Dr Zahn addressed the question “What motivates us to behave morally?” and distinguished between Social Knowledge (knowing about socio-cultural norms and the needs of others) and moral motivation (the ability to be motivated by socio-cultural norms or the needs of others).  He presented two case studies illustrating that certain kinds of neurological impairment can lead to a decoupling of social knowledge and moral motivation in the sufferer which in turn may lead to inappropriate social behaviour  Examples of such behaviour included the intimate touching or kissing of strangers, or “helpfully checking the location of their wallets”.  Research among healthy individuals indicates a stronger coupling between areas of the brain associated with social knowledge and areas associated with moral motivation.

Professor Claxton postulated the idea of hubris as “unbridled intuition” and distinguished between what he described as an “old” view of intelligence, in which “reason trumps emotion”, and a “new” view that suggests intelligence involves multiple, interlocking and mutually correcting systems that may operate at different levels.  As illustrative examples, he offered:

• Cope – rapid response; neural prediction
• Mull – contemplative, intuitive; “feeling of rightness”
• Check – analytical, evaluative; conscious deliberation
• Chat – discussion, debate; public testing

He hypothesised that our education systems may privilege some of these self-regulating mechanisms over others, leading to what Dr Zahn had termed ‘decoupling’ (for example, decoupling “cleverness from competence”).

Professor Claxton suggested that Daedalus might usefully research possible links between this hypothesis and the concept of ‘hubris syndrome’ proposed by Owen and Davidson.  The process of self-regulation, when effective, may provide a “feeling of rightness”.  In the presence of hubris this feeling, unchecked, may self-strengthen and lead to:

• Cumulative inhibition of neurological switching between mechanisms of self-regulation
• Failure of self-checking
• Over-dependence upon one mode (cope, mull, check or chat)

Together these may lead to a subtle but dangerous switch from “it feels right” to “I feel right”.

The cafe conversations took up the theme of decoupling, focusing specifically upon issues of hubris amongst those in positions of leadership.  Potential avenues of research were more explicitly addressed than at the first Cafe at Oxford last October.  Several leads were identified for both multi-disciplinary research projects and for social research into possible countermeasures to the negative consequences of hubristic leadership behaviour.  A detailed overview of both Research Cafes may be found on the Daedalus Trust website at www.daedalustrust.org.uk

Future Daedalus Trust events include a ‘joint issues’ Seminar with SoL-UK and the University of Surrey in early summer 2012 and a one-day joint conference with the Royal Society of Medicine at the RSM London on 09 October 2012.

Speakers:

Dr Roland Zahn is Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Fellow and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at the University of Manchester

Professor Guy Claxton is Professor of the Learning Sciences at the University of Winchester

Written by Graham, edited by Geoff

But, I had only read as far as chapter three when I read a damning review of the book by Stephen Poole in the “Guardian” (21.04.2012). Poole condemns Lehrer for “scientism” and for re-hashing outmoded, dichotomous left-brain/right brain models of thinking, imagining and learning. He suggests that Lehrer has then committed the sin of tarting up these models with current neuroscientific jargon, references to fMRI scanning etc., before applying them to an ill-considered, if not specious, analysis of the creative processes employed by Bob Dylan, the R&D departments of 3M, Google and by the brains of you and me – a melange of Greil Marcus, meets Tom Peters and Deepak Chopra, perhaps.

This was rather dispiriting as I had, as recorded, already bought the book (in hardback) and only reached chapter three. I now have to make up my own mind. But the need to do so has caused me to reflect on the processes at work between authors and their publishers. When they are considering the successor to a first and critically well received best seller, particularly when writing in the field of the popularisation of scientific advances they must be tempted to perform an encore.

I guess that the processes must be similar to that employed by pop stars and their producers when attempting to deliver the follow-up to a successful Number One. The temptation to try and do it again often leads them to do just that and to produce a re-hashed version of the original. Surprisingly, to me at least, this quite frequently works. Two very successful business writers of my acquaintance merrily acknowledge that they have, in essence, re-presented the core, breakthrough ideas of their original book in the dozen or so they have published since. Does this suggest that the buyers of their books or music may be purchasing on the basis of their personal, idealised construct of the writer or performer rather than on the merits of his or her product? “Have I become an unwitting fan of Jonah Lehrer?” I asked myself. Perhaps I should read no further lest he produce a fourth book and I feel compelled to buy it. I might as well confess at this point that I had also bought his, “Proust was a Neuroscientist”, but have not yet finished reading it. This is beginning to be worrying. Perhaps I am colluding, tacitly encouraging the author to “do it again”.

But perhaps the issue is more interesting and is really about a constant struggle between different sets of neurones as they attempt to deal with massive information overload and battle between the comfort of the known, the familiar and the challenge of the new and the demanding.

Years ago I read a piece on the topic of why dogs look like their owners (or was it why owners look like their dogs?). This suggested that humans are highly adept at creating patterns that establish connections in the mind to provide associations between objects which would otherwise be unconnected. So it is I who determined that Gerald and Spot, the poodle, not only have similar hair styles but almost identical gaits (notwithstanding the fact that Spot has four legs and Gerald only two). I do this, argued the piece, in order to place everything about Gerald within an overall pattern of associations.

