Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Dr. Dan Siegel on Mindsight: Brain Science and Transformation for You and Your Relationships

http://drdansiegel.com/about/photos/uploads/DrDanSiegel6.jpg

Dan Siegel talks about Mindsight with the folks at the Dalai Lama Center. His book (one of many) is Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation. Here is a little background on Siegel's Mindsight approach to rewiring the brain, from his website.

What's Mindsight?

"Mindsight" is a term coined by Dr. Dan Siegel to describe our human capacity to perceive the mind of the self and others. It is a powerful lens through which we can understand our inner lives with more clarity, integrate the brain, and enhance our relationships with others. Mindsight is a kind of focused attention that allows us to see the internal workings of our own minds. It helps us get ourselves off of the autopilot of ingrained behaviors and habitual responses. It lets us “name and tame” the emotions we are experiencing, rather than being overwhelmed by them.

"I am sad" vs. "I feel sad"

Mindsight is the difference between saying “I am sad” and “I feel sad.” Similar as those two statements may seem, they are profoundly different. “I am sad” is a kind of limited self-definition. “I feel sad” suggests the ability to recognize and acknowledge a feeling, without being consumed by it. The focusing skills that are part of mindsight make it possible to see what is inside, to accept it, and in the accepting to let it go, and finally, to transform it.

Mindsight: A Skill that Can Change Your Brain

Mindsight is a learnable skill. It is the basic skill that underlies what we mean when we speak of having emotional and social intelligence. When we develop the skill of mindsight, we actually change the physical structure of the brain. This revelation is based on one of the most exciting scientific discoveries of the last twenty years: How we focus our attention shapes the structure of the brain. Neuroscience has also definitively shown that we can grow these new connections throughout our lives, not just in childhood.

What's Interpersonal Neurobiology?

Interpersonal neurobiology, a term coined by Dr. Siegel in The Developing Mind, 1999, is an interdisciplinary field which seeks to understand the mind and mental health. This field is based on science but is not constrained by science. What this means is that we attempt to construct a picture of the “whole elephant” of human reality. We build on the research of different disciplines to reveal the details of individual components, while also assembling these pieces to create a coherent view of the whole.

The Mindsight Approach Exists Within the Field of Interpersonal Neurobiology

Under the umbrella of interpersonal neurobiology, Dr. Siegel’s mindsight approach applies the emerging principles of interpersonal neurobiology to promote compassion, kindness, resilience, and well-being in our personal lives, our relationships, and our communities. At the heart of both interpersonal neurobiology and the mindsight approach is the concept of “integration” which entails the linkage of different aspects of a system—whether they exist within a single person or a collection of individuals. Integration is seen as the essential mechanism of health as it promotes a flexible and adaptive way of being that is filled with vitality and creativity. The ultimate outcome of integration is harmony. The absence of integration leads to chaos and rigidity—a finding that enables us to re-envision our understanding of mental disorders and how we can work together in the fields of mental health, education, and other disciplines, to create a healthier, more integrated world.

The Mindsight Institute

Through the Mindsight Institute, Dr. Siegel offers a scientifically-based way of understanding human development. The Mindsight Institute serves as the organization from which interpersonal neurobiology first developed and it continues to be a key source for learning in this area. The Mindsight Institute links science, clinical practice, education, the arts, and contemplation, serving as an educational hub from which these various domains of knowing and practice can enrich their individual efforts. Through the Mindsight Institute’s online program, people from six continents participate weekly in our global conversation about the ways to create more health and compassion in the world.

Want to Know More?Link

For further reading, see Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation and Dr. Siegel’s other books, including The Mindful Brain and The Mindful Therapist. And please visit our website for upcoming events and classes, including our Mindsight Online Courses.

And so now, here is your feature presentation.

Mindsight: Brain Science and Transformation for You and Your Relationships

May 19, 2011

Dr. Siegel discusses Mindsight with the Dalai Lama Center.


Rick Hanson at Spirit Rock Meditation Center



Here are a couple of recent dharma talks by Buddhist neuroscientist Rick Hanson, given at Spirit Rock Meditation Center, where he is a frequent teacher.

Rick Hanson

Rick Hanson, PhD began meditating in 1974 and has practiced in several traditions. A neuropsychologist, writer, and teacher, he co-founded the Wellspring Institute for Neuroscience and Contemplative Wisdom (see www.WiseBrain.org) and edits the Wise Brain Bulletin. First author of Mother Nurture (Penguin, 2002), his latest book is Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love and Wisdom (with Rick Mendius, MD; Preface by Jack Kornfield, PhD and Foreword by Dan Siegel, MD). He started sitting at Spirit Rock in 1993 and recently completed a nine-year term on its Board. A graduate of the Community Dharma Leader training program, he leads a weekly meditation group in San Rafael.

2011-06-06 Neuro-Factors of Mindfulness 39:25
Rick Hanson
A guided meditation with instruction at the beginning...
Spirit Rock Meditation Center: Monday and Wednesday Talks

2011-06-06 Neuro Dharma & Coming Home 57:24
Rick Hanson
Spirit Rock Meditation Center: Monday and Wednesday Talks

TEDxHendrixCollege - Doug Fields - The Other Brain

http://withfriendship.com/images/d/18530/Glial-cell-picture.gif

Here is a cool TED Talk on the importance of glia cells in the human brain - his book is called, no surprise here, The Other Brain: The Scientific and Medical Breakthroughs That Will Heal Our Brains and Revolutionize Our Health.
Doug Fields - The Other Brain

In this talk, Dr. Doug Fields discusses glia, or "glue," which make up 85% of the cells in the human brain. New discoveries about these glial cells are revolutionizing the way that scientists view the brain, and Dr. Fields gives us a glimpse into this burgeoning area of neuroscience.

