Making good decisions

When we're in the frame of mind to make good decisions, we've lined up lots of different influences in our favor:

1. We've got a good sense of the challenge of making good decisions and including all the essentials
2. We've got some history of making good decisions in the past as well as insightful post-mortems of the bad decisions
3. We're clear of fears about making a bad decision
4. We're under the influence of other good decision makers who we're unconsciously imitating and emulating
5. We're expanding the spectrum of possibilities under consideration as well as the range of criteria used to narrow the field
6. We're working with the ways our brains function rationally and irrationally to realize the best of both dynamics
7. We're expecting to receive inner guidance once we've prepared our mind with well researched alternatives, got a good feeling about the decision itself and have found  inner peace to sense the prompting from within

This model for making good decisions shows why so many bad decisions get made. There are so many things that can go wrong or go missing from this comprehensive approach. Here's a brief inventory of those pitfalls:

1. We can dramatically oversimplify the challenge of making a good decision and leave out most of the essentials
2. We can feel burdened by a long history of making bad decisions which appear in hindsight like an unavoidable curse or personal shortcoming 
3. We can be so afraid of making a bad decision that we fall for dichotomizing alternatives, overreacting to threats or rushing to judgment 
4. We can imitate and emulate ineffective decision makers who collude with our skewed perceptions, troubled history or chronic fears
5. We can narrow our spectrum of possibilities and range of criteria to reach a foregone conclusion regardless of the situation
6. We can work against how our brains function and endure the resulting irrational urges covered up by delusional rationalizations
7. We can expect to be misled by personal addictions to materialistic acquisitions, arrogant superiority over others or manipulative control of situations

So when we're making bad decisions, there is no simple solution. When we wonder why politicians or other high profile public figures make bad decisions, we can sense their state of mind. When we're helping someone else make a better decision, we can consider this full spectrum of issues.

Changing brain states

Over the weekend, I finished reading Laurel Mellin's new book: Wired for Joy - A Revolutionary Method for Creating Happiness Within. I was delighted to discover such an effective use of cognitive neuroscience to solve chronic psychological problems. Her research found a taxonomy of brain states which matches up perfectly with all my taxonomies and relational grammars. Here's a brief overview of her model for varied brain states and how it matches up with mine.

Brain State 5: Stressed Out! - Psychotic

When our brain stem/reptile brain has taken control of our conduct, we are functioning instinctually. Our survival is at stake and our minds are scrambling to avoid falling into a pit of total despair, anxiety and overwhelm. We have no qualms about doing harm to others as they don't seem real to us. We're getting treated like we're not real to them. We're simply nobodies in particular among other nobodies. We seem cold blooded to others and appear to be dehumanizing them. Experts might diagnose us as "psychotic" since we're desperate, unaware of our condition and filled with urges to handle our situation without thinking.

Brain State 4: Definitely Stressed - Narcissistic

When our limbic system has taken control of our conduct, we are functioning emotionally and irrationally. Our safety is at stake and our minds are overwhelmed by anxiety, worries and stress. We cling to others like puppy dogs, take people as our hostages, and treat them like our possessions. We're anxiously trying to appear as a somebody, even though it feels fake because we continue to feel like nobody of significance. We overcompensate for how worthless we feel by showing off, stealing the spotlight and insisting on being the center of attention. Experts might diagnose us as "narcissistic" since we're manipulative, perfectionistic and exhibitionistic.

Brain State 3: A Little Stressed- Neurotic

When the cortisone level in the blood stream moderates, we can think about our situation endlessly. We indulge in over-thinking, analysis paralysis and unfeeling rationality. We make ourselves miserable with "all head & no heart" financial commitments or social obligations. We then overcompensate for such costly sacrifices with pleasures from the material world. We over-consume, over-accumulate and over-spend to our wounded heart's content. Experts might diagnose us as "neurotic" for chasing after symbolic pleasures which offer no real satisfaction or value.

Brain State 2: Feeling Good - Humbled

When feeling and thinking are in balance, our feelings become reliable guides. We've transitioned from emotions to feelings. We realize what we need to feel congruent and then get a feeling about how to proceed and an inspiration for what to do next. We cultivate a sense of others' interests and feelings without merging with them or losing track of our own. It's no longer only about us. We feel good about serving others, caring for their needs and making a difference in others' lives. We've switched from those materialistic, hedonic pleasures to the eudonic pleasures that money cannot buy. Experts might diagnose us as "humbled" since we've abandoned our ego trips, power trips and attempts to exalt ourselves.

Brain State 1: Feeling Great! - Awakened

When the present moment seems perfect as is, we're filled with joy, inner peace and love. Our peptide production has totally switched over to pleasure chemicals from stressors. We're thinking "Yes! Bring it on, Thanks! and More please!" instead of "no, yuk, thanks for nothing and stop it". Time stands still while the moment absorbs all of our attention. We lose our selves and find how life is mysteriously fascinating.

With these five brain states defined, it becomes possible to change our minds significantly. Each state calls for a different tool to break up the routine and introduce added complexity. In other words, there's more to explore in my next post about "Wired for Joy".

Changing the minds of others

You may have run into a situation this week where some people did not change their minds in spite of what you said and did. You may have given them all the information they might need to see things differently. You may have appealed to their emotions as well as their ability to reason. You may have gotten upset and tried to force them to change. You may have even gotten desperate and resorted to begging, bribing or cajoling them. Whatever you tried, it didn't work like you expected.

At this point, it's easy to conclude that the others are either stubborn, closed minded, creatures of habit or prisoners of their comfort zones. Cognitive neuroscience offers many better explanations for why we don't change our minds when others expect us to and do what they can to get it to happen. The new book by Charles Jacobs , Management Rewired - Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science -- gives us lots of scientific insights into minds that don't change. Here's my way of describing four of them for you to consider.

