Researchers at the Columbia University Medical Center have demonstrated a brain network within our frontal lobes that is associated with “cognitive reserve,” that ability of the brain to maintain a reserve of processing power despite brain attrition through aging and disease.
“With the identification of this brain network – located within the frontal lobe – that is active during the performance both of these verbal and spatial tasks and probably other types of tasks as well, we believe we have accomplished an important first step towards improving our understanding of how cognitive reserve is expressed within the brain,” said Dr. Stern, who is a professor of clinical neuropsychology in the Departments of Neurology, Psychiatry, and Psychology at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Furtherance of such understanding offers promise for new methodologies aimed at fighting age and disease-related neurodegenerative processes.
One current discussion involving the brain’s emotional bias is to be found in and circulating around Drew Westen’s recent book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. Whatever one’s political persuasion, the book suggests among other things that emotion trumps reason when it comes to choosing political candidates.
Westen’s book is based upon studies done at Emory University.
The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. “Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret ‘the facts,’ ” Westen says.
The mechanism can be seen as an illustration of confirmation bias, the seeking of information that supports existing beliefs while ignoring or discounting contradictory evidence.
What can be done? Factoring in awareness of emotional bias is a start. A process of positive skepticism, as suggested by Michael Shermer (publisher of The Skeptic, no less), might be a useful methodology. And there are many others.
What remains foundational, whatever our arena of decision-making, is the strength of emotional bias within our mental processes and the need to manage it well.
We’re not talking here about THE great dualism (being and non-being), but about the great dualistic argument between thinking and emotion that is always going on in our heads. The argument goes back and forth thusly – I think this, but I feel that. This battle between thought and emotion remains one of the great management issues in our personal lives – and in the work of coaches.
The problem is that emotion has such a primacy in our hardwiring that we must often take great pains just to bring our more “rational” side to the table as it were. I have flashes of emotion that can instantly bring my whole body into sync with an emotional state. I have yet to have a flash of cognition that does the same.
This is important because I need to recognize my filters if I want to change something in my thinking or my actions. In terms of the Ladder of Inference the battle looks something like this:
- Something happens in the Real World.
- I select “data” from that event. The great dualism begins for me at the conscious level here, even though a great deal of processing has already been going on “beneath” my consciousness. The great battle begins over what I think about the event – and how I feel about the event. I select data, typically from both camps.
- I add meaning to this event from my culture and my personality. The great battle rages between intellectual meaning and emotional meaning. Emotional meaning carries more force unless I aggressively manage it.
- I now make some assumptions from this meaning that I’ve added. The great battle continues. I make immediate assumptions based on my visceral feelings. I make what I hope are fairly objective assumptions based on reason.
- I draw some conclusions. I hope I’m being fairly logical. I also hope I’m in touch with how I feel and why.
- From these conclusions I adopt some beliefs. I think this, therefore I believe that. I feel this, therefore I believe something else.
- I finally take actions based on these beliefs. Either passionately, coldly and rationally, or some combination of both.
That’s a pretty quick and basic thumbnail view. And of course, we’re not even addressing drives and gene expression and the other basic parts of Ted that influence our behaviors.
The point to keep in mind, both about ourselves and others, is that this great dualistic battle is always raging, and that it takes a bit of effort to keep one side from dominating the other. That’s why we have family and friends. That’s why there are coaches.
We like music. It provides enjoyment. It also apparently offers insight into how our brains dynamically process incoming information per a recent Stanford study.
The research team showed that music engages the areas of the brain involved with paying attention, making predictions and updating the event in memory. Peak brain activity occurred during a short period of silence between musical movements—when seemingly nothing was happening.
It is this predictive process that is one of the items of interest. With music the when of something is typically known because of underlying beat patterns, but the what aspect remains unknown. Surprises in what is expected trigger partitioning processes within the brain that may offer further insight into processes involved in focusing our attentions.
For thought – how might this information play into coaching situations?
Link: Music moves brain to pay attention, Stanford study finds