R. Douglas Fields, Ph.D., is the Chief of the Section on Nervous System Development and Plasticity at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Adjunct Professor in the Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is author of the new book The Other Brain, which gives readers an eyewitness view of the discovery of brain cells, called glia, that communicate without using electricity. He is an internationally recognized authority on neuron-glia interactions, brain development, and the cellular mechanisms of memory. In 2004 Dr. Fields founded the scientific journal Neuron Glia Biology, where he is the Editor-in-Chief, and he serves on the editorial board of several other neuroscience journals. The author of over 150 articles in scientific journals, Dr. Fields also enjoys writing about science for the general public. He is a scientific advisor to Scientific American Mind and Odyssey magazines. He has written articles for Outside Magazine, the Washington Post and other, and he writes on-line columns for the Huffington Post, Psychology Today and Scientific American. Dr. Fields received advanced degrees at UC Berkeley (B.A.), San Jose State University (M.A.), and in 1985 he received the Ph.D. degree from the University of California, San Diego, jointly from the Neuroscience Department, in the Medical School and the Neuroscience Group, at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. He held postdoctoral fellowships at Stanford University, Yale University, and the National Institutes of Health before starting his research laboratory at the NIH in 1994. In addition to science he enjoys building guitars, rock-climbing, and scuba diving.



Tom Waits - Under The Influence (film about him)

This is awesome, and if you are actually a Tom Waits fan, it's really awesome. Enjoy!

Tom Waits - Under The Influence

Tom Waits - Under The Influence

(2010) 141 min

Examines Waits' legendary genius through exclusive interviews, rare footage, and contributions from fellow musicians and critics

This documentary film examines, dissects and all but lobotomises the wealth of music, literature, theatre and film that have assisted in creating Waits’ legendary genius and, results in hand, reviews the life and career of Tom Waits from this fascinating and rarely identified viewpoint. With exclusive interviews, rare and often previously unseen footage and contributions from; Tom’s legendary producer Bones Howe; Moris Tepper and John French from Captain Beefheart’s Magic Band; and occasional TW collaborator, Ken Nordine; Harry Partch associates David Dunn and Dean Drummond; BBC’s head of music Chris Ingham; Beat-era scholar John Tytell plus Tom Waits historians, music academics, and respected writers. Also features numerous seldom seen photographs, much archive film and a host of other features which all at once make for an educational, inspiring and joyous celebration of Tom Waits and those he holds close to his heart.

Watch more free documentaries


Monday, June 06, 2011

Integral Leadership Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, June 2011

Photo: Jeannie Carlisle Volckmann


The new issue of the Integral Leadership Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, June 2011, is now online. When I get a chance to read some of it, I'll post some individual articles.

June 2011 Table of Contents

Leading Comments: International and Edgy

Leadership Quote: Mary Parker Follett

Leadership Coaching Tip: Russ Volckmann

Fresh Perspective: Developing Leaders—An Interview with Bruce Avolio

Articles

What is Second Tier: Powers and Perspectives Available to Leaders at Second Tier—Wayne Carr

Toward a Sustainable Future: Integral Leadership in the New World Economy—Brian McConnell

Mindfulness Matters—Rosaria (Ria) Hawkins

Complexity Epistemology, Complexity Axiology, and Real Property Rights—Spike Boydell and Michael McDermott

Leadership Development: Can It Really Happen?—Jonathan Reams

Transdisciplinarity and Higher Education, Part 6, University Babes-Bolyai, Romania—Russ Volckmann and Sue McGregor

Transdisciplinarity and Higher Education, Part 7: Conclusion—Sue McGregor and Russ Volckmann

Book Reviews

Elliot Jaques Revisited: Jan De Visch, The Vertical Dimension. Blueprint to Align Business and Talent Development—Nick Shannon

Jeff Myerhoff, Bald Ambition—Russ Volckmann

Leadership Cartoon: Mark Hill

Notes from the Field

Change for Good: Dynamically steering towards a healthy humanity on a healthy Planet with 5 Reflections on the Authentic Leadership in Action (ALiA) Europe Conference—Anouk Brack

Integral Leadership in Action (ILiA) Status ReportMichael McElhenie

Leading from Within: Integral Applications to Sustainability in the Niger Delta, Nigeria—Oliver Ngodo

Pathologies and Pitfalls at the Top of the Spiral—Barbara Larisch and Robin Reinach
Integral Without Borders Conference: Self-as-instrument, March 25 – 27, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada—Susan Wright

Learner Paper: Coaching with an Integral Lens—Lynn Harrison, Saybrook University

Announcements: Nigeria, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States

Leadership Emerging

Richard Barrett, The New Leadership Paradigm—Jonathan Reams
Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotake Takeuchi, The Wise Leader, Harvard Business Review
Justin Menkes, Better Under Pressure
JoAnn Danelo Barbour and Gill Robinson Hickman, Eds. Leadership for Transformation
The Washington Post
, On Leadership
Marcia B. Baxter Magolda, Elizabeth G. Creamer and Peggy S. Meszaros, Eds., Development and Assessment of Self-Authorship: Exploring the Concept Across Cultures

CODA: Local Politics and Reflections on Alex Pattakos, Prisoners of Our Thoughts


Adrian J Ivakhiv - What a bodymind can do (3 parts)

A little while back, Adrian Ivakhiv (at the Immanence blog) posted this three part series on the bodymind - but it's not the traditional bodymind philosophy of yoga, or somatic psychology, or embodied consciousness. Instead, Adrian has been working on a combination of the Zen teachings of Shinzen Young and the process relational philosophy of Peirce, Whitehead, Deleuze, and even Ken Wilber, among others.

I'm posting a little bit from the beginning of each post - I highly encourage you (if you are interested in Buddhism and process relational philosophy) to go read the whole series.