• We get hold of some big ideas that everything else we think has to agree with in principle. When someone gives us an idea that contradicts one little thing we think, it upsets our entire system of ideas from the big idea on down.
• Before we have a thought come to mind about some new input, our mind goes through a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" to select one thought among a bunch of different possibilities we could think. When someone tells us what to think to get us to change our minds, that idea gets thrown in with all the others competing to win out and be the thought we think. It's chances are as slim as the many other lesser thoughts we've already got that do not show up as thinkable thoughts.
• Before we receive anything from others, we've formulated realistic expectations based on our past experiences. If we get less or worse than we were expecting, we're uncontrollably upset in spite of how reasonable the thing we got might have been. If we get more or different than what we expected, we're thrilled for the moment. It doesn't depend on what we get nearly as much as what we're expecting to get.
• Some of what we get from people mess with who we think we are, what reputation we're maintaining, and what's consistent with our past conduct. Our minds go onto autopilot to get rid of that awful feeling we get even if it takes lying, kidding ourselves or going along with something we disagree with entirely. We're usually content to simply discredit, blame or vilify those people who messed with our minds.
  

Using patterns of cognitive dynamics like these, it's possible to see that it's as upsetting for the person trying to change someone's mind as the person who's mind is not changing. Both are getting what they were thinking contradicted that then upsets everything from their big idea on down Both may be having familiar thoughts come to mind rather than any new idea thrown into the competition with a bunch of other possibilities. Both are failing to get their expectations met. Both are taking a hit to their pride, reputation and consistency.

Charles Jacobs has worked as a management consultant for many years. Management Rewired is filled with many episodes where managers resorted to desperate tactics when they failed to get others' minds to change. They dealt with people as if applying pressure, putting them down, intimidating them or withholding trust would get them to change their minds. Of course it backfires, but that outcome does not get managers to become more strategic, effective, empathetic or insightful. A desirable upgrade like those would involve a change of their own minds. Instead they continue to strut like alpha male gorillas, trap others in a classic "Prisoner's dilemma" or treat others like billiard balls to poke at and knock around.

The book offers lots of approaches that work with the facts that people have minds of their own, see things their own ways and respond according to what's going on inside them at the moment. The book is written to help managers and leaders become more effective. It obviously applies to mentors, coaches, counselors, teachers, trainers, writers and other professionals.

As Jacob's considered how conventional management methods yield unintended consequences due to the ways our brains function, he sees the wisdom in those breakthrough management methods of the 80's and 90's (self directed teams, empowerment, personal coaching, open book management, quality circles, communities of practice, etc.) His familiarity with the two kinds of change has convinced him of the power of storytelling to change people's minds. He explores how to come up with the right kind of dissonance that disturbs people's familiar story and gets them to take the leap into a breakthrough outlook. He contrasts transactional and transformational leadership conduct. He considers how to get enough sense of what others are thinking to formulate a counter intuitive move to defy others' expectations for more of the same old treatment, balancing acts or struggles.

I share the author's conviction that the world will be a better place once we see each other as dealing with internally active minds. Management Rewired can help you get the picture of what going on in others' heads that deserves our respect and consideration. The way we treat others and get them to change their minds shows vast room for improvement.


Related posts:
Switching brain strategies
Framing our constituencies
Empowering conversations
Revising unstoried possibilities
Fallout from a system
Questioning the feasibility of change
Using feedback to change identities
Third and fourth order change
Revising underlying structure
Winning without a battle

Evolving my theory of mind

Whenever we are presuming that people will learn from what we're designing, saying, or presenting graphically, we are making assumptions about our brains. We are relying on a theory of how our minds function when presented with additional information in the context of other's expectations. Refining my own "theory of mind" has fascinated me for years. Here's some of the highlights in how my own theory has evolved most recently.

Psychiatrists in Freudian and Jungian traditions have posited an unconscious mind that harbors a deep well of energies, urges and imagery. Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience research have verified how much we know without conscious awareness. The Robot's Rebellion reveals how we get overtaken by survival, mating and dominance instincts, as if our genes are running the show. A Stranger to Ourselves explores how 90% of our learning is unconscious and available for us to know without reasoning or thinking it through. Stumbling on Happiness explains why we are such poor predictors of what will make us happy and so inclined to make purchases or commitments that fail to satisfy us. In all three books, it's evident that we know a lot more than we admit to knowing, think we already know or identify with being capable of using resourcefully

Many patterns have been identified in our poor judgment, skewed perceptions and irrational urges. Sway - the irresistible pull of irrational behavior reveals lots of the psychological undertow that drags us into being our own worst enemy. The Black Swan portrays our delusional constructs which continually expect more of the same "white swans" and mediocre, predictable, business-as-usual circumstances. Art and Fear explores how we talk ourselves out of our creative expressions, explorations and evolutions with our fears, hang-ups and contrived obligations.

Other research has made it clear how often we work against the ways our brains function. Brain Rules reveals what variety, rest and explorations our brains need to function optimally. These rules show how dysfunctional it is to try and be productive in classrooms and cubicles. My Stroke of Insight gives us an inside look at functioning entirely with our right side and without the left hemisphere of our neocortex brains. These insights show how much we're missing when we exclude right brain resources in our logical, rational, linear activities. Ready or Not Here Life Comes delves into the neuroscience of learning disabilities. From these discoveries we can realize how incredibly taxing it is for our brains to read printed words and write coherent sentences.

Inner Knowing explores how well our brains function when we expect ideas to come to mind from "out of the blue". Hare Brain Tortoise Mind reveals how fast our unconscious can come up with ingenious responses when we stop interfering with our sluggish, glucose-burning thought processes. A Whole New Mind suggests our economy has evolved past the dependency on left brain functionality and is coming to rely on left/right brain integration.

I've always had a felt sense of being affected by other people's states of mind and emotion. Social Intelligence reveals findings how those subtle influences between minds occur. The Art of Learning explores how deeply are minds are affected by coaches and rivals in competitive situations which then raises the stakes on becoming a world class chess player, warrior or athlete. Mindset contrasts the fixed outlook which keeps learning to a minimum with the growth mindset that values exploration, useful mistakes and risky challenges.

As I've incorporated all these insights into my own theory of mind, it's become clear we need some major changes in how we support others' learning. That has provided the impetus to my recent writing about "disrupting school work", "PLE 2.0" and "pro-learning ecologies".

Switching brain strategies

Perhaps you're thinking your situation calls for taking action. If you're dealing with isolated things, go for it. If you can point fingers at the problem without anything coming back on you, taking action should work just fine. If what you're seeing has nothing to do with your way of seeing it, trust your objectivity and react with confidence.

