Emotion is an integral part of a person’s rationality and vision—literally—of reality. From studies on people who lost a part of their brain’s frontal cortex to researchers at the University of Toronto testing how emotion influences vision, neuroscientists are demonstrating that emotion affects every aspect of cognition. Indeed, without emotion human beings find it difficult to be rational.
Historically, from Plato to Descartes to most modern economists, it has been assumed and argued that logical decision-making excludes emotions and feelings. The work of neuroscientist Antonio Damasio upends that historical assumption. Damasio’s research on people with brain damage to their frontal cortex clearly demonstrates that emotion plays an important role in logical reasoning. In the preface to his seminal work, Descartes’ Error, Damasio writes::
…the reasoning system evolved as an extension of the automatic emotional system, with emotion playing diverse roles in the reasoning process…When emotion is entirely left out of the reasoning picture, as happens in certain neurological conditions, reason turns out to be even more flawed than when emotion plays bad tricks on our decisions…[I] see emotion as at least assisting reason and at best holding dialogue with it…I view emotion as delivering cognitive information, directly and via feelings…the brain systems that are jointly engaged in emotion and decision-making are generally involved in the management of social cognition and behavior.
Logical decisions are made when emotions are a part of the reasoning process. If emotions are taken out of the reasoning process, as occurred in Damasio’s patients, irrational behavior increases. One of my favorite television and movie characters, Commander Spock of Star Trek, is now tarnished after reading Damasio’s various studies. For how would Spock respond to Damasio’s finding that “Reduction in emotion may constitute an equally important source of irrational behavior”?
A person’s emotions or mood are such integral parts of cognition that they sometimes play the role of gatekeeper for how and to what extent each one of us sees reality. Our vision is literally affected by our emotions. Positive and negative moods, according to a 2009 neuroscience study, affect the way we see the world around us by either broadening (positive) or narrowing (negative) our peripheral vision respectively. The study clearly demonstrates that our moods modulate the activity of the visual cortex “with positive affect broadening and negative affect narrowing the distribution, or scope, of one’s field of view (FOV).” Our feelings about (rather than for) people even determine if we see them as attractive or not. The more honest we believe someone to be, for example (and reported by Robert Sapolsky), the more likable they are to us “and the more likable, the more physically attractive” we see them to be (and vice versa). The reason, according to neuroscience, is that we do not ‘see’ with our eyes; rather, we see with our brains. Because it is our brains that see and not the eyes, emotions and opinions define our vision of reality.
Shouldn’t we be trying to create more positive environments at home, school and work, simply based on neuroscience, if we are interested in attaining our goals? If positive values such as compassion and trustworthiness increase your awareness of the world around you and your likability, wouldn’t that also increase your probability of achieving success? It appears as though the color of success is rose; for the argument of wearing the proverbial rose-tinted glasses just became stronger.
ARTICLE & BOOK:
Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New York: Penguin Group, Inc., 2005).
Robert Sapolsky, “Pretty Smart? Why We Equate Beauty with Truth,” The Wall Street Journal (January 17, 2014).
Taylor W. Schmitz, Eve De Rosa, and Adam K. Anderson, “Opposing Influences of Affective State Valence on Visual Cortical Encoding,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 22 (June 3, 2009).
Everyone’s heard the saying that “nice guys finish last” but reality and evolutionary science show that compassionate people finish on top…together. From Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man written 140 years ago to current neuroscience research showing that our brain’s structure is hardwired to be kind, generous and social rather than mean, selfish and asocial, the evidentiary support for compassion as the strongest instinct for evolutionary success in both the animal and business worlds as well as for creating vibrant academic and civic communities is wide and deep. Any doubt or skepticism for the idea does not come from science but from our popular culture; we commercialize “survival of the fittest” when science and reality show that it is really “survival of the kindest” that leads to more durable success.