Working with Shinzen Young‘s system of mindfulness training, which I’ve described here before, and thinking it through in the process-relational logic I’ve been developing on this blog (and elsewhere), is resulting in a certain re-mix of Shinzen’s ideas, and of Buddhism more generally, with Peirce’s, Whitehead’s, Wilber’s, Deleuze’s, and others’. Here’s a crack at where it’s taking me…

I’ve divided this into three parts due to its length. Part 1 builds on Shinzen’s “5 ways to know yourself as a spiritual being,” which presents five core mindfulness practices, to develop a basic classification of ways in which the human bodymind can know itself and the world. Part 2 deepens the model by pushing beyond traditional dualisms through incorporating what Shinzen calls “flow,” which is analogous to the central insight of process-relational philosophies about the fundamentally processual nature of subjectivity or mentality, objectivity or materiality, and the dynamic and interdependent relationship between the two. Part 3 provides some concluding thoughts and caveats.

As I’ve written here before, Shinzen Young’s system is one of the most comprehensive practical systems of mindfulness/meditation training I’ve ever come across. Based in the Zen (Shingon) and Vipassana traditions of Buddhism, but developed with reference to numerous other traditions including Vajrayana and Christian mysticism, the system is also deeply resonant with the process-relational themes explored on this blog.

What follows is an attempt to expand and develop Shinzen’s approach so as to encompass not only meditative techniques but the full range of options available to the human bodymind, whether meditative or spiritual in intent or not. This will be done with particular reference to the logical and phenomenological categories of C. S. Peirce and, to lesser degrees, the process philosophy of A. N. Whitehead and the AQAL system of Ken Wilber.

Read the whole post.

* * * * * * *

What a bodymind can do – Part 2

This continues from the previous post, where Shinzen Young’s model of core mindfulness practices was expanded into a system of classifying what a human bodymind can do. Here the model is deepened following the process-relational insights that are at the core of Shinzen’s system as well as of other (especially Mahayana and Vajrayana) Buddhist systems, and of the philosophies of A. N. Whitehead and, in some respects, of C. S. Peirce, Gilles Deleuze, and other process-relational thinkers. This part is followed by a concluding segment, found here.


Tweak #2: How a Bodymind Can Be Made to Flow

Here’s where things start to get really interesting. For most Buddhist (including Shinzen’s) and process-relational views, subjectivity and objectivity are not static conditions or “poles” holding up the universe. Rather, they are results — outcomes, however temporary and however ultimately insubstantial — of a less differentiated, more flowing activity, which Shinzen calls flow, and which metaphysical systems like Whitehead’s, Bergson’s, Peirce’s, and Deleuze’s attempt to analyze at a microscopic and/or rigorously conceptual level.

Let’s pause to consider what this term “flow” refers to. Shinzen defines it in part as a phenomenological category that is experienced in a variety of flavors — as expansion and contraction, undulation, vibration, tingliness, percolation, electricity, and so on — and in part as the experience of the ontological fact of impermanence, or anicca (in Pali). Flow is partnered with vanishing, for which Shinzen uses the notational label “Gone” (in the same way that he uses the terms “See,” “Feel,” “Talk,” and so on, as labels for observed activities).

So, on the one hand, “flow” is indicative of the fact that everything passes; on the other, of the ebullient energy of life, i.e. that things continue to arise. This corresponds with the ontology of percolating creativity described so carefully by Whitehead, which I’ve built on to posit that there is a circulatory undulation — a movement between the subjectivation and the objectivation that constitutes every moment or “actual occasion” — which gives rise to all form. If we can learn to pay attention to this movement as it arises, we can get a feel for its many flavors (vibration, expansion-contraction, and so on), and as a result the “subject” and the “object” begin to melt into the very act of becoming.

(Here’s an application of this to my cinematic/ecological ontology, in which what is real is considered to be the dynamic and interactive process by which subjectivity and objectivity — or subjectivation and objectivation — arise relationally in specific events or encounters making up the moment-to-moment self-constitution of an evolving universe. For some further thoughts on the differences between Whiteheadian and Buddhist notions of “flow,” see the “Afterword” in Part 3 of this series.)

Read the whole post.

* * * * * * *

What a bodymind can do – Part 3

This is the concluding part of a three-part article. Part 1 can be found here, Part 2 here. They should be read in the sequence in which they were published.

The True, the Good, and the Beautiful

All of this can be related to the triad of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful — or, in their Peircian sequence, aesthetics, ethics, and logic. Aesthetics, as Peirce conceived it, is most directly concerned with firstness; ethics, with secondness; and logic, with thirdness.

I’ve elsewhere suggested that “logic” may not be an adequate term for the kind of understanding that thirdness implies, and that “eco-logic” may be better, since logic suggests a process for understanding (in general), whereas “ecology” specifically suggests a process for understanding relation, wholeness, and “patterns that connect.”

It may also be appropriate to use Ken Wilber’s term “vision-logic” here, even though my use of it would be somewhat different than his. Wilber characterizes “vision-logic” as a historical stage of development that emerges only with the transcendence of a postmodern “green” stage (in his color-coded Spiral Dynamics lingo). I would posit it instead, for the purposes of the model being developed here, as attainable, in some specific way, by any bodymind from within its own particular situatedness.

A few definitions, then:

  • Aesthetics, in this system, is the cultivation of skillful observation and perception of appearances or “arisings.”

Traditionally, aesthetics has been defined according to some definition of “beauty,” but the latter is culturally variable. Observation, on the other hand, is thought to be measured according to the criterion of “accuracy,” but this, too, is culturally variable (as scholarship in science and technology studies has shown). Once we move out of mind-matter and subject-object dualism, however, and into the space of nondual “flow,” it becomes evident that aesthetics involves the perception of the wholeness of what appears in its arising and passing, i.e. as flow — as forms that emerge in patterned relationship with other forms. This is observation of something (anything) brought to its thirdness, or to its completion.