Your situation might not be so clear cut and easy to fix. It's very possible that taking action will backfire on you. Unintended consequences of straightforward action are very likely if your situation involves:

• human beings with their own feelings, outlooks, histories and intentions
• relationships that get influenced by where you're coming from and how you interact with others, even if you cannot control things
• problems that have taken on a life of their own and defy the interference of your good intentions, helpful advice or industrious efforts
• reciprocating that goes round and round in vicious or virtuous cycles with no end in sight
• contexts that put everyone under a similar impression about the kinds of danger and opportunities present
• stories that go back in forth in the face of unresolved dilemmas, contradictions or conflicts
• fears that continually manufacture more evidence, justification and anxieties about what is really necessary in the situation

In these situations, it's wise to switch from the cognitive strategies of the left brain to those of the right brain. Making this switch calls for a timeout to stop thinking so much and to become more receptive.

1. categorical -> symbolic reasoning: The sign symbolizes something else in need of our attention. The thing is a metaphor for another thing that's useful. This thing showing up in this context says something significant. This occurrence indicates something else is brewing, changing or ready to happen.
2. dichotomous -> inclusive reasoning: It's not either/or. It takes both. These are two sides of one coin that need to be kept in balance. The one is the other's way to keep from getting excessive and going to extremes. The two are the ends of a gradient with lots of in-between possibilities.
3. compartmentalized -> systemic reasoning: This is the result of something else and plays into yet another condition. This ties into that and influences it indirectly. This has repercussions that reverberate through a chain of events. This is a side effect of what came before and leaves a legacy that will likely repeat itself ad infinitum. This is feedback indicating the larger dynamic is not functioning effectively.
4. reductionistic -> holistic reasoning: It's more complicated than that in order to be self maintaining and self perpetuating. It's a combination of four components synergizing to produce the total effect. It's a virtuous cycle that keeps a lot of different things in balance and working together.
5. empirical -> playful reasoning: What if we turn things around so the effect causes the cause? What difference does it make if we have proof when we can have an adventure? What's the sense of being careful when being spontaneous may uncover unforeseen avenues to explore? What if being a fool is wiser than being knowledgeable amidst so much uncertainty?
6. superficial -> deep reasoning: This has an underlying purpose that calls us to take a more respectful and inquisitive approach. This is merely a symptom of complex underlying dynamics. This runs far deeper than it appears and suggests several long range possibilities. This reveals an ongoing process that can be trusted.
7. convergent -> iterative reasoning: There's a time to be divergent followed by a time to be convergent. After exploring a range of possibilities, narrow the range to a short list. When overly focused on one right answer, generate a bunch of wrong answers that may prove to have some truth in them. Ask what-if then get what-is good about the answers to the question.

We cannot make these changes in cognitive strategies when we're convinced we're in danger. These appear to put us in peril when we're faced with a threat we cannot control and are trafficking in anxiety. It's only when we feel safe that these alternative ways to reason seem appealing.

Left for taking action

Those seven cognitive strategies I've used in the last two posts (Ready Fire Aim! and Incubating a Wise Decision) work superbly when we're taking action. Yet those very same strategies are not effective for diagnosing problems, resolving conflicts, relating to other viewpoints, and many other daily challenges we face. Here's a look at how each cognitive strategy is good for taking action and bad for something else.

1. Categorical reasoning: To know if you're getting ahead, you've got to label some of your results "progress" and recognize other outcomes as "setbacks" or "getting nowhere". To make progress, you've got to identify some of your efforts "adequate" or "exceptional" and others as "tentative" or "lacking". If you fail to apply these labels, you may not make enough effort or make any progress. However, if you're trying to resolve an argument, labeling the other person, their viewpoint or their pattern of interacting with you (loser, troublemaker, nagging) -- will escalate the tensions and prolong the dispute.
2. Dichotomous reasoning: Don't kid yourself: either you got it done or you didn't. It cannot get completed behind schedule and on time, it's one or the other. Either it succeeded as planned or something went wrong. Without clear cut dividing lines between polarized opposites, you won't get any satisfaction from accomplishments or an inclination to do better next time. However if you view people with dichotomies (winner/loser, ambitious/slacker, intelligent/stupid) you'll have a worse problem on you hands than when you tried to motivate them, teach them or give them advice.
3. Compartmentalized reasoning: When you're fixing the gutter, that has nothing to do with fixing ice cream cones. When it's time to take a shower, it's not the time to read the newspaper. When we fail to isolate activities, they mess each other up and get neither done well. Yet if you're trying to solve a mysterious occurrence, compartmentalizing the problem will rule out the actual culprit, hidden connections and the unusual chain of events.
4. Reductionistic reasoning: To make an omelet in your frying pan, scramble the eggs first in a separate bowl and break the egg shells before that. If you do that in the wrong order or wait for one of the steps to happen by itself, you won't get the omelet you wanted. Omelets are caused by people doing things in the right order without skipping a step. However, if you take a linear approach to a dying houseplant, you'll end up doing too much or too little of watering, fertilizing, transplanting or sunlight -- and then wish you could do something akin to unscrambling eggs.
5. Empirical reasoning: When you're doing something for a reason, you need proof that the reason is served by your actions. You conduct experiments to see if it makes enough of a difference to take this action. You want to find out if you're doing this for "no reason after all" which can mean it's a waste of your time and resources. However, if you insist on proof of intentions, conduct or outcomes from people you care about, they will feel like you like you're interrogating them, losing trust in them and suspecting them of betrayals.
6. Superficial reasoning: When you're hammering a steel flat head nail into a wall, the nail gets taken at face value. A nail is a nail, literally. Getting the nail hammered flush with the surface requires not second guessing yourself. You must fail to consider whether the steel nail is manufactured domestically, what trends the steel industry is facing, whether nails were the best choice for this job, and how much competition steel nails are facing from aluminum nails or steel screws. Yet taking another person's request of you at face value will miss what they're really asking between the lines and give you a reputation as insensitive, biased or arrogant for taking them literally.
7. Convergent reasoning: When crossing a busy street on foot, it's essential to deal with the facts of the situation. Taking this action calls for focusing on the color of the crossing signal, the cars that should be stopped, the change in elevation at the curb and the amount of time before the light changes again. This is no time to ponder other possibilities, to ask what-if questions, or to play with situation as symbols in a dream. However, when you dwell on the immediate situation while encouraging others to make a change, you'll ride roughshod over their vivid fears, troubling past experiences and foresight about long term consequences of the change.