We popularize, propagate and celebrate independent achievement above all other values and the cost of such exclusiveness has been hinted upon in newspaper headlines and academic studies over the last five years. “Almost 80 percent of [middle and high school] students,” according to a 2014 study by Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, “ranked achievement or happiness over caring for others.” The authors of the report highlight a “rhetoric/reality gap”—a mismatch between what parents and teachers say is important and what our children and students see us do—as the “root” cause of the student rankings. Another study from 2009 in a journal of business and economics reached the following conclusion after surveying the values of business students: “This evidence suggests that business school curricula that focus on acting ethically because it is the right thing to do may be ineffective. Our results indicate it may be important to openly discuss ethical behavior in a cost-benefit framework with the costs and benefits clearly defined.” The authors’ conclusion offers clear insight into the ideological undercurrent of the 2008 economic tsunami that swept over all of us.
The headlines show why we need to strive to be more than just achievers and why we need to weave compassion into learning environments at all levels of education. “Any healthy civil society,” as the Harvard Graduate School of Education report states, “also depends on adults who are committed to their communities and who, at pivotal times, will put the common good before their own. We don’t seem to be preparing large numbers of youth to create this society.” Do we really want a society of self-centered and self-absorbed achievers who answer ethical questions on a broad range of issues from a personal cost-benefit analysis? The idea that there has to be a choice between achievement and caring for others is a false dilemma. There is a better model for success that strengthens society as it strengthens the individual. We can prepare our children, students and employees to be compassionate achievers.
A compassionate achiever is someone who can apply their knowledge and skills to problems and opportunities in ways that strengthen themselves as well as others. A compassionate achiever is really a successful learner who thinks beyond him- or her-self; for learning is the process of acquiring knowledge and skills so that they can be applied with efficiency and effectiveness to problems and opportunities. The issue with education is that it has become a process of gathering and knowing facts to be recalled…period. While gathering and knowing facts is important, we should not be treating it as the ‘landing zone’ of education (via standardized tests). Rather, knowing facts should be the ‘launching pad’ for learning.
The ‘launching pad’ for learning perspective is used to achieve success in everything from business to sports. Knowing the fundamentals in sports, for example, is important but learning how to apply them on the court/field is ‘everything’ when it comes to success. Although a basketball team might have three of the best players in basketball, it doesn’t mean that they will “win it all.” While the 2013 Miami Heat arguably had three of the best basketball players on their roster, the San Antonio Spurs beat them in the 2014 National Basketball Association’s Championship because the Spurs were better at applying the fundamentals as a team rather than simply as individuals. The Spurs had a better understanding and sense about where and what each of their teammates would be and do in a given situation than the Heat. The soccer legend Pele has been saying for decades that such an understanding is the key to success. Success is not a solo/asocial endeavor but a connected/social experience (neuroscience has shown that this is also how the brain successfully learns). Alexander Graham Bell, known for his inventive genius and deep compassion, knew this when he said “Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds.” Compassionate achievers not only learn this early and continually but they live it daily and consciously and that is why they finish on top…together.
COMPASSIONATE SCHOOLS CONFERENCE:ARTICLES & BOOKS:
Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III and Mark A. McDaniel, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2014)
Steven R. Cox, Kathy Parkison and Dianne M. Roden, “A Case for Teaching Business Ethics in a Cost-Benefits Framework: Are Business Students More Discriminating in Their Decision Making?: Mountain Plains Journal of Business and Economics Vol. 10 (2009)
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Matthew Lieberman, Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (New York: Crown Publishers, 2013)
Rick Weissbound, Stephanie Jones, Trisha Ross Anderson, Jennifer Kahn and Mark Russell, “The Children We Mean to Raise: The Real Messages Adults are Sending about Values,” Making Caring Common Project (Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2014)
Albert Einstein and Mark Twain didn’t experience ‘it.’ Most of us, however, believe in ‘it’ and many teachers continue to strive to make ‘it’ real in our classrooms. The ‘it’ is an education based on learning. Where Einstein said “the only thing that interferes with my learning is my education,” Twain stated that “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” While Einstein and Twain said it differently, they said the same thing: school-education was not based on learning. Neuroscience research over the last few decades, however, has provided a series of ideas and paths that can guide us into creating school environments where learning is at the center of education. Simply stated, neuroscience provides insights into how the brain learns. The weaving of neuroscience with pedagogical and social science research offers numerous ways to improve learning and develop more effective education policies.