Read the whole post.

Human Instinct - Full Series (4 episodes)

Excellent . . . . via Top Documentary Films.

Human Instinct

Human InstinctEvery one of us possesses an armory of instincts which keep us alive. We are often barely aware of them, but they act every day to protect us from danger and keep us fit and healthy.

In the first programme of the Human Instinct series we explore how this most basic of instincts means we’re all born to survive.

The instinct to have sex is one of the most potent we possess. It’s vital if we are to produce the next generation. In the second programme we find out what it is about the way we look, the way we smell and what we possess, that can attract the ideal mate.

We’re always competing, even when we least expect it. The will to win is an instinct that’s kept our species alive. In the third programme we discover why coming out on top feels so great and why losing feels so bad.

A 200,000 year old jawbone tells the story of an elderly woman who was kept alive thanks to the kindness of her companions.

From this first known example of human compassion to modern day heroes, the final programme in the Human Instinct series explores the most complex of instincts. The instinct to put others first.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist – 3 hours, 15 minutes)


Lisa Frank - Mindsight: The Unexpected Value of Getting to Know Yourself

http://zazenship.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/picture12.jpg

In this article from Huffington Post, Lisa Frank talks about Dan Siegel's Mindsight process as a method of self exploration. I highly recommend Siegel's book by the same name: Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation.

To hear more from Dr. Lisa Firestone and Dr. Dan Siegel on mindsight, attend the free June 14 Webinar: "Mindsight: Learning a New Science of Personal Transformation."

Mindsight: The Unexpected Value of Getting to Know Yourself

Lisa Firestone - Psychology expert on relationships, parenting, self-destructive thoughts and suicide; author, 'Conquer Your Critical Voice'

With everything in the world from our language to our LinkedIn networks growing bigger, more complex and moving faster, it's easy to feel like we are no longer in control. Our career path, our relationships and our futures are all victims of circumstance. Whether we are bowing to the will of a boss, a paycheck, a parent or a profile on Match.com, it's important to remember that when it comes to directing our lives, we are still very much at the wheel.

How we perceive ourselves and the world around us largely shapes how we are seen by the world. Truly knowing ourselves can mean the difference between creating the life we want and yielding to the life we lead. And while it's empowering to acknowledge that we are the strongest source for real change in our lives, it is admittedly scary to realize how much of our lives is in our own hands.

A friend and colleague of mine Dr. Dan Siegel, who also happens to be Executive Director of The Mindsight Institute and a clinical professor of psychiatry at UCLA, defines people's ability to understand what is going on in their own mind and the minds of others as "mindsight." Mindsight is a method of self-understanding through which people can gain insight and empathy by exploring the workings of their own mind. Practicing mindsight entails an openness, observation and objectivity that can help us to be aware of our mental processes without being swept away by them. In this sense, it allows us to reshape and redirect our future and become the author of our own story.

Most people don't consciously recognize how much the lessons of our past shape our current actions and reactions. Mindsight helps us make sense of who we are and how we see the world by allowing us to reflect on our own story and gain insight into how that story informs our perceptions and emotions. By creating what Dan Siegel refers to as a "cohesive narrative" of our life, we can understand how our past is subconsciously influencing our present and make conscious decisions about how we want to lead our lives.

The situations we adapted to as kids can leave us with old ways of thinking and behaving that hurt us as adults. That stubborn streak we formed as a child may have resulted from feeling constantly controlled by a strict upbringing, but it can become problematic in the context of our careers. An interaction with our child that sends us flying off the deep end may have more to do with our own experience as a child and less to do with how we really feel toward our own children. When emotions feel especially intense, misplaced or out of character, this can be a warning sign that the heightened reaction has more to do with our past than our present. Mindsight can help us separate these old emotions from current circumstances.

When we don't apply mindsight, we run the risk of getting in our heads and acting on destructive thoughts. The stream of brutal, self-loathing , and second-guessing thoughts we all live with are what psychologist and author Dr. Robert Firestone refers to as the Critical Inner Voice. The Critical Inner Voice is created from experiences we had as children that caused us to turn against ourselves and develop negative self-perceptions. When left unchallenged, this inner critic can dictate our lives. A perfect illustration of this takes place in the classic film "Annie Hall." When a young couple (Annie and Alvie) first meet, an awkward dialogue takes place between them, while subtitles explain the actual thoughts going through their minds.

In their first conversation in Annie's apartment, Annie tells Alvie she "dabbles" in photography. At the same moment her thoughts appear on the screen as " I dabble? Listen to me -- what a jerk!" When Alvie compliments her work, she tells him she wants to take a "serious photography course," at which point the subtitles reveal, "He probably thinks I'm a yo-yo."

While Annie is wrapped up in criticizing herself for being unintelligent, Alvie is fumbling to impress her by speaking about photography as an art form. As he stumbles over his words, he has thoughts like, "I don't know what I'm saying -- she senses I'm shallow," and, "Christ, I sound like FM radio." Even as both Alvie and Annie forge a conversation in an attempt to get together, their own internal dialogues are simultaneously ripping them apart. This is a common scenario in the early stages of a relationship, and it plays out through all phases of forming a connection to another person.

When couples are attuned to this inner dialogue or Critical Inner Voice, they are better able to separate from it. A healthy relationship is formed when each partner can reflect on their own sense of self and form a connection without falling under the influence of an inner critic. For example, rather than tripping over their words or sounding like people they aren't, Alvie and Annie could have been themselves in their early interaction and challenged insecurities that later plagued their relationship.