When I reflect on these seven cognitive strategies and how they can function both effectively or disastrously, I come to a conclusion. The left hemisphere of the neocortex deploys these strategies superbly for taking action. Those actions would not get completed effectively without these strategies. Yet the left hemisphere also blunders when overstepping its bounds into the realm where the right hemisphere's, polar-opposite, cognitive strategies get decisions made, issues resolved, relationships nurtured and innovations realized. When using our brains to take actions, the left brain does a better job.

Incubating a wise decision

Gotta get more information to make a good decision
Can't have too much information
The more information, the better the decision

The cognitive strategies of the left brain predictably reason through the need for more information in order to make effective decisions in some of the following ways:

• Either I have enough information already or I don't. (dichotomous reasoning)
• There's no proof that I have enough and no way to verify that I don't need more (empirical reasoning)
• How I reach the ultimate decision has nothing to do with what information I make the decision with (compartmentalized reasoning)
• I'm in obvious danger of not having enough information to identify misinformation, false assumptions and mere conjectures (superficial reasoning)
• The need for more information is a given that is established by preparing to make a decision (categorical reasoning)
• More information makes the decision better because the resulting decision will address more issues and constituencies (reductionistic reasoning)
• The decision needs to be made with the best information possible and not get derailed by half-hearted efforts to gather information (convergent reasoning)

Meanwhile, the right brain can see all of these justifications for more information as flawed strategies. They each play into a process that will yield ineffective decisions. They pass up a process of arriving at a wise decision with less action. The right brain favors making decisions by a process of incubation that utilizes the left brain effectively.

To incubate a wise decision:

1. Consider reaching the decision by a combination of taking action and receiving what comes to mind (perspiration and inspiration)
2. Get a feeling for both leaving shaky ground where anxiety drove the decision making process and standing on solid ground of safety
3. Get a sense of being free to be more creative, playful and spontaneous with this opportunity
4. Take stock of what you already know about the entire situation that calls for some resolution or conclusion.
5. Tie as many of those facts together into a cohesive picture or story
6. Reflect on the accumulated inventory of known information and realize what remains a question, unknown or puzzle
7. Consider proceeding without more information and see how that feels in your heart or gut
8. Get more information if a felt sense arises to clear up a particular doubt, suspicion or curiosity
9. When it feels like the remainder can be handled by inspiration, stop taking action to make the decision.Put the decision on a back burner, sleep on it, or give it a rest until it comes back to mind out of the blue
10. When the decision dawns on you, appreciate how it feels and how it came to you
11. Observe how it combined what you found out for yourself and what came to you when you opened to receive it
12. Act on the basis of this wise decision which came by incubation.

You may notice that most of these steps won't break a sweat. The right brain works best when we are still, contemplative and fascinated with the present moment. Our left brain is afraid of being still because it handles dangerous situations with immediate actions. Being still connotes becoming the next meal for any predator larger or faster than our upright, two-footed bodies. Surviving calls for fight or flight, not serenity and receptivity according the hemisphere on the left.

Ready fire aim!

When we're taking action in a dangerous situation, there are numerous cognitive strategies we deploy unconsciously. We don't need to think about how we're reasoning in order to take actions amidst perceived dangers. We can act without taking cautious and considerate aim.

These ways of minding our situation have worked very well for us in pursuit of survival, conquest of rival communities and exploitation of planetary resources. We take actions based on these strategies in order to make technological progress, to control others' ambitions, to dominate psychological conflicts and to win battles. We realize short term gains and fail to foresee the long term consequences. These cognitive strategies are typically identified with the left hemisphere of the neocortex.

1. Categorical reasoning: We label the components of the situation to know exactly what we're dealing with.We quickly sort out who is friend and foe, part of the problem or on the team. It would undermine our actions to "get all iffy" about what the facts are. We cannot consider what it might be, could otherwise mean or possibly signify. We're being objective and avoiding any post-modern subjectivity or departure from dominant narratives. It is what it is and gets labeled accurately.
2. Dichotomous reasoning: We think in "either/ or" terms. We insist both cannot be right. The action to be taken cannot be wrong and have truth in it or cannot play into a beneficial process with uncertain outcomes. We rule out grey areas, middle grounds and ambiguous approaches. We practice retributive justice and tale offense at wrong doing.
3. Compartmentalized reasoning: We establish boundaries on the situation and limit what gets considered. We rule out extraneous issues to maintain our focus and resolve. We dissociate what would produce cognitive dissonance. We deny what would otherwise give us feelings of guilt, doubt or hesitation.
4. Reductionistic reasoning: We infer a chain of events and a causal explanation for what happens. We assume we can get results by adopting a model where one thing leads to another in sequence. We believe we can make things happen by taking action in line with the established order. We rule out "chicken and egg problems", cyclical dynamics and symbiotic relationships. We cannot account for systemic backlash, escalation of symptoms or "feeding the problem" by taking actions in sequence.
5. Empirical reasoning: We rely on established proof to take action confidently. We seek reliable solutions, cures and fixes that get consistent results. This cognitive strategy has no use for symptoms that disappear when given a different diagnosis or problems that vanish by letting go of fixing them.
6. Superficial reasoning: We take the evidence at face value and read nothing into it. We avoid making wild speculations about hidden dynamics, underlying motives or sponsoring premises. We react to what's obviously changing, troublesome and threatening. We cannot consider that we might be falling for a baited trap, getting played by the game or getting suckered by our own predictable perceptions.
7. Convergent reasoning: We zero in on what needs to be attended to and acted upon. We focus on the essentials to accomplish the task we're facing. We know what has to be said and done and do it. We cannot diverge into exploring possible changes in timing, venue, tools, understandings or goals. We mean business at this point so we close our minds to distractions.

These strategies give us great resolve without hesitation. Our actions show admirable determination and conviction. When they handle the dangerous situation adequately, the actions produced by these cognitive strategies are regarded as productive, resourceful and admirable.

