Follow Us Twitter Link | Email Us email us | 1.888.745.2520

Archive for the ‘neuroscience’ Category

Why We’re for Depth and Focus, and How They Engender Success

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

By William Seidman

There’s a two-part series of articles in the online Wall Street Journal of June 5-6. In the first, Clay Shirky asks,  “Does the Internet Make You Smarter?”

The second, by Nicholas Carr, poses the question, “Does the Internet Make You Dumber?”

Clay Shirky argues that the internet makes us smarter by creating new means of learning that will eventually surpass the old – and we all benefit from this.

According to Nicholas Carr,  the internet promotes — even requires — multi-tasking,  which fractures attention, promotes shallow (or little) focus,  and limits learning and sustained, deep thought.

This is relevant to a discussion of persuasive technology.

Recently a trainer asked me about the interface to Cerebyte’s persuasive technology. He compared our interface, which is straightforward and utterly lacking bells and whistles, to more graphically whizzy learning systems.

As I listened to him, I realized that he was accustomed to learning technologies that masked inadequate learning experiences with technical excitement. Anyone with kids can think of dozens of such ”learning toys” which, ultimately, fail at their mission.

It seems that the hook for most learning technologies has to be entertainment more than direct learning because the learning experience they provide is so weak.

So these technologies are much more on the Shirky side of the discussion. Their premise is to give lots of stimulus and hope something sticks.

Our persuasive technology is much more on the Carr side of the discussion. Its job is to encourage and enable depth and focus, not to entertain. We’re committed to this approach because it puts the positive deviant content at the center of the user experience and deliberately fades the technology into the background.

Here is the interesting result:  people like to use our system because it absolutely helps them to create something meaningful and valuable.

The best entertainment — the achievement of success — most definitely does not require batteries!

What Do Positive Deviance, Motivation, The Middle-Aged Brain, and Positive Leadership Have to Do with One Another? Plenty

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

By William Seidman


I’m excited about some of the reading I’ve been doing — in diverse areas — because it reinforces some of the most exciting ideas we’ve been talking about for so long, and working on with our clients.

Daniel Pink’s research on motivation, detailed in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and Barbara Strauch’s findings, reported in her book The Secret Life of the Grown-Up Brain (hear her “Fresh Air” interview here ) combine nicely with what we know about positive deviance and, also, the impact of positive thinking on positive leadership (Kim Cameron’s Positive Leadership: Strategies for Extraordinary Performance to come together in exciting ways.

Positive deviants are invaluable to organizations.  They are rarely found among the youngest, but often among the middle-aged. It’s hardly a coincidence that Barbara Strauch reports — refreshingly — on good studies that show that while processing speed may decline with age, wisdom and a host of other positive human attributes increase in middle age and continue to increase for many years.

Motivation, Pink shows, is key to improving performance.

Cameron shows that positive thinking enables positive leadership, which in turn improves performance.

Organizational performance and personal brain function improve with great coaching. It’s gratifying to see that good scientific studies validate these interrelationships — because this is what we’ve been doing.

Good News About the Middle-Aged Mind — from Barbara Strauch

Monday, June 21st, 2010

By William Seidman

I just finished a great new book, The Secret Life of the Grown-Up Brain: The Surprising Talents of the Middle-Aged Mind by New York  Times Health and Medical Science editor Barbara Strauch.

Strauch examines the latest neuroscience research on brain function and comes up with some fascinating results:

The human brain continues to develop and grow well into our 70s.

Some people’s brains develop a “brain reserve” that buffers them from some of the effects of aging and disease.

Brains also become more bilateral - meaning both left brain (analytic) and right brain (emotional) work together more.

People become more skilled at handling big complex problems (even as they forget names).

Several things tend to be clearly associated with increased brain reserve: 

  • Educational levels — higher equals more reserve
  • Intensity of intellectual stimulation — people who do more complex work develop more reserve
  • Physical exercise — intense exercising seems to create new neurons

There is still much debate about the role of food, with nothing proven yet.

This is definitely a great read, grounded in good science, and relevant to personal change, organizations, and organizational change.