Dan Siegel writes of ideal relationships in his book "Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation" that "[a]ttuned couples link together in a mental lovemaking, a joining of minds, in which two people create that beautiful resonant sense of becoming a 'we.' The intimacy that blossoms can be amazing, but the journey to get there and remain there can be rough. To become linked as a 'we,' a couple needs also to become differentiated as two 'me's.'" To illustrate this point, he describes the process of losing one's identity in a couple relationship as forming a smoothie, whereas when each person brings their individuality to their union, their relationship is like a fruit salad. Unfortunately, in creating an illusion of connection (or "Fantasy Bond"), a couple destroys their true feelings of compatibility and love. Only when a person is self-possessed can they live more harmoniously with their partner.

The same principles hold true for any relationship, be it with our spouse, our children, a family member or a co-worker. As Siegel points out in his book, "The brain is a social organ, and our relationships with one another are not a luxury but an essential nutrient for our survival." The purpose of mindsight is to attain self-understanding that can help us put a halt to the harmful behaviors that impair our relationships. When we have insight into ourselves, we also form compassion and empathy for another person. We can uncover why we are the way we are, and become who we've always wanted to be.

As Robert Firestone wrote, "Perhaps the single most important life affirming human quality is the ability to feel love -- to feel compassion and empathy for and express kindness, generosity and tenderness toward other people. Learning to love others requires first valuing oneself." This is the foundation upon which all human relationships are built.

To hear more from Dr. Lisa Firestone and Dr. Dan Siegel on mindsight, attend the free June 14 Webinar "Mindsight: Learning a New Science of Personal Transformation."


Sunday, June 05, 2011

Kim Wombles - Interview With Simon Baron-Cohen on Zero-Empathy, Autism, and Accountability

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm117334959/science-evil-on-empathy-origins-cruelty-simon-baron-cohen-hardcover-cover-art.jpg

Kim Wombles at Countering . . . (Countering autism misinformation and various woo while offering kickass kumbaya and a positive perspective (and lots of flowers!)) recently interview Simon Baron-Cohen about his newest book, The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty. I have not had a chance to read the book yet, but the more I see about it, the more I want to make the time to give it a read.

Baron-Cohen makes a distinction - that I believe is useful - between zero empathy negative (sociopaths, psychopathy, or borderline personality disorder [I disagree that they have zero empathy]) and zero empathy positive (autism spectrum). I had not seen this distinction made before.

Here is the beginning of the interview - the intro and first question:

An Interview With Simon Baron-Cohen on Zero-Empathy, Autism, and Accountability


Simon Baron-Cohen "sat down with me" this week via email and graciously took the time to answer my questions stemming from my review of his new book, The Science of Evil, that appeared on my blogs last week. What follows is a response that is every bit as thorough as my original review; between the two (and I recommend you read both as a complete piece), there's 15 single spaced pages of material. I thoroughly enjoyed this opportunity and I think readers will, too. There's even dueling databases, which I absolutely loved, below!

My questions are in italics; SBC's in regular font.

How would you outline the major sections in your book and how do you see these sections meshing together into a cohesive narrative?

The key theme in my book is that when people commit acts of cruelty, a specific circuit in the brain ("the empathy circuit") goes down. It can go down temporarily (for example, when we are stressed) or in a more enduring way. For some people, this empathy circuit never developed in the first place, either for reasons of environmental neglect and/or for genetic reasons. But whatever the reason this circuit in the brain did not develop in the usual way, or is not functioning in the usual way, it is the very same circuit that is involved. I argue that when we try to explain acts of human cruelty, there is no scientific value in the term 'evil' but there is scientific value in using the term 'empathy erosion'.

The related theme is that the functioning of the empathy circuit determines how much empathy a person has, and that empathy is "normally distributed" in the population: from zero degrees at the extreme low end through to six degrees at the extreme high end. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, but the book explores the different routes that can lead a person to end up at zero degrees of empathy. In particular, there are some medical/psychiatric conditions that cause this outcome and most are negative (Zero Negative). These include the personality disorders, such as psychopaths and people with Borderline Personality Disorder. Link
But one is surprisingly positive (autism spectrum conditions) because although they struggle with empathy, they do so because they have a mind that is exquisitely tuned to spot patterns (rules) in the world. I call this "systemizing", and in people with autism or Asperger Syndrome the "systemizing mechanism" is tuned to an extremely high degree. This can have remarkable advantages when trying to figure out how a system works (hence Zero Positive), but leads to disability when applied to the world of people and emotions, because people and emotions are hard (if not impossible) to systemize.
Go read the whole long interview - very interesting stuff.

Kristina Bjoran - Looking for Empathy in a Conflict-Ridden World

This was a guest post from the middle of May over at the Scientific American blog - she examines here the evidence for empathy in specific areas of the brain, and the research that is looking for it.

One of the researchers, from MIT, is Emile Bruneau - his studies found that how people respond to emotional pain in others is processed in different brain structures/networks than how people respond to physical pain in others. Which is interesting in that some recent work has shown that we experience our own emotional and physical pain in the same brain structures.

Looking for Empathy in a Conflict-Ridden World

I witnessed a breakup yesterday in the middle of MIT’s vast Infinite Corridor—a hallway known for its heavy traffic and long stretch of straightness. Finals are upon the undergraduates, so perhaps tensions were a bit high for the young, failing couple. Something, however, had clearly pushed the girl overboard. Her boyfriend had fallen dramatically to his knees and as he wept heartfelt apologies for some crime or another, the girl stood with crossed arms, trying not to look at him. Then, as I passed, the angry young woman knelt and slapped him hard and loud across his face just before storming off down the Corridor.

I don’t know what happened between those two, but I felt bad for the guy. Seeing him cry so openly in public hurt me, in a small way. And when the slap connected with his wet cheek, the loud clap stung my face in a phantom sort of way. All that insult-to-injury—it hurt.

