Check out the spinning lady here. Which side of the brain are you seeing her with – right brain or left? And if that’s the case, what does it mean? Does it indeed indicate hemispheric dominance – or something else? In any event, she rotated clockwise for me for awhile, then counter clockwise, and finally I was able to make her switch directions at times. Found it curious.
. . . Neurons are blue, and red, and green and some 87 other colors. Neuroscientists at Harvard University have developed a methodology for using fluorescent proteins to color individual neurons within the brain. Using a well-known recombinent system known as Cre/lox scientists have been able to build a transgene from portions of DNA, insert it into mouse DNA and cause the switching on of flourescent protein genes. The technology allows researchers to see the individual neurons and connections of the brain in unparalled technicolor detail.
Future seem gloomy – or full of promise? A new study suggests that specific parts of our brain may be hard-wired for optimism. It found that portions of the brain (the rostral anterior cingulate cortex) are consistently activated in response to thinking “positive thoughts.” Which might give a bit more credence to the anecdotal evidence we’ve heard for years from various self-help groups. You can read the abstract here, or this brief mention in the Boston Globe here.
This just in from ScienceDaily –
A new study by John Kounios, professor of Psychology at Drexel University and Mark Jung-Beeman of Northwestern University indicates that basic differences in brain activity between creative and methodical problem solvers exist and are evident even when these individuals are not working on a problem. The study shows that greater right-hemisphere activity occurs even during a “resting” state in those with a tendency to solve problems by creative insight. This finding suggests that even the spontaneous thought of creative individuals, such as in their daydreams, contains more remote associations.
The study compared a methodical versus a more diffuse “aha” type of thinking.
Sleep deprivation causes the emotional centers tied to the amygdala to become quite a bit more active.
“It’s almost as though, without sleep, the brain had reverted back to more primitive patterns of activity, in that it was unable to put emotional experiences into context and produce controlled, appropriate responses,” said Matthew Walker, director of UC Berkeley’s Sleep and Neuroimaging Laboratory and senior author of the study, which is to be published in the journal Current Biology.
This lack of sleep was found to increase amygdala emotional response by over 60%. It also caused the brain to first connect to the ocus coeruleus, the oldest part of the brain which releases noradrenalin to ward off imminent threats to survival, rather than to the prefrontal cortex.
This has a certain logic. A tired animal needs to react quickly to survive. But, as humans, we need to be able to cognitively assess all situations and this neurological predisposition leads to increased volatility in emotional responses such as anger. Worse, it increases the likelihood of making inappropriate responses to situations – doing things that we would normally not do in a rested state.
Bottom line – make sure that a coachee is rested before having a heart-to-heart. And when that is not possible, be prepared to factor in the extra emotional response.
Our ability to accept and promote inaccurate information and mis-perception can often seem astonishing. This is, in part, fueled by how our brains process and remember information. Here are a few factors in our brain’s assessment of information that help propagate these misunderstandings, along with relevant coaching principles.
- Things that are repeated often become more accessible in memory, and one of the brain’s subconscious rules of thumb is that easily recalled things are true.
Therefore, when coaching – repetition, repetition, repetition is a key to change.
- Long-term memory is more apt than short-term memory to retain the bias that well-remembered false information is true.
Get the coaching information into long-term memory for change to stick. Repeat, repeat, repeat as above.
- Once an idea has been implanted in people’s minds, it can be difficult to dislodge.
Planting the coaching idea is the first step and its mere planting is useful.
- The brain is not good at remembering when and where a person first learned something.
The coachee may not remember that you gave him or her the idea, but they may well remember the idea itself, and our egos aside, that of course is what’s most important.
- When accusations or assertions are met with silence, they are more likely to feel true.
You must respond to a coachee’s assertions with something in order to affect change.
What we are referring to here is the difficulty that we, as coaches, find in changing people’s mental models. Often a coachee seems willful or even malicious in his or her obstinacy to retain incorrect beliefs and affect change. What is suggested here is that at least a portion of this behavior involves brain hard-wiring and that if we will work with that hard-wiring we can obtain better results.
An article in BusinessWeek highlights the emerging field of “neuromarketing” – using brain imaging technologies to test, and ultimately help clients control, consumer response. To quote:
Do you ever get the creepy feeling that advertisers know how to put a lump in your throat, inspire subconscious brand loyalty, or make your mouth water? Just wait: It could get worse. An emerging technique called neuromarketing that uses brain scans to measure human response to promotional messages is starting to catch on in Europe—and soon ads may become even more effective at prompting you to pull out your wallet.