Using Principles of Neuroscience to Sustain Long-Term Change

Sunday, June 13th, 2010

By William Seidman

Have you ever wondered how  a leader, even one with transformational skills, can sustain a change without intense labor?

Read my article, Using the Principles of Neuroscience to Sustain Long-Term Transformational Change, in which I answer this and other questions on sustaining long-term change.

Getting Even Better at Providing “Better Health for Everyone at Less Cost”

Friday, April 2nd, 2010

By William Seidman

We at Cerebyte are excited to be partnering with CHOICE Regional Health Network  to help this dynamic organization identify the best practices of hospital and social service case managers in Washington. Oregon, and Ohio - while also protecting the interests of hospitals, care providers, social service agencies, and communities.

CHOICE’s vision is “better health for everyone at less cost,” and it describes itself as “a non-profit coalition of rural and urban hospitals, practitioners, public health clinics, community health centers, behavioral health providers, and other partners dedicated to improving the health of our community.”

We’ll be focusing on coordinated care and using our patented TRANSFORM process for wisdom discovery  and, then, training of CHOICE’s case managers. I hope to report here on the steps we’ll be taking as we work with CHOICE.

Motivation: Do What You Know is Right, Not Because You’re Afraid of Consequences

Monday, March 8th, 2010

By William Seidman

I am enthusiastic about Daniel Pink’s newest book Drive, and have been discussing it a lot lately, but I had some questions for Pink:

Q. Why don’t more companies adopt and support intrinsic motivation? (Pink calls it “Motivation 3.0″)

Q. Most executives know that it is more powerful than the old carrot-and-stick approaches — “Motivation 2.0.”  So why not rely on it?

I emailed Pink and got a quick response. His thinking is that “folklore” was a critical factor. People have been brought up on Motivation 2.0 - the carrot and the stick — and told it is the way to drive work. Leaders rely on that.

I think it goes even further. I think Motivation 3.0 - intrinsic motivation, which comes from within — requires executives to trust people to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do, and executives are not really comfortable trusting others.

A move to 3.0 requires of a leap of faith.

Fortunately, recent advances in neuroscience make the leap smaller because this research shows how our brains respond differently to 2.0 than 3.0.

As Pink notes, intrinsic motivation literally stimulates different portions of the brain that are more closely associated with independent work.

This is the same body of research Cerebyte uses to create and sustain people’s motivation to change.

Daydreaming and Problem Solving: The Deep Connection

Monday, December 28th, 2009

By Michael McCauley

Clive Thompson, writing for Wired Magazine, recently explored the idea that the act of daydreaming is a crucial part of problem solving. This is an interesting notion, since most work environments are designed to minimize or eliminate daydreaming. Instead, Thompson suggests that tools and applications should be developed to encourage mental drift.

 A recent study by Dr. Michael Kane of the University of North Carolina found that our minds drift away from our tasks fully one-third of the time. His study further suggests that when your mind drifts off, it is actually doing important data-storage work.  Brain scans indicate that, when you are daydreaming,  the mind is actually using the prefrontal cortex –  the part of the brain used for problem solving. Jonathan Schooler, a professor of psychology at UC Santa Barbara, believes that an idling mind is likely doing deeply creative work.

So how is all this related to persuasive technology? Modern productivity software is designed to minimize mental drift. Often we are so focused on completing tasks, checking off to-do lists and scheduling meetings that we don’t have time to just sit and think.

How about designing software that changes our attitude and behavior about drifting — software that actually optimizes daydreaming? I find this to be a truly inspired idea. Using persuasive technology, we could design software that actually encourages people to make notes about their daydreams. What about software that actually encourages daydreaming? In its crudest form, maybe the application pings you from time to time to see if your mind is wandering. If it is, then the application gives you an opportunity to capture what you’re thinking about in a few simple notes. You could then go back and review your notes at a later time. This might spur additional ideas that can be used to enhance your problem- solving ability and actually improve your productivity.

Maybe this represents the next generation of persuasive technology. What do you think?