This, I believe, is empathy (though, as I’ve recently discovered, scientists can’t seem to agree on their own definition). We’ve all "felt" for someone else, whether that person is a stranger getting slapped in public or a close friend suffering through the loss of a pet. The empathy we experience can feel as real as if the pain were our own.

But empathy is failing on a pretty mass scale. It fails between Christians and Muslims. It fails between Israelis and Palestinians. Between Democrats and Republicans. Between Red Sox and Yankees fans. When it comes to conflict groups, empathy largely goes offline.

Because of this failure to empathize, MIT Saxelab neuroscientist Emile Bruneau has set his sights on not only locating empathy in the brain via controversial fMRI scans; he also hopes to find a way to quantify empathy.

Scanning Empathy

The scanning room at MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research is small, a bit like a cage. With only a row of computers and a few focused but tired graduate students toiling away on spreadsheets, it’s what I imagine a human terrarium might look like. And on the other side of the room’s single window is a large, round, glowing machine that looks like it could become self-aware at any minute and start sealing out oxygen and talking in a sinister, monotonous voice.

This machine is a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, and Emile Bruneau has signed up for several days’-worth of usage to run his current experiments. His first subject on the day of my visit was a young Israeli woman, dressed all in scrubs. As Bruneau led her into the scanning room to situate her and give instructions on what to do, the graduates back in the terrarium with me typed away on their laptops, presumably getting things ready.

All the subjects that day—all the subjects for this ongoing study—were Israeli and Palestinian volunteers, of random ages (over 18) and sex. One by one they marched into the scanner to get their brains' pictures taken, each taking about 40 minutes (which, by the way, is a really long time to keep your head still).

The setup is pretty simple. Bruneau’s subjects lie in the fMRI scanner while short, 60-word stories appear before their eyes. The stories tell quick tales of another in emotional or physical pain—nothing too extreme. As a subject reads over the stories, a prompt appears after a few seconds asking her: How much compassion do you feel? She rates from 1 to 5, depending on the intensity of her admitted experience. Images of the subject's brain (the fMRI measures blood flow, so the more active regions register on the images) are finally sent back to Emile, who watches from his computer.

This isn’t Emile’s first rodeo. He recently ran an almost identical experiment, only instead of limiting his subjects to members of well-known conflict groups, his subjects were random MIT students. The stories and prompts he showed them were identical to those used for the conflict groups, except without any details of the protagonist’s ethnicity. Whereas John, Jerry, or Diane might have been the main character of a prompt in the first, MIT-student run, characters like Ashraf, Fadwa, or Tal took center stage in this more focused round. Bruneau wanted to see whether or not a Palestinian subject would feel less empathy for an Israeli character, and vice versa.

Bruneau discovered with the first experiment what appeared to be concrete anatomical structures in the brain that responded to physical and emotional pain in others. As he monitored the young Israeli woman in the scanner, he pulled up some of the results from his previous experiments to show me what he meant.

"The first thing you can see is that there are distinct brain regions that are responding to these types of stimuli," he said, pointing to rather colorful brain scans (though, he qualified, the results don’t look so appealing straight out of the scanner). There were, in fact, distinct red and green areas on the scans. The regions in red, he said, represented how subjects responded to others in physical pain; the green areas represented their response to emotional suffering.

"The second thing you can see is that they're completely separate from each other. So the brain regions that are responding to physical pain are very different than the brain regions that are responding to emotional suffering," he trailed off, leaning over a speaker connected to the scanner. The next round of stories are coming up when you’re ready, he told the Israeli woman.

These conflict-rooted empathy experiments haven’t been running too long yet, and he’s yet to dig into the imaging data, but Bruneau has a few expectations, a few questions. For instance, how do members of these conflict groups experience empathy?

"The prediction isn't that you'll get a completely different brain response in totally different brain regions," he explained. "The prediction is that you'll get the same pattern of response, it'll just be decreased so that there's less of a response in those brain regions."

In other words, the empathy is there. It’s just on mute.

"One of the strengths of neuroimaging is that you can get a quantitative measure of the activity in different regions, and that's kind of what we're relying upon," Bruneau said.

If he succeeds in quantifying empathy, then perhaps, he says, there will finally be a way to measure whether or not conflict resolution programs are working. If a participant in such a program has "greater" empathic activity in his brain after a program, then, obviously, it’s working. If not, adjustments to the program would have to be made.

All in all, Bruneau really hopes to bring a little peace to a conflict-charged world.

But this is a lofty goal, and the methods are not without critics.

Glimpsing the Unglimpsable

Ten years ago, cognitive neuroscience was skeptical about trying to localize any kind of social process in the brain. The endeavor has been likened, by the harshest of critics, to a new wave of phrenology, the pseudoscientific idea that bumps on a skull indicate some kind of "brain map." The skeptics argue that such behaviors and processes, like empathy, can’t be pinpointed to one specific place—the processes emerge, rather, from complex network interactions in the brain.

Bruneau and his supervisor, Rebecca Saxe of Saxelab, both believe that this skepticism has all but died off, and that the whole localization versus network-distribution battle is moot.

"[Localization and distribution] aren't really alternatives to one another. They might be alternatives to each other in the discourse of the literature, but they're not alternatives in reality," Saxe responded to the issue. She silences the debate by drawing an analogy to the motor of a car. Sure, an engine works because many pieces work together in unison—in a network, if you will—but that’s not to say a carburetor doesn’t perform a specific job. Saxe emphasizes that this is an oversimplification, but it gets at her basic idea.