These same cognitive strategies destroy climates and ecosystems. They do damage to learners, employees and communities. They undermine families, marriages and other relationships. They lead to product failures, pilot errors, medical malpractice and business downsizing. When they fail to handle dangerous situations adequately, they appear short sighted, dysfunctional, biased and insensitive. They are lacking in creativity and other features of right brain functionality. They give credence to my claim that

"The left half of the neocortex sucks at making decisions"

Deciding about uncertain danger

Our brains work superbly when we're in clear cut danger. We instantly get the urge to take flight or put up a fight. We become "all eyes and ears" to not get fooled by appearances. We quickly make up our minds about those things which are posing some danger to us.

Our brains also function wonderfully when we're not in any danger. We take advantage of the safety to explore opportunities, create new experiences, relate to others with empathy and reflect on what is happening to us. We avoid fixating our minds on a particular in order to remain open, inquisitive and adventurous.

Our brains get into trouble when it's not clear whether we're really in danger or not. Deciding about danger does not come easily to us. We're torn between two very different ways to sort out the situation. Each approach has some advantages. We will use our brains more effectively when we take this inner conflict into account.

Our right brains are fascinated by uncertain danger. It's possible the thing we're facing is not dangerous at all. It might be an opportunity to grow, change, learn or create something new. It might show us something we don't already know or even consider as an option. It might seem strange to us to get our attention, then relate to us with more understanding than we expected. It might challenge our preconceptions in order to come to a new outlook on ourselves and our situation. It can even offer an element of danger we find alluring.

Our left brains are opposed to uncertain danger. There's no two ways to take the situation: either we win or we lose, handle it or not, take control or get controlled. We cannot give it time or play along with it to see what comes of it. Most every option will put us in more danger as far as the left brain can determine.

Our limbic system gets entangled in deciding about danger when we're favoring the left brain approach to the uncertainty. We recall previous dangers like it's happening again right now. We already know the feeling and see the same story unfolding again. It seems we're immersed in a nightmare with no possible escape. We're like a cornered animal get forced to accept it's fate as prey to an over-powering predator. Fight or flight are not options. It's time to freeze in our tracks like a deer in headlights. We experience an anxiety attack that appears to override both the left and right hemispheres. Our right brain imagines the worst that can happen. Our left brain thinks of catastrophizing, demonizing and awfulizing the situation.

When we use our brains effectively for deciding about danger, we no longer go there. We control our urge to over-react and jump to erroneous conclusions with the limbic system taking over. We give our right brain a chance to perform its proper function. We chill out and ponder the situation to see what comes to mind about it. We assume we don't know what to make of it or how respond to it until we gain some insights. We give ourselves time to reflect on it and consider different alternatives. We act like we're not in any danger until our right brain comes to that conclusion. We exhibit composure, confidence, courage and character amidst this adversity. Our decision about the danger will then be wise and insightful. We've used our brains well.

Making up our minds

Half of the neocortex takes action superbly. You'll find it on the left side of your skull animating the right side of your body. This half focuses on what needs to be done regardless of it getting labeled as closed minded, over-zealous or obsessed. It processes information in a linear fashion which proves to be very effective for getting things done in a prescribed sequence -- free of distractions and discouragement. The way this half thinks is a one track mind that gets where it's going if at all possible.

The other half of our neocortex is great for deciding what action to take, what timing will work best, what changes to make in the sequence and how to have an intended effect on the situation. It is located on the right side of our craniums animating the left side of our bodies. This half takes in a panorama of possibilities and naturally considers long term consequences. It processes information in a non-linear fashion which works superbly for combining approaches, balancing opposing concerns, making tradeoffs and formulating creative alternatives. The way this half thinks is intuitive, inspired and imaginative.

The left half of the neocortex sucks at making decisions. It cannot get enough data while ignoring all signs of information overload. It has to reach a conclusion prematurely, short-sightedly and mistakenly because it's functioning linearly. It can only take things literally, as if there's no two ways about it and the decision depends on the objective facts. Thus it cannot ponder what-if questions, unforeseen possibilities or imaginative scenarios. It always comes to the same conclusion as before, which is a good thing when taking reliable actions, but ineffective when making innovative decisions. If there's too many considerations, the left half goes into a tail spin in isolation and cannot make up its mind.

We can tell which half of the neocortex we're using to make a decision by the emotional state of the limbic system. If we're happy and feeling confident, our right brains are doing what they're good at. If we're agitated, nervous and frustrated, we're poised to make bad decisions with the half designed for taking action.

When our minds are trying to make complex decisions with linear thinking, we need to call a time out to get the right half of the neocortex engaged. Closing our eyes disrupts relentless thinking. Listening to music, observing our surroundings or going for a walk -- each produce the desired effect of getting the right half into the act.

When we make a great decision, we won't know we've done that until we see how everything turns out in the end. We'll have an inkling that it's the right thing to do at the time because of how we are feeling abut the decision. We cannot explain how we made up our minds without sounding like we're spreading the B.S. pretty thick. We just know this is the right thing to do. We have a sixth sense about this. We know intuitively that it will work out for the best. We've used our right half to make up our mind so our left half can take action accordingly. All is well inside our craniums.

OJT rocks the brain

As I've reflected further in John Medina's insights in brain rules, I realized why on the job training (OJT) is so effective. The book reminds us that 90% of what is conveyed in a classroom is forgotten with 24 hours. That brought to mind the opposite statistic: that 90% of OJT is retained and put to use. The success of learning on the job shows us how natural learning is when we don't use those contrived contraptions called classrooms.

Learning on the job is a pro-learning ecology. The complex inter-dependencies outside of classrooms favor learning, skill transfer and long term retention. When people are shown how to use a new tool or operate a piece of equipment and then given opportunities to see if they can do it too, they get the hang of it in stages and then do like they were shown. Likewise, when someone shadows a mentor on a service call, sales appointment or interview session, the skills observed get assimilated and put to use after some faltering attempts, follow-up coaching and improved efforts. New members of a team quickly assimilate the unwritten rules and shortcut methods that are in active use by the team to realize the current outcomes, reputation outside the team and level of cooperation from others in the organization. All of this learning is outside a classroom. It's active, individualized, social, situated and conducted over "spaced intervals".