Neuroscience research has recently shed light on how to improve learning; some have characterized their findings as exploring the powers of the social brain. ‘Social’ is used, such as in the title of Matthew Lieberman’s book on the brain, to highlight the fact that we learn best through connections; social-emotional and conceptual. Because all information and memories are immediately broken into fragments and spread throughout the surface of the brain’s cortex, connections (or reconnections) are at the core of learning (the brain’s storage faculty is not like any recording device or computer but more like a cooperative/coordinated event similar to a flash-mob of the brain). If we connect, we learn.
We learn by connecting ideas and emotions. Recent research has found that emotional connections are the keys for unlocking learning potential. John Medina, a developmental molecular biologist, explains in his book Brain Rules that an emotionally charged event (called an emotionally competent stimulus—ECS) creates a kind of chemical Post-It note (written in the ink of dopamine) on the brain for remembering information. An ECS can be something as simple as using paradoxes (i.e., less is more) in class to create associations between concepts for enhancing memory and learning. Neuroscience shows that connecting ideas and emotions is a key part to knowing and learning and we should be incorporating ECS Post-It notes in our classrooms.
A person’s emotions or mood are such integral parts of cognition that they sometimes play the role of gatekeeper for how and to what extent each one of us sees reality. Our vision is literally affected by our emotions. Positive and negative moods, according to a 2009 neuroscience study, affect the way we see the world around us by either broadening (positive) or narrowing (negative) our peripheral vision respectively. The study by Schmitz, De Rosa and Anderson clearly demonstrates that our moods modulate the activity of the visual cortex “with positive affect broadening and negative affect narrowing the distribution, or scope, of one’s field of view (FOV).” The reason, in part, is that we see with our brains, not with our eyes. Because it is our brains that see and not the eyes, emotions and opinions help define our vision of reality. In short, the type of classroom that a teacher constructs (positive or negative) matters more than we have given it credit for. Incorporating the learning of values such as compassion into classrooms can broaden the realm of possibilities for our students—both literally and figuratively.
The realm of possibilities for our students, however, should not be confined by the walls of classroom. Academic success, according to neuroscientists and education researchers, is also linked to playground and recess time. From this week’s (4-8 August 2014) National Public Radio series on the importance of play in schools to analyses about the role of Finland’s “unstructured outdoor play” in achieving high standardized testing scores, the role of physical activity in aiding intellectual achievement is well documented (physical activity generates brain fuel such as oxygen and glucose). Medina says it best: “Cutting off physical exercise—the very activity most likely to promote cognitive performance—to do better on a test score is like trying to gain weight by starving yourself.” Education policymakers throughout the United States should be increasing time for recess and physical activity for students and not decreasing it, which is the current trend in many school districts. It makes no sense that America is trying to move up the international ladder of standardized test scores by making its test takers stand still.