Even if localizing specific brain functions is at some point wholly agreed upon as a worthwhile endeavor, fMRI scanning has its critics, too. Perhaps the most colorfully demonstrated argument against the efficacy and reliability of these scanners came about in October 2010. Researchers stuck a dead salmon in an fMRI, asked him questions about human emotions, and measured his response. That is to say, the dead salmon had brain activity show up in his scans. The dead fish had thoughts on human emotion.

Of course, the fish wasn’t responding in any way, shape, or form to his prompts. He was dead. And a fish. This study only served to drive in the point that there are data corrections that must be taken into account for fMRI scans; the results can yield false positives. Regardless, neuroimaging, as some have astutely pointed out, is seductive to researchers, to the people who fund them, and, especially, to the rest of us. After all, it’s nice to see answers to difficult questions simply light up on a screen.

There’s clearly a debate, and probably no end to it in the near future. Matters of the brain are tricky business. I’m no neuroscientist, just a hobbyist, but both sides of the argument seem well-reasoned, well-researched, and well-intending. While it’s exciting to see those brain scans that Bruneau brought up on screen, there’s also something oversimplified about it all.

On the one hand, if he finds significant results, it could lead to groundbreaking methods for palliating some of the world’s problems. On the other hand, it can feel a bit alienating, a bit deflating, to think of one’s brain as simply a series of green and red regions. Then again, reductionism has a tendency for that sort of thing.

Forging Ahead

As I sat in my corner and watched Bruneau conduct his experiment, I saw one of the prompts flash on a screen near the neuroscientist. It read:

Farrah lives with her new husband, who is a bank manager in Baghdad. The couple often has friends over for dinner. One night, as Farrah was chopping vegetables, a friend asked her a question. When Farrah turned to respond and slipped with the knife. The knife cut a huge slice in her finger that went to the bone.

The writer in me should have been paying attention to the way the protagonist was being presented and the ethnically charged rhetoric—using the name Farrah repeatedly, the mention of Baghdad, for instance. Or the way the prompt was crafted to elicit several responses.

Instead, I clenched my teeth and felt a phantom knife slice down to my bone.

I wonder if the subject reacted the same way.

About the Author: Kristina Bjoran is a student in MIT's Graduate Program in Science Writing, where she writes about technology, environmental studies, and nonhuman animal intelligence. During her down time, she volunteers with animal shelters, writes for nonprofits, and dabbles in photography and skydiving. Follow Kristina on Facebook and Twitter, and visit her page on MIT Scope.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Adam Frank, Alva Noe, and Marcelo Gleiser on Agnosticism, Consciousness, and Life After Death

http://www.papatoto.com/images/discovery/785682111227_discoveries.jpg

We begin with a post from Adam Frank at NPR's 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog on issues around consciousness after death. He argues that we cannot know without direct experiments what happens after death, which makes agnosticism the only reasonable option.

Alva Noe, on the other hand, is not so willing to concede to agnosticism on such issues - he believes it is the responsibility of those holding the beliefs to offer a reasonable foundation for such beliefs.

Frank's original article is up first, followed by a response from Noe, and then another post from Frank. And finally, Marcelo Gleiser offers a research based perspective.

We have had a wonderful discussion today on the limits of consciousness and what does, or does not, continue at the end of biological functioning. Here are a few worthy quotes from the comments:

"Assuming there's no alternate plane of existence and near death experiences are hallucinations produced by the brain, wouldn't our afterlife be the mark we leave on this earth?"

"I do ponder, though, that as we incorporate new matter over our lives, we DO become different beings—our "I-ness" changes over time."

"There are millions of anecdotal NDEs (Near Death Experiences) with folks who were dead and have a similar story of a tunnel of light etc. Hawking and likeminded people will say this is the brain shutting down based on lack of oxygen etc. Maybe but maybe not."

"From a naturalistic perspective, there's no evidence for an immaterial self or soul with one's memories and personality that persists after death. But there's also no reason to suppose that death is the onset of darkness, emptiness or nothingness"

For myself I remain fully and firmly agnostic on the question. If ever there was a place where firm convictions seem misplaced this is it. There simply is no controlled, experimental verifiable information to support either the "you rot" vs. "you go on" positions.

In the absence of said information we are all free to believe as we like but, I would argue, it behooves us to remember that truly "public" knowledge on the subject - the kind science exemplifies - remains in short supply.

Perhaps after Iris Dement's song we should let Shakespeare's Prospero take us out...

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

And so here is Alva Noe's response to this post.

And finally, here is Frank's response to Noe.

What is the relationship between matter and mind? On the one hand we have matter. Good old solid matter: dirt, stuff, Goop. It appears to be the foundation of everything we experience. On the other hand we have mind. I really don't know anything first hand about your mind but I have a pretty intimate experience of my own. Since you seem to behave in ways that I recognize I infer that you have a mind pretty much like my own. So there is matter and there is mind and for the last 2,500 years or so we have been trying to figure out the relationship between them.

Last week we had a series of posts on "life after death" prompted by physicist Stephen Hawking's comments on the topic. My first take on the subject was to put up Monty Python's brilliant routine where an erstwhile talk-show host interviews three dead people on the topic (getting no response from the corpses he concludes the answer is "No"). Later I admitted to being agnostic on the subjects believing that there was really no data to support conclusions one way or the other.

My co-blogger Alva Noe, no slouch in philosophical discussions of mind and matter, took the opposite position claiming that the very concept of testing such a proposition makes no sense. In Alva's view we don't have a handle on the appropriate background against which to frame the question. As he put it:

People can say whatever they like about what they believe. But until a background is in place that gives sense to the proposal, I doubt that it is even possible to believe such a thesis.

Alva wasn't the only person to disagree with my position. Over at Cosmic Variance, the always-lucid Sean Carroll argued that my stance was tantamount to making claims of new physics. He says everything about the basic laws of physics is known. Thus being agnostic on the issue is a claim that there is something more occurring in the world than our current understanding of quantum field theory.