Here's how John Medina's brain rules explain the effectiveness of this kind of learning:

1. The learners are moving around to get with whatever they are being shown, tagging along on or trying something for themselves. The brain is oxygenated by this breathing and revived by the increased blood flow.
2. The learners are rapidly adapting to the new challenge by gaining experiences in what it feels like to adopt this role, how the situation reacts to making a move, what to do after something does not go as expected, which things create added problems, etc. The learner is also breaking out of the box of past habits and assumptions as those now lead to unintentional setbacks which call for innovative alternatives.
3. Each learner is regarded as a unique individual who will: make sense of this in his/her own way, take different amount of time to grasp each part of it, have trouble with different facets, need different amounts of attention and come by some of it quite naturally.
4. The learners will pay attention because it's like a conversation, they will be expected to comment after and how much they observe will make a difference. Their attention won't be undermined by multi-tasking, boring lectures or a lack of context.
5. The learners acquire the new skills and information in the same context they will put them to use. The situations will remind them of what they learned, how they acted and what they did to respond to the setbacks.
6. The learners have time between sessions to replay what happened in their minds. This reflecting may bring forth new questions or experiments to try out. The next session will involve a lot of repetition of the same procedures, issues and reasoning to get ingrained in their minds slowly.
7. It's possible they have gotten more and better sleep than the typical college student, medical intern or parent with a new born.
8. The learners and mentors are acting empowered and efficacious. If something is not clear, not making sense or not working out as expected, they are in a position to ask, get help, be shown again or try something else. They can reduce their circumstantial stress by taking action as well as avoid both contagious and chronic stress by acting powerfully.
9. The learners are immersed in multi-sensory experiences that allure all their senses to take in what they are first shown and then given a shot at themselves. Their experiences when they've succeeded would include the sounds, sights and tactile dimensions of the moment.
10. The learning calls upon their powers of observation to detect what the exemplar is doing in great detail. The emphasis on eyesight is congruent with the brain's enormous commitment to processing the inputs from the eyes.
11. The learners may be understood differently based on their gender and not expected to conform to some universal standard of what "normal people" notice, how they react and what troubles them.
12. The learners are actively exploring who they can be different from before, what role they can now fulfill and what image they will project onto others. They are immersed in an adventurous quest to discover what they are capable of, what limits they encounter and what changes come easily to them.

Learning on-the-job could not be more effective if it was designed with brain functionality criteria. The 90% success rate speaks to the effectiveness that occurs naturally when the contrivance of classrooms gets compromised.

Breaking the brain rules

Yesterday, I finished reading John Medina's new book: Brain Rules - 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home and School. Compliance with these rules spells the end to our pervasive use of classrooms and cubicles. Dr. Medina lectures college students in classrooms, and thus limits much of his exploration of the implications of these brain rules to improving the attention and retention of his students. Promoters and profiteers of formal education will inevitably find these rules to be bad science, over-generalizations or faddish proclamations. Most educators are acting in defiance of these rules and playing by a very different set of rules. For a synopsis of the 12 rules in the book, see Angela Maiers's post that got me inspired to read the book in the first place (Thanks Angela!) Here I'll present the opposite set of rules that are adhered to religiously in anti-learning ecologies.

1. Minimize blood flow to the brain and aerobic breathing by immobilizing the learners. Foster the accumulation of free radicals in the neurons which impair brain functions. Reduce the oxygenation of the brain by long periods of "seat time" and sedentary "activity".

2. Diminish our specie's chances of survival which depend on our recognizing errors and then trying something different. Go to the opposite extremes of repeating experiences with no experimentation and experimenting wildly with no experience. Carefully avoid the recognition of "mistaken approaches to teaching/learning" made evident by experiences with how learners feel about, react to, experience the effects -- of what gets presented to them.

3. Assume every brain gets wired the same, develops through the same progressions and conforms to the same functional patterns. Recognize deviance as deformity while cultivating functionality as conformity. Disregard the unique developments inherent in brain responses to life experiences.

4. Undermine everyone's ability to pay attention (give people "attention deficit disorder" whenever possible.) Expect learners to pay focused attention without context, the gist of it or a story-line of some kind. Expect their paying attention to be very logical and unemotional. Undermine concentration with "multi-tasking" distractions as if it takes no time and energy to get back into a focus. Force learners to pay attention after they naturally "zone out" from more than ten minutes on the same old thing.

5. Give learners useful information in a place where they will never use it again. Help them anchor what they're learning in useless vistas like the neck of the person sitting in front of them, the flag pole holder in the front of the room or the wastebasket next to the teacher's desk (how symbolic!). Make what they're to retain so "easy to remember" that it's meaningless, devoid of context and reduced to pure abstractions.

6. Expect learning to occur from new information. Regard repetition as useless, inefficient and boring. View those learners who rehash, ruminate and revisit new ideas as "slow on the uptake" or "obsessive about recalling facts for game shows".

7. Maximize sleep deprivation whenever possible. Interfere with the intense processing of new experiences that occurs during sleep. Obstruct our physiological need for short, afternoon naps. Put everyone on the same schedule to the detriment of every early riser and night owl.

8. Convince learners they are trapped in adverse circumstances deemed necessary by authority figures. Stress them under conditions where they are powerless to escape, make changes or take out the stressor. Torment them with so much adversity that their ability to perform collapses into a state of despair. Provide relentless pressures to induce chronic anxiety whenever possible. Disable their immune systems in the process.

9. Seek the effects of sensory deprivation through the consistent presentation of talking heads, text-laden slides and printed materials. Avoid any visual movement, auditory stimulation or involvement of touch, taste and smell. Give the learners the look of stunned, floored or wasted individuals by acting as-if they do not come equipped with five, highly integrated, senses.

10. Give the eyes a picture that nothing is happening and there's nothing to follow along as it changes. Give the eyes the same thing to look at so it becomes necessary to look away, daydream or check out all the mating possibilities in close proximity. Assume the learners' eyes are seeing what's objectively in front of them, and not some subjectively distorted picture under the influence of their past experiences or personally unresolved issues.

11. Expect brain development to be the same in males and females even though the X chromosomes that are largely responsible differ between the genders. Disregard how males get all their X chromosomes from their mothers while females get one from each parent. Downplay the advantages of females having two X chromosomes, with one as backup in case of genetic damage that could produce brain deformities.

12. Expect learners to do as you say, not do as you do by natural imitation learning. Hope the learners are not exploring your every move, motivation and mental excursion as they experiment with how to be in the world. See the learners as passive recipients of expert information, not adventurers on quests to realize grander possibilities in their lives.

