Speaking For All Mankind

The bright side of wrong

Elizabeth Corcoran gives a great argument in the ongoing debate about technology’s effect on our minds.  She makes an important point- “I keep wondering why we lump all “technology” into the same basket. By doing so, we ignore the most important distinction of all: whether we are sponges for absorbing other people’s ideas, or whether we’re making our own.“

She gives an example of how children learn more when they are given tools to create content rather than tools that just deliver content.  Now, she talks about technology in the classroom but this equally applies to technology in the workplace.  Think of the training that consists of delivering content (lecture, PowerPoint, brown bag talk, etc.) versus the training where people are encouraged to play with the new software program or tool.

I consider the basis of learning to be the creation of mental models.  You cannot just transmit your mental model completely to me; I have to create one unique to my own mind.  You can give me information to build the model and you can create experiences that will shape the mental model but the final product is still through my unique mental processes.  But every mental model starts with engagement.  Thus, this is why allowing people to make content rather than absorb content is the key to effective learning.

Nick Carr, who criticizes the Internet while reaping the benefits of having such a great platform to push his neo-Luddite views, has published a book warning us all that online links are destroying our brains.  It takes a brave person to ignore the evidence that the Internet is actually good for our brains but Carr has made a great living by being the quotable tech contrarian.  But if Mr. Carr is concerned about threats to our minds, then I have news of the most diabolical threat to the modern brain.

The morning commute. “In 2008, scientists at the University of Michigan did a very clever study illuminating how this activity led to dramatic decreases in working memory, self-control, visual attention and positive affect. Other studies have demonstrated that people who are less exposed to this activity show enhanced brain function. They are better able to focus and even recover more quickly in hospitals.”  As we walk down the city street (or drive down U.S. 1), we constantly are fighting to keep our attention focused while being distracted by neon signs, people who suddenly switch direction in front of you, and that really attractive jogger.  The mind is constantly scanning for dangers but we keep pulling it back to focus on our path.

Another good argument for teleworking. 

It’s basically the disappointment of expecting a cool toy on Christmas morning and you actually receive a pair of sensible pants.

Three interesting articles on memory.  The first is from the Frontal Cortex and it is a great summary of the second article which is an eight-part series on Slate’s experiment in altering political truths.  What Slate has done is to create four political myths and then inserted them into news stories (like 1984’s Ministry of Truth).  Then, Slate surveyed their readers to determine who picked up on the fakes.

Many readers picked out the fakes.  But, of the ones who didn’t, they were sure they remembered the incident.  The numbers rose when people were shown faked photos of the mythical events.  In some cases, people had elaborate memories surrounding the faked event.

Why does this happen?  Because, as Frontal Cortex explains, we reconstruct our memories every time we remember something.  And the more we remember something, the less accurate it becomes as we reconsolidate the memory.  We start adding new interpretations to remembered events and we add details that were not possible at the time of the memory.

Why isn’t memory a fixed and unchanging mental construct?  One possible answer could be in the third article – “Modeling the mobility of living organisms in heterogeneous landscapes: Does memory improve foraging success?”  This research article describes how foraging animals who inject some randomness into their search are seven times more effective than foragers who rely on their memory of past finds when both are searching in a changed landscape.

So, could reconstructing memories give us an advantage by allowing us to incorporate later experiences and thus we have a better understanding of past events that can guide us in current problem solving?  Are our imperfect memories a way to inject randomness into our thought processes and make us more effective thinkers?

This is why it is always a good idea to make notes when we need to remember something important or significant.  I have found that revisiting a journal entry from years past is always surprising because my memory of the event usually differs from what I wrote at the time.  Even photos can be a great check on our memories.

Unless you do have a photo of you meeting Bugs Bunny at Disneyland.  Then you know that someone has faked the photo.

After several studies on why lying is an important advantage in personal mental development, we have research that describes how cooperation evolved from our social need to punish cheaters.  To me, this is a great example of game theory in that what benefits us personally would not benefit society if adopted by everyone.  So, we are willing to tolerate leaders who lie well as long as the society benefits but we curb the leader’s self-interest once society suffers.  Fascinating dynamic tension in play here.

“After studying 1,200 children, researchers from the Institute of Child Study at Toronto University, found that kids can be confirmed to have developed ‘executive functioning‘, when they are able to keep the truth at the back of their mind so their fib sounds more convincing.”

Fascinating story on NPR about the “trust” hormone (oxytocin) and one researcher’s findings that trust in the government is related to the amount of stress someone feels at the time.  According to the study, trust in the government is at an all time low because of the stress people feel due to the recession.  When college students were given a squirt of oxytocin they reported feeling more trusting of other people.  From this trust, they also reported less distrust in the government.

So, by promoting wellness and lowering the national stress level, could the government also be promoting better citizen engagement?

A little neuroscience research for your Monday:  According to research from Etienne Koechlin (Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France) we can only handle two tasks at a time.  Add a third task and our performance plummets.

This is due to an area in our brain called the medial prefrontal cortex (MFC).  As the research demonstrates, this area is able to assign one task to one hemisphere of the brain while the other hemisphere works on the second task.  Because we only have two hemispheres the MFC cannot handle any tasks past two.  This may also explain why we have a difficult time making choices between multiple options.

The MFC is also the reward area of the brain in that it determines our motivations for a task.  Our brain uses rewards to determine which option we should pursue.  So, if you are given the choice of fish or chicken for dinner, your brain can easily make the choice based on the perceived rewards of the two options.  Given a choice between steak, fish, or chicken, your brain quickly decides between two of the choices and then compares that choice to the remaining option.  The more options, the more time it takes to process the pairings.  Think about the time it takes to make a decision when you go to a Baskin Robbins and you have an idea of the processing that the MFC undertakes.

What are the practical aspects of this research?  First, realize that at best, people can only handle two things at most.  Second, when making decisions among multiple options, develop a method of weighing options in pairs so that you have a consistent way of ranking your options to derive the best choice.  The most practical aspect of this research is that it demonstrates that focusing on one task allows us to use our whole brain on a problem rather than half a brain on two problems.

Thanks to Henry Brown from GovLoop.

People with Power are Better Liars
Dana R. Carney, Andy J. Yap, Brian J. Lucas, & Pranjal H. Mehta
Columbia University

Abstract:  “Telling a lie is costly: emotionally, cognitively, and physiologically. Lie-tellers experience
negative emotions, cognitive impairment, physiological stress, and reveal this through nonverbal
cues. The emotional, cognitive, and physiological resources taxed by lying are enhanced by the
experience of social power. Power-holders enjoy positive emotions, increases in cognitive
function, and physiological resilience. This research tested and found that holding power buffers
individuals from the stressful event of telling a lie and leads to easy and effective deception. In
situations of high (vs. low) power, lie-tellers appear like truth-tellers emotionally, cognitively,
physiologically, and nonverbally.”

My guess on why this is true is that the leader may feel that his or her deception is for the good of the group and thus their sense of altruism prevents the expected stress of telling a lie.