hand by following a specific method of body mechanics and "relaxing and not trying too hard." And the mechanics do *not* work without the mentality. Results.
Thing is, no sooner do (modern) people in these disciplines start getting results than they start inventing pseudoscience to explain it. You should *hear* the b.s. they come up with, quantum mechanics this, and "magnetic currents" that. Um, there are no known magnetic currents. Except for one experiment by A. A. Michelson's grandson (I think) that no one's been able to reproduce, we've never seen a magnetic monopole. And their understanding of quantum? They may as well use the term "magic."
All this does is *detract* from their results. The methods work, and we don't know why. Putting forth bogus science-sounding explanations only makes them look like frauds. It is wonderful when scientists investigate these things for real, using the methods of actual science, and they find some astounding things that make our "knowledge" of human physiology look woefully incomplete. But, their evidence is *miles* away from producing a theory.
And that's okay. It takes time and sweat and mind-wringing to pull a theory out of a bunch of data.
Well, maybe that's nothing like what avrum meant. But when I go around saying that it's a shame all these "soft" disciplines have "science envy," that's what I always mean by it.
April 18, 2012 at 17:23 |
Bernie
Bernie
Bernie -
I don't only enjoy your thinking (and I hope not only because we see things in a similar way), but I enjoy your writing.
I don't only enjoy your thinking (and I hope not only because we see things in a similar way), but I enjoy your writing.
April 18, 2012 at 18:07 |
avrum
avrum
Thanks, avrum. Though I completely missed how old this thread was, I'm glad I got your message right.
<<I hope not only because we see things in a similar way>>
Maybe it's the Hebrew blood. :)
<<I hope not only because we see things in a similar way>>
Maybe it's the Hebrew blood. :)
April 22, 2012 at 20:03 |
Bernie
Bernie
Whilst on holiday I bought a copy of David Rock's book – Your Brain at Work. It's a really interesting look at how we can use insights from neuroscience to be more productive. What caught my attention was where it validated or made me look differently at existing time management theory.
For example, we have roughly ten seconds to capture ideas before other thoughts start to compete for our attention and our ability to deal with tasks like planning, decision making, problem solving and prioritising is limited and decreases throughout the day.
Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had read it and what they thought?