When does detention begin for all these "rule breakers"?

Whole body cognition

As Jill Bolte Taylor was recovering from her left brain stroke, she experienced the amazing plasticity of our brains. When there as been a loss of functionality, the neurons quickly reconnect into new response patterns. We regain motor and cognitive abilities because the brain is predisposed to make new connections. We naturally restore previous abilities and acquire new ones. There was a point in her recovery where she could not say what she was on her mind, but she could sing what she wanted to say. She could type emails on her computer, but not read what she had written or correct her spelling. She could vividly recall what had happened but not get those feelings and images expressed in words.

All these experiences of hers suggest that the right brain rarely functions in isolation. The thick corpus callosum between the two hemispheres provides evidence of heavy traffic between the left and right halves of the neocortex. Any independent right brain functionality can only be sorted out following a lobotomy or severe left brain stroke. We may experience the right brain in isolation when deep in meditation or dream states. Yet, any reductionistic analysis of cognitive functionality is a misrepresentation. Over-simplifying in brain science is as problematic as categorizing components of networks, markets, communities and ecologies. Yet the only way we can form sentences and communicate our perspectives with language lacks sufficient recursiveness and paradox to capture the actual complexity.

Both our stomachs and hearts contain numerous brain cells. The presence of neurons outside our craniums suggest a more networked approach to learning, deciding and responding to situations. The limbic system, below the neocortex, also joins in every reaction. As I've reflected on how our right brains might play into this "whole body cognition", here's a possibility I'm considering:

• Limbic system dominant: When faced with unquestionable danger or opportunity, our limbic system takes control. Faster than we can think about it, we react with strong urges. Our heart and gut are agitated while our left brain thinking cannot explain "what got into us all of a sudden". Our right brain is imagining the best result from the opportunity or worst outcome of the danger. We are "running a routine" that has worked before that may get labeled an addiction, compulsion, fight/fight response, panic attack, limbic hijacking or misdirected displacement of anxiety. We lack emotional intelligence and will probably regret our actions "when we come to our senses" (rehashing it in our left brains after the incident). People experience us as high maintenance, moody or irrational.
• Left brain dominant: When faced with questionable danger or opportunities, our limbic system gets overridden by our left brain reasoning. We logically consider our options and think through the consequences of each alternative. We demonstrate some emotional intelligence by thinking about our urges instead of acting them out. Our heart and gut are agitated by the uncertainty and imposed discipline. We experience being torn between head and heart, logic and emotion, or self control and passionate pursuits. Our right brain pictures the different scenarios and foresees the possible outcomes. People experience us as controlling, rigid or fixated on one right answer.
• Right brain dominant: When faced with like-minded others, our right brain sets up the dynamics. Our pattern recognition abilities get a sense of where others are coming from and how to relate to them effectively. Our creative resources come up with ways to contribute to, care for and empathize with their concerns. Our imaginative abilities visualize possible collaborations and experiences of companionship. Our hearts and guts are energized and congruent while the right brain responds to the situation. We can go with our gut or follow our heart to make wise choices with uncanny timing, insight and comprehensiveness. All the while, our left brains are chattering away with justifications, worries and guilt trips about past encounters, potential dangers and negative outcomes. Our limbic system is contributing emotions to the mix like love, appreciation and enthusiasm. People experience us as compassionate, fluid and understanding.

This model suggests that someone who is being "limbic system dominant" will bring out the "left brain dominance" of someone else. Their "acting out" like a child evokes someone else parenting like a control freak. Likewise the "left brain dominant person" will entice others to become "limbic system dominant" which appears as playful, silly or unproductive. Someone functioning as "right brain dominant" would not react to the condition of others, but rather provide informal leadership which sets the tone. They would pull for others, provide useful information and develop supportive contexts.

Right brain functionality

Several months ago, I was profoundly inspired by Jill Bolte Taylor's TED talk and was thrilled to learn that she had also authored a book. Over the weekend, I read My Stroke of Insight. She recreates her experiences of realizing she's having a stroke, getting help, being hospitalized and recovering. This inside look is extremely valuable for anyone caring for stroke victims. It's also a rich resource for any of us concerned with how to better work with our brains when helping others learn. Most of all, it's a map for awakening to our full potential.

While hospitalized, she experienced the presence of people the way I do. She found people to be energizing when they were being attentive, caring and responsive to her. Quite the opposite, people were extremely draining when they were agitated, preoccupied or controlling. She suggests that our right brains experience people's energy like this all the time but we only feel it when our left brain is quiet. When we stop thinking, we can feel like we are in a sea of diverse energies.

She experienced five months of freedom from her inner voice that delivers a continual stream of negative commentary on everything. She compared living without that mental chatter to floating like a big blue whale in an ocean of serene wonders. Without her left brain functionality, she had no identity to maintain, personal history to defend or fears to justify. When the inner critic returned, it took on a life of it's own. She could not stop it's chatter by telling it to cease and desist. She wanted to be selective and not reactivate old programs of anger or envy. However, she found these negative patterns were more robust than her fragile abilities to read, write or perceive 3 dimensional space objectively.

Jill Bolte Taylor gleaned wonderful insights into the differences between left and right neocortex dynamics as her left brain functionality disappeared and then returned slowly. Our right brains have no sense of where our insides end and anything outside of us begins. They cannot perceive edges, objects or separate things. Our right brains have no sense of time, sequencing or duration. Every experience is right now and new. Our right brains experience everything without language, categories or logic. Others' body language is extremely vivid while speech is meaningless. Our right brains are very impressed by visual images, smells, sounds and touch. They recall previous impressions holistically. They cannot criticize or condemn anyone or anything that happens. Right brain functionality blesses and includes all experiences as is.

She became acclimated to a new outlook of expansive peace, connection to us all, compassion for everything and fascination with the wonder of the Now moment. This gave her a new basis to observe the productions of her mind. She no longer identified with everything the left brain came up with. She labeled it a "story teller" once she realized what a B.S. artist it is. Our left brains continually manufacture defensive rationalizations based on apprehensive conjectures and missing information.We continually tell stories to make ourselves right, protect our fragile identities, justify our fears and argue for our limitations. Meanwhile our right brains observe these reductionist hysterics with indifference, serenity and love.