But is standardized testing the best way to learn or measure learning? Even the debates over the most cutting edge theories of neuroscience offer insights into how to address highly controversial education policies such as testing. The neuroscience view, for instance, that the brain is a quantum environment and governed by the processes of quantum mechanics offers a strong critique of America’s current use and focus on standardized tests for learning. Although quantum physics is widely known for the idea that a particle can be in two different places at the same time, it is the not-so-well-known Quantum Zeno Effect (QZE) that provides the source of strength for the standardization critique. QZE maintains that “when any system is observed in a sufficiently rapid, repetitive fashion the rate at which that system changes is reduced.” In other words, QZE is explaining that the more a quantum system is monitored, the less decay occurs. If the human brain operates in a quantum environment (a recent discovery of quantum vibrations in the brain was announced in January 2014) and we, as educators, want the process of learning to be locked in and not decay, we should be instituting the “regimen of regular low- or no-stakes” testing of my schoolboy days and the type of quizzing that Peter Brown, Herny Roediger III and Mark McDaniel recommend in their book Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning. The problem with an emphasis on standardized testing, from the perspective of quantum mechanics, is that there is too much information being tested too infrequently for learning to “stick” or stabilize in the brain. This idea of quantum learning supports Roediger’s recommendations outlined in The New York Times: “We need to change the way we think about testing. It shouldn’t be a white-knuckle finale to a semester’s work, but the means by which students progress from the start of a semester to its finish, locking in learning along the way…Standardized testing is in some respects a quest for more rigor in public education. We can achieve rigor in a different way. We can instruct teachers on the use of low-stakes quizzing in class. We can teach students the benefits of retrieval practice and how to use it in their studying outside class. These steps cost little and cultivate habits of successful learning that will serve students throughout their lives.”
Einstein and Twain’s comments regarding the broken education-learning link are, in essence, quantum quotes; they say the same thing in two different ways. Einstein, however, also provided us with a way to repair or bridge the broken link via his idea of “combinatory play,” which calls for combining aspects of several disciplines when looking for solutions. The development of solutions to the Einstein-Twain quantum quote quandary (say that fast 5 times) will come from combining facets of neuroscience, education and social science research. We can improve learning in education if we follow the same type of path the brain uses to learn: a connected path.
ARTICLES & BOOKS:
Peter C. Brown, Henry L. Roediger III and Mark A. McDaniel, Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2014)
“Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in ‘Microtubules’ Inside Brain Neurons Supports Controversial Theory of Consciousness,” Science Daily (January 16, 2014)
W.R. Klemm, Mental Biology (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2014), 73 & 76
Matthew Lieberman, Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect (New York: Crown Publishers, 2013)
John Medina, Brain Rules (Seattle, WA: Pear Press, 2008)
National Public Radio, Series on Education and PlayL Where the Wild Things Play (August 4, 2014)
Debbie Rhea, “More Play, Better Focus,” Education Week Vol. 33, no. 22 (February 26, 2014): 21
David Rock and Jeffrey Schwartz, “The Neuroscience of Leadership” Strategy+Business Issue 43 (Summer 2006)
Henry L. Roediger III, “How Tests Make Us Smarter,” The New York Times (July 18, 2014): SR 12
Taylor W. Schmitz, Eve De Rosa, and Adam K. Anderson, “Opposing Influences of Affective State Valence on Visual Cortical Encoding,” The Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 29, no. 22 (June 3, 2009): 7199-7207
Benjamin Franklin instinctively knew the power of marshmallows in explaining success. Yes, marshmallows. A 40-year-old marshmallow experiment by Walter Mischel of Stanford University brought Franklin’s words to life: “Educate your children to self-control…and you have done much to abolish misery from their future.” Mischel’s now famous 1970’s marshmallow experiment testing the self-control of 4-year-old children and his 1989 follow-up analysis of those same kids will get a fresh airing when his new book titled The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control is released on September 23, 2014.
Mischel’s original test (see video for a reenactment of the marshmallow test provided below) on delaying self-gratification was seminal for recognizing the role of innate or natural self-control in determining a child’s level of success not only in school but in their future career, health and even relationships. As Mischel wrote in the abstract of his 1989 study: “Those 4-year-old children who delayed gratification longer in certain laboratory situations developed into more cognitively and socially competent adolescents, achieving higher scholastic performance and coping better with frustration and stress. Experiments in the same research program also identified specific cognitive and attentional processes that allow effective self-regulation early in the course of development. The experimental results, in turn, specified the particular types of preschool delay situations diagnostic for predicting aspects of cognitive and social competence later in life.” Ever since Mischel’s test and subsequent analyses, some parents, teachers and scholars have focused upon developing character traits such as determination and grit to help with self-control. The importance of character development has been popularized in the last couple of years by Angela Duckworth’s TED Talk on grit and Paul Tough’s book How Children Succeed.