Which begs the question, of course – how much control can I maintain over my own brain? With increasing refinement of brain imaging technologies and continually deepening understanding of how our brains actually function we face the recurring and inevitable question of how to use this knowledge.
This is the world of mental models, of philosophy, ethics, theology and other disciplines. It is also the place of coaching. How do we coach? What do we coach? How do we answer those difficult questions revolving around making our individual and collective lives better?
The brain acts as a complex choreography of cooperating physiological structures and process systems. Many distinct brain systems work together to solve complex problems. Our goal-oriented behavior involves at least two systems. Another network manages cognitive reserve. There is the distinction between left and right brain processing as well as the interactions between emotional and cognitive systems and structures. Surprise and attraction/aversion involve cooperating networks. And it all works together seamlessly for the most part.
Sometimes working seamlessly doesn’t mean working for our best interests. We can distinguish between our reflective (thinking) and reflexive (emotion and reward-seeking) brains. The reflective brain “thinks.” The reflexive brain “reacts.” One continuing aspect of coaching involves managing the reactions of our reflexive brain so that it networks well with its reflective side in ways that support our best interests. This is “coaching Ted” – not always an easy task.
One reason is that some actions and the thinking behind them just plain feel good – even when they prove detrimental to us and our reflective selves know it. A recent example is found in David Zweig’s book on investing, Your Money & your Brain: How the New Science of Neuroeconomics can make you Rich. Zweig finds that “Making money feels good, all right; it just doesn’t feel as good as expecting to make money. In a cruel irony that has enormous implications for financial behavior, your investing brain comes equipped with a biological mechanism that is more aroused when you anticipate a profit than when you actually get one.” Which sets up a physiological basis for greed – the behavior feels better than the result which loops to feed more of the behavior.Overcoming such behavior (and coaching to do so) involves saying “no” in a manner that proves stronger than the good feeling. There are many productive strategies for doing so, ranging from the personal accountability of partners and self-help groups to alternative rewards. At their heart they involve bringing reflexive behaviors under the control of our cognitive selves. And that’s easier said than done.
Hate surprises or love them? Our brains handle surprises and attraction and aversion (valence in techno speak) in different ways. The amygdala processes emotional responses and a new study indicates that two distinctly differing sets of neurons within it respond to either reward or aversion. And not only that, but that the expectation of reward or aversion also triggers these networks of neurons. The speculation is that the intensity of reward and aversion effect is intensified by surprise and that neural circuitry is required to process both surprise and the degree of attraction or aversion that an individual feels towards specific events.
Suppose consciousness exists at a more fundamental level than the brain’s cortex. Swedish neuroscientist Bjorn Merker suggests that “primary consciousness,” which he regards as an ability to integrate sensations from the environment with one’s immediate goals and feelings in order to guide behavior, springs from the brain stem. “To be conscious is not necessarily to be self-conscious,” Merker says. “The tacit consensus concerning the cerebral cortex as the ‘organ of consciousness’ … may in fact be seriously in error.”
Merker bases his proposals on observations of cortically-deprived children with a condition known as hydranencephaly, the absence of most of the brain’s cortex. The children that he observed “recognized familiar adults, liked familiar settings, and preferred specific toys, tunes, or video programs. Although saddled with limited mobility, some kids took behavioral initiatives, such as learning to activate a toy by throwing a switch.”
He also built his theory on earlier work conducted by Canadian neurosurgeons Wilder Penfield and Herbert Jasper. Their work in removing large portions of cortex in the treatment of severe epilepsy helped isolate physiological bases for “absence epilepsy,” a sudden loss of consciousness, that indicated brain stem involvement in primary consciousness. Merket adds that animal research activity since that time confirms the brain stem’s involvement in primary consciousness.
He proposes that such a consciousness yields a two-dimensional view of the world with moving shapes. It also is able to respond emotionally in ways that are recognizably human, suggesting that the brain stem is more than a mere reptilian vestige. “The human brain stem is specifically human,” Merker says. “These children smile and laugh in the specifically human manner, which is different from that of our closest relatives among the apes.”
Link: Consciousness in the Raw
For more information: NINDS Hydranencephaly Information Page
One support group’s experiences and observations: Rays of Sunshine