Jill Bolte Taylor had a hemorrhage and blood clot in her left brain. Her experience makes it seem like our business enterprises, governments, and institutions suffer from right brain strokes. With this new map, perhaps there can be a widespread awakening to our full potential without much more fuss.

Using our right brains

Are our left and brain brains designed to collaborate?
Yes indeed. Their different functions can be very complementary. The left can formulate questions while the right brain comes up with answers. The left brain can review all the facts and the right brain can deliver a new way to see everything.

Why is right-brained functionality such a rarity in most people?
We live in a highly technological, progress-oriented time in history. Our complex and hurried situations demand tremendous amounts of analytical reasoning. We are under constant pressure to explain, figure out, think ahead and justify our actions. We live in danger of forgetting, falling behind, overlooking essentials and missing cues. We remain on high alert to react to external evidence. That's a job our left brains do best.

What cultural shift could nurture more right brain functionality?
A transition from valuing "timeouts" to relying on "time-ins" would bring out more right brain processing. Living in serene acceptance until inspired to take action would limit the left brain to handling the logistics when we felt motivated to do something in the moment. Rather than maintain high levels of frenzy with occasional timeouts, we could enjoy occasional moments of frenzy amidst long stretches of immersive innocence. This is a natural condition of people who grow their own food with pedestrian lifestyles within village communities.

What personal practices could induce collaborations between our left and right brains?
Expecting to be taught by a inner teacher yields that outcome. The left brain is humbled into being given what it needs to know, rather than being too smart for its own good. Problems with it jumping to conclusions or compartmentalizing complexity would all vanish. Reflective practice also induces this collaboration. The left brain wonders about the significance of incidents, the lessons in recent setbacks or the value in troubling changes. The right brain brings insights, added perspectives and creative alternatives to the convergent, literal and fear-based thinking done by the left brain.

Beyond limbic hijackings

What are limbic hijackings?
Outbursts, tantrums, hissy fits, hysterics, infatuations, compulsions, urges, going ballistic, losing our cool, acting out, going off on someone, experiencing a meltdown

Why are they called "limbic hijackings?
The left brain of our prefrontal or neocortex functions rationally. This portion of our brain relies on linear thinking to handle situations reasonably. It's abilities are somewhat measured by conventional IQ tests of intelligence. The limbic system sits under the neocortex. It functions emotionally and irrationally. When it handles a situation, the left brain experiences getting hijacked, possessed and contradicted. Irrationality overtakes rationality. Emotionality supersedes practical thinking.

What are the consequences of limbic hijackings?
They sicken our bodies and damage our health. They eliminate learning from our experiences and arrest our development. They trash our relationships and create enduring conflicts. They maintain negative states of mind and unproductive efforts.

Why are limbic hijackings so common?
They appear to be internalized success routines. I recently wrote about this aspect of them as interpersonal meltdowns.

Why is the limbic system so dysfunctional?
The limbic system is only problematic when opposed by the left brain of the neocortex. The right brain induces congruent feelings in the limbic brain:

• calm, serenity, peace of mind
• joy, upliftment, ecstasy
• satisfaction, purpose, fulfillment
• delight, enchantment, fascination

How does the right brain bring out a congruent experience with the limbic brain?
The right brain is non-linear, non-dualistic, and non-judgmental. It functions holistically, imaginatively and intuitively. Rather than opposing the irrational limbic system, it values, utilizes and includes it. The right brain and limbic system form a winning combination, a synergistic pair, that brings out the best in both.

How can we become more right brained?
By using the left brain to ask questions instead of handling the answers. By expecting a Q&A conversation in our minds, instead of long trains of thought. By changing approaches whenever our limbic system does not feel good and our left brain is thinking too much.

What are the consequences of limbic congruence?
Improved health and natural healing. Spontaneous learning from everything that happens in our experience. Fulfilling relationships and mutual nurturing. Positive states of mind and inspired conduct.

Learning with two minds

I'm currently reading a couple of books in cognitive neuroscience that I discovered in the bibliography of a wonderful book that I read last month: U-Turn What if you woke up one morning and realized you were living the wrong life? These books are adding insights about brain functioning that relate to the problems we see everyday with learners. They suggest that most of our conduct is unconscious and conflicted with our intentions. It's looking like we are hard wired to be hypocrites.

Coincidentally, Ray Sims just wrote about Presence (Peter Senge, et al.). Senge's work builds on Chris Argyris's model of single and double loop learning with led to Donald Schon's writing about reflective practitioners. All this relates to the two, separate minds that are getting clarified by cognitive neuroscience. Here's a primer on some of the effects of learning with two minds.

The unconscious mind maintains a goal of replication without conscious awareness, choice or interference. The conscious mind innovates, reasons, chooses and rethinks.

The unconscious mind resolves two issues: survival and success. It learns to stay out of trouble and perpetuates those avoidance tactics. It learns to succeed in ways that increase power and control of situations. The conscious mind learns to relate to others, understand other viewpoints, and consider long term effects of actions. The conscious mind can choose to fail in order to learn more and explore danger that is ordinarily avoided.

The unconscious mind takes evidence literally. It learns to react to the facts and maintain stances based on that obsolete data. It conforms the contradictory information to established categories. The conscious mind learns to handle increasing complexity of meaning, interpretation and framing of facts. The conscious mind changes with new information and hypothetical reasoning.

The unconscious mind learns effortlessly with very little energy spent. The conscious mind learns laboriously with a significant drain on the body's energy resources.

The unconscious mind jumps to conclusions and then revises it's fixations slowly. Assessments are habitual, closed circuits that cannot question themselves (single loop). The conscious mind learns from contradictions, feedback and consequences to take different approaches and utilize other patterns (double loop, reflective practice).

This suggests we naturally pick up habits, examples, routines without conscious awareness. All we need is immersion in situations that challenge us to come up with new fixations to replicate ad infinitum. We can then execute these resources without thinking, slowing down or trying.

This unconscious learning relates to autotelic experiences that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi described in Flow The Psychology of Optimal Experience. The learning is done for its own sake (replication) not external goal attainment (innovation). The flow experience occurs because thinking is unnecessary. We lose our self in the process of executing unconscious resources.

Technorati tags: learning, cognitive neuroscience, unconscious learning