A 2012 study from the University of Rochester by Celeste Kidd, Holly Palmeri and Richard Aslin, however, has found that another factor plays an important role in a child’s demonstrated level of self-control: the “reliability” or trustworthiness of their environment. In the Rochester experiment, Kidd, Palmeri and Aslin found that only 1 out of 14 children waited to eat their marshmallow in an “unreliable environment” (where the researcher broke 2 promises) while 9 out of 14 children successfully waited in a “reliable environment” (where the researcher kept all promises). In short, a person’s level of self-control is a result of a combination of nature with nurture. While research has demonstrated that the development of self-control occurs (or not) mostly at home, teachers can help their students learn it through a well-organized, predictable and compassionate classroom. In other words, teachers can structure a classroom so that it creates a reliable and trustworthy environment; an environment that can help children develop the “cognitive and social competences” needed to succeed in life and “abolish,” in the words of Franklin, some unnecessary “misery in their future.”
Intellectual and emotional success comes from nature interacting with nurture. Understanding how nature interacts with nurture should be the cornerstone for building intellectual and social development of all children. The traditional debate of nature versus nurture is a red herring that inhibits the making of constructive policies that strengthen our communities.
Researchers who focus upon the gene known as DRD4 (a dopamine processing gene) show that there is a reciprocal relationship between a person’s biological makeup (nature) and his or her environmental surroundings (nurture). DRD4 researchers label children with the “long variant” (low production of dopamine) of the gene as “orchids” and others as “dandelions.” While dandelion children can adapt and develop in any type of cultural and socio-economic environment, orchid children are “context-sensitive,” according to an article in Current Directions in Psychological Science by Bruce J. Ellis and W. Thomas Boyce, in that their “survival and flourishing is intimately tied, like that of the orchid, to the nurturant or neglectful character of the environment.” 
Various peer-reviewed studies clearly demonstrate that negative and uncompassionate home and school environments hurt the social-emotional and intellectual development of orchid children but have minimal to no effect on dandelions. However, the studies also show an amazing effect that compassionate and positive (compasitive) homes and schools have on both orchids and dandelions: while both orchids and dandelions succeed in a compasitive environment, the orchids thrive to such an extent that they surpass the dandelion children in social-emotional and intellectual learning. In other words, compassionate and positive home and classroom environments help all children succeed and they turn a potential learning deficit into an asset. Research in the field of child development not only shows that the nature versus nurture debate is not useful but that a combination of nature with nurture can unlock hidden potential in every child.
Reading recent articles in The New York Times and The Economist about the establishment of curfews in American cities as well as the spread of “bratophobia” in various parts of the country where children are being “barred” from bars and restaurants immediately brought to mind the studies of DRD4 researchers. The articles remind me of the American tendency to react rather than prevent problems from arising. DRD4 research, in contrast, highlights the role that science can play in helping us to create policies that avoid problems. While we tend to think that some children are naturally “brats” and others are naturally “good,” DRD4 studies clearly show that we can create conditions where all children flourish. Imagine, for example, classrooms where learning happens in a compasitive environment rather than classrooms as testing centers where darkened ovals are considered the measure of an education. Should we be focused on developing policies that exclude or include children? Which is better for strengthening our communities?
ARTICLES:
The bratophobia and curfew articles are:
For popular press coverage of orchid and dandelion children, please see:
“Give and Take” by Adam Grant is a must read for anyone interested in understanding the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of achievement and success in our highly interconnected world. Although many parts of Grant’s business oriented book are applicable to education, the discussion about “the strength of weak ties” (p. 47-49) is especially important because the success of our students partially depends upon how well our schools and classrooms nurture “the strength of weak ties.”