As I am writing this over a terrible hotel continental breakfast in the midst of traveling (Washington, D.C.), I am not in much of a position to respond to these objections with the clarity they deserve. I will, however, take a first stab at it.

First let me be clear about my position. I am not agnostic about the existence of a human soul. The idea of an eternal, non-material essence to our personal identities that, as Sean puts it, "drives around our body like a soccer mom driving an SUV" makes as little sense to me as it does to him. What I am agnostic about is the relationship between mind and matter. The real question here is about the nature of consciousness, and in that regard I am willing to consider that both Alva and Sean are right.

(1). We do not have to have a grasp of the background lying behind our current formulations of the problem to assume answers to that problem.

(2.) The problem of consciousness does not reduce to the standard model of particle physics.

It is at this point that we should begin what I consider to be the most fascinating question in all of philosophy and modern science: what is the nature of consciousness?

That means opening up issues like reductionism and emergence, bringing up writers like David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel and others and, of course, raising the every vexing issue of qualia (we also point to Alva's wonderful writing on the subject). In this blog we have had discussion on the subject before including proposals by Stu and Ursula.

For today I am going to leave the door to that discussion closed until another time. I am, however, going to end this post with the belief that stands at the base of my agnosticism concerning what happens after the end of biological functioning.

I don't think we are close to understanding consciousness.

More importantly, I don't think we are close to understanding phenomena of subjectivity. The act being is what we really don't have a hold on. The vividness with which I, and only I, experience my subjectivity remains a profound and delicious mystery for science, philosophy and all aspects of culture to explore. While there has been wonderful and extraordinary progress in neurosciences, the so-called hard problem of consciousness (a la David Chalmers) remains just as hard as ever.

Thus we are just at the beginning of developing a true "working" theory of consciousness. Like the progress of mechanics, I suspect it is going to take us a while to even figure out how to ask questions correctly — particularly given our inability to conceive of explorations of subjectivity from the inside.

So, to be clear, I am not agnostic because I hope that my soul will ascend to Science Heaven, where I could spend eternity learning more about thermodynamics and quantum information theory (and where Firefly ran for 100 seasons). I am not agnostic because I hope souls exist. I doubt they do. I am agnostic about what happens after biological functioning because neither I, nor anyone else, understands consciousness and its fundamental relation to biology, chemistry and physics.

There are lots of great ideas for sure. But a theory of consciousness? A theory of subjectivity?

Not yet. Not by a long shot.

And just to add one other perspective to the mix, here is theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser offers his views on this.
We may wish for our souls to paddle on after the sun sets on our physical lives, but the evidence says we should focus on living in the here-and-now.

We may wish for our souls to paddle on after the sun sets on our physical lives, but the evidence says we should focus on living in the here-and-now.

Since my co-blogger Adam Frank posted yesterday that hilarious Monty Python video examining whether there is life after death, and Mark Memmott of The Two-Way blog wrote Monday on Hawking's pronouncements on the same topic quoting me, I couldn't resist contributing to this valuable debate with a few remarks on life-after-death experiments.

I quote from my book A Tear at the Edge of Creation, where I described both my teenage fantasy of measuring the weight of the soul and a "serious" attempt from early in the twentieth century that got a lot of press at the time:

Reading Frankenstein as a teenager incited even more my fantasy of becoming a Victorian natural philosopher lost in the late twentieth century. When I joined the physics department at the Catholic University at Rio in 1979, I was the perfect incarnation of the Romantic scientist, beard, pipe and all. I remember, to my embarrassment, my experiment to "investigate the existence of the soul." If there was a soul, I reasoned, it had to have some sort of electromagnetic nature so as to be able to animate the brain. Well, what if I convinced a medical facility to let me surround a dying patient with instruments capable of measuring electromagnetic activity, voltmeters, magnetometers, etc.? Would I be able to detect the cessation of life's imbalance, the arrival of death's final equilibrium? Of course, the instruments had to be extremely sensitive so as to capture any minute change right at the moment of death. Also, for good measure, the dying patient should be on a very accurate scale, in case the soul had some weight. I remember explaining my idea to a professor [...] I can't remember exactly what he said, but I do remember his expression of muted incredulity.

Of course, I was only half serious in my excursion into "experimental theology." But my crackpot Victorian half, I am happy to say, had at least one predecessor. In 1907, Dr. Duncan MacDougall of Haverhill, Massachusetts, conducted a series of experiments to weigh the soul. Although his methodology was highly suspicious, his results were quoted in The New York Times: "Soul has weight, physician thinks," read the headline. The weight came out at three quarters of an ounce (21.3 grams), albeit there were variations among the good doctor's handful of dying patients. For his control group, MacDougall weighed fifteen dying dogs and showed that there was no weight loss at the moment of death. The result did not surprise him. After all, only humans had souls.

Those interested in more details of this and other stories, should read Mary Roach's hilarious and informative Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers and consult this site. Dr. MacDougall's measurements inspired the 2003 Hollywood hit movie 21 Grams, which featured Sean Penn playing the role of an ailing mathematician.

Back to Hawking, I must agree with him. Although from a strictly scientific viewpoint we haven't proven that there is no life after death, everything that we know about how nature works indicates that life is an emergent biochemical phenomenon that has a beginning and an end. From a scientific perspective, life after death doesn't make sense: there is life, a state when an organism is actively interacting with its environment, and there is death, when this interaction becomes passive. (Even viruses can only truly be considered alive when inside a host cell. But that's really not what we are taking about here, which is human life after death.) We may hope for more, and it's quite understandably that many of us would, but our focus should be on the here and now, not on the beyond. It's what we do while we are alive that matters. Beyond life there is only memories for those who remain.