Experiential Learning and Conventional Learning: What Neuroscience Can Teach Us

Friday, December 11th, 2009

By William Seidman

I’m working with a company that is asking traditional instructional designers to develop experiential learning activities - which are different in conception, design, and actual practice from what these designers are used to doing. There’s an inherent struggle: it’s difficult to be learner-focused if you are sticking to traditional design.

In experiential learning, everything begins with the learner experience.

New ideas and new stimulation are useful only if they connect with the learners’ current abilities and ways of doing things - with who they are, right now.  A student isn’t a vessel into which the instructor pours knowledge.  In addition, the learning must have enough of the right types of repetition to be internalized.

Traditional instructional design is much more about telling people what they should know — and telling them very specifically what they will do — to learn something.

In my view, there’s an unspoken inherent mistrust of the learner in the process, and in any “teaching” in which the course designer and instructor are in charge.

The neuroscience of learning proves over and over again that experiential learning, in contrast, is all about providing learners with activities,  and trusting that they will learn the “right” lessons, and also trusting that they will continue to learn the right lessons often enough to produce long-term change.

The difference in perspective between a trusting and a not-trusting teaching method is where I’ve found great opportunities for learning, creativity, and growth.

Grit, Determination, Persistence: The Value of Long-Term Effort in Developing Talent

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

By Rick Grbavac

An article by science and tech writer Jonah Lehrer in the online Boston Globe describes studies that point to the fact that grit and perseverance are better predictors of success than intelligence.  I found it interesting that, because IQ is relatively quick and easy to identify, researchers focused their attention on raising IQ and disregarded focusing on values of long-term development of talent.

Carol S. Dweck, psychologist at Stanford University, has said, ” One of the most important elements is teaching kids that talent takes time to develop, and requires continuous effort.” She refers to this as a “growth mindset.” Dweck compares this view with the “fixed mindset,” the belief that achievement results from abilities we are born with. “A child with the fixed mindset is much more likely to give up when they encounter a challenging obstacle, like algebra, since they assume that they’re just not up to the task,” says Dweck.

“..talent takes time to develop, and requires continuous effort.” If you want to develop the high-performing organization, it is not done with the fire hose approach.  It takes some time to develop the skills, grit and determination to be successful.

Lehrer goes on to say that praise for determination, trying, effort and grit are much better in the long run rather than praising for intelligence.  This research has great relevance for our education system and for our business talent development.  It also supports Cerebyte’s drip approach to becoming great at just about anything.

Does Language Affect our Thoughts?

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

By Michael McCauley

Lera Boroditsky is a Stanford University assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and symbolic systems. Recent research she’s done suggests that the words we use actually affect our thoughts. She has found that even something as seemingly small as the gender of nouns  can have a deep impact on the way we think. For example, in German the noun for “bridge” is feminine while in French it is masculine. When describing the same bridge, German speakers saw it as having feminine characteristics, using terms like “floating above the clouds,” “breathtakingly beautiful,” and “elegant and light.” When describing the same bridge, French speakers described it using masculine terms such as “immense,” “powerful,” and “a concrete giant.”

Boroditsky also found that people tend to have a better memory for colors if each shade has a distinct name. For example, in English two different shades of blue would be commonly called light blue and dark blue. In Russian however, these same colors would be called “goluboy” and “sinly.” When given three color swatches and asked which of the bottom two was like the top one, native Russian speakers were much faster than English speakers when the colors had distinct names.

In still another experiment, Boroditsky found that English tends to focus more on who is to blame for a particular incident - for example, “she broke the bowl” even when it was broken accidentally - while Spanish and Japanese describe the same event more like “the bowl broke itself.” When groups of English, Spanish and Japanese adults are shown video of the same event, sure enough, English speakers tend to remember who was to blame for the incident while Spanish and Japanese speakers tend to remember what was done. In Boroditsky’s words, “this raises questions about whether language affects even something as basic as how we construct our ideas of causallty.”

What does this all mean? Simply, that the words we use in daily speech may actually “color” our thinking in subtle ways. It may even impact the neural pathways that are most easily formed in our brains.

Definitely something to think about, but choose your words carefully!

 
Better Tag Cloud