Where Grant defines strong ties as “close friends and colleagues” that we trust, weak ties consist of “our acquaintances, the people we know casually.” Mark Granovetter, a Stanford sociologist studying the success and failure of people attempting to change jobs, was the first to observe that weak ties were more likely than strong ties to yield new opportunities. “Strong ties provide bonds,” according to Grant, “but weak ties serve as bridges: they provide more efficient access to new information.” Weak ties are what children have mostly experienced in our country’s classrooms and schools but the “bridges” are slowly being deconstructed by the mechanization of education.
Grant’s book is centrally about how society’s “givers” as opposed to “takers” succeed more in the long run because the former can connect and “reconnect” to strong and weak ties. (Grant defines “givers” and “takers” along with “matchers” on pages 4-5 with this synopsis: “Whereas takers tend to be self-focused, evaluating what other people can offer them, givers are other-focused, paying more attention to what other people need from them.”) Grant provides a couple of reasons why givers rather than takers can reconnect to strong and weak ties. In addition to the karmic idea that “what goes around comes around,” he focuses upon the skills of his model giver—Adam Rifkin—by stating that “His secret was deceptively simple: he asked thoughtful questions and listened with remarkable patience.” Isn’t that what our classrooms should be about? In order to strengthen and reconstruct the “bridges” of weak ties in our schools we need to promote classrooms filled with thoughtful questioning and listening rather than standardized testing.
Because of our unmitigated focus on standardized testing, we have forgotten the importance of taking time to thoughtfully question. Striving to attain a bureaucratically derived standardized test score has become more important than learning how to ask the right questions. The skill of taking tests is useful for succeeding at one day exams such as the SATs and GREs but the skill of developing thoughtful questions is useful for everyday success throughout our working and personal lives. If we want our children to be able to provide answers in school, work and life, we must help them learn how to ask the right questions. In the words of E.E. Cummings: “Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question.”
In a society where listening to react has replaced listening to understand (i.e., watch any of the cable news networks and the growing polarization of our political system), the ability to “listen with remarkable patience” is truly remarkable. Our children grow up in the culture that we construct: in and out of school. They are the reflections of what we model and teach them. When we emphasize that the purpose of school is to recite one right answer (i.e., standardized tests), are we teaching them to patiently listen for the possibility that there may be a variety of answers for a wide range of problems? Listening to different perspectives is crucial for strengthening weak ties and we are teaching it right out of them. We need to heed the Native American proverb “Listen or your tongue will keep you deaf.”
A 27 April 2014 article in the New York Times highlighted the importance of strengthening weak ties for our society, as a whole, when it summarized the results of a research project stating “Even the bit players in our lives may influence our day-to-day well being.” The authors of the article contend that a simple “fleeting glance” has shown to increase a person’s well being. “The social norm of avoiding eye contact seems harmless,” according to the authors of “Hello Stranger,” “but it might not be.” In schools, over the last decade, our children have learned more about how to fill in bubbles and less about how to learn together; more about darkening ovals and less about understanding each other. Stephen Hinshaw and Richard Scheffler, in The ADHD Explosion argue that it isn’t a coincidence that there has been a 41% increase in ADHD diagnoses of school children over the last decade; that is an estimated 6.4 million children with over two-thirds of them receiving prescription drugs.
Grant’s book came to mind again yesterday when I finished reading T.M. Luhrmann’s New York Times op-ed piece entitled “Our Flinching State of Mind.” Luhrmann writes that we cannot “stop the slight flinching expectation of the possibility of carnage we feel as we walk into a school or office building” because of (1) the way the media portrays incidents such as the Isla Vista rampage as events that will inevitably reoccur and (2) the belief that in society “now everybody is alone.” Grant’s “givers” clearly show that we are not alone and that when we are networked together, we can achieve “beautiful” solutions to seemingly daunting problems. Let’s put away the smartphones and URLs a little more often than we do and connect eye-to-eye via IRL (in real life) in an effort to strengthen weak ties. The strength of weak ties is important not only for building a healthy “state of mind” throughout American civil society but for teaching our children to thoughtfully question and listen to understand.
ARTICLES:
Send this to friend