If I follow this line of reasoning, my anticipated enjoyment of “Imagine” was determined to a much greater extent by my enjoyment of “the Decisive Moment”, bolstered by a positive review in the “Times”, than by my frustration with “Proust was a Neuroscientist”.

So when Stephen Poole delivered his scathing review in the “Guardian”, the feeling that I experienced was that I was being attacked as much as Lehrer – despite only having read as far as chapter three. Now here is the really worrying bit – I had already begun to form views about the book that are not dissimilar to those of the critic, Stephen Poole. But I have already bought it and want to like it. So the wish is clearly father to the deed – I want the present book to give me as much pleasure as the first. But now I shall approach chapter four with a mind-set that has been significantly modified.

Should I be grateful? Or should I read Damasio’s recent book, “Self Comes to Mind”, both as a challenge and a penance for having become a fan of Lehrer’s scientism?

Or, perhaps more usefully, I should reflect further on some of the less desirable consequences of my being able to obtain a book with one click within sixty seconds of reading a positive review.

At several recent meetings of SoL-UK we have been reminded of the work of Winnicott, the importance of learning through play and the role of transitional objects.

Years ago I was taken by surprise by the finance director of a major multinational who preceded his presentation at the company’s annual management conference by skipping round the stage like a happy four year old. “Isn’t it a shame we don’t do that any more?” he asked before running through the high and low lights of the balance sheet.

I have recently finished reading Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs. I was pleased to discover that far from the current vogue for celebrity hagiography, the book is a fairly unflinching portrait of this brilliant, flawed and not very happy individual. Jobs’ obsessive perfectionism and dismissiveness of anything or anyone he perceived as not meeting what he saw as his own high standards is legendary. So is the brilliance and quality of the products that his company has developed and produced. But two things about him in particular prompted me to write this piece. One was his commitment to developing products that enable people to unlock their own, innate creativity – “people will want to use computers, not learn computing”. The other, is a photograph in the biography showing the intersection of two streets. The names of the streets are something like Technology Highway and Liberal Arts Avenue. The point being that neither street has priority. Jobs made positioning himself at that metaphorical intersection a cornerstone of his personal philosophy.

Thus design and engineering at Apple had to be partners. It was never a case of “either … or”, always one of “both … and”. The ability to fight for and to hang on to this position may have made Jobs a very difficult person to work for and, in the early life of the Mac, nearly brought Apple down and led to his being ousted from it. But he never shifted his position; returned and went on to build one of the most successful businesses the world has known.

Ironically, I read the book on my Kindle. This product might seem to be the antithesis of what Jobs stood for. It is a one trick pony – an e-reader.  But then it depends on how you look at it. As far as I am concerned the Kindle delivers very effectively what I want. Namely, an alternative to humping a bag load of books around with me while still giving me the next best to the real thing. That is, a book or magazine with pages that I can read, turn and highlight, annotate and enjoy. The Kindle version that I have can double up as a web browser, which is a downside since, if I let it, this drains the amazing battery and can prove a distraction. But overall, it does what a book does – opens my mind to stimulation and enables my imagination to take flight should I so wish.

When I was very small (before I could walk) it was wartime and children’s toys were scarce. My father very proudly made me some little wooden vehicles (a bus, a car and a tractor as I recall). He presented them to me as I was playing on the floor with my mother’s saucepans and their lids. I played with the vehicles briefly, to discover just what they were, I suppose. I then incorporated them into my games by putting each one into a different saucepan and then transferring them between the different pans. Apparently this became, to my father’s chagrin, a favourite game and one which I played very happily for hours on end. Why? Because it was my game.

Jobs’ genius was to insist on providing tools that can be explored intuitively, enabling their users to take them wherever they want to go, rather than anticipating what they might wish to do and then providing them with tools that do it for them. Most other builders of i.t. consumer products have gone down the latter path. The electronic gaming industry is but one example. To play their games one has to learn to play by the game makers rules rather than develop one’s own – great fun, no doubt, but less personally creative. My father could not have anticipated my wish to place his carefully constructed vehicles into the saucepans. Had he done so he might have given me a bag of pebbles and put his talents to some use that might have been more satisfying to him (he never went on to make more wooden toys).

I have been an admirer of the work of David Hockney for many years. I have always been impressed by the fact that whatever medium he uses, paintbrush, aerosol can, digital camera etc. the resulting artwork is always instantly recognisable as one of his. I was, therefore, delighted to see in the digital edition of the Times a few days ago, a striking image of a tree he had ‘painted’ using an app (Brush) on an i-Pad.

This is one of the most fitting tributes to Steve Jobs I think I could imagine. It provides a perfect example of how one beautifully designed and engineered product enables the creation of scores of brilliantly conceived applications, one at least of which can stimulate the imagination and creativity of a major artist. Not only that, it’s a product on which I can find apps that I too can play with just as easily as Hockney to do whatever it is that I might happen to wish to do.

One of the things I could do is use it as an e-reader – just like a Kindle. The fact that I happen to prefer the Kindle in providing an alternative to a book is just a personal quirk.

As is the knowledge that I can put them both into a saucepan.

Graham

He reminds us that in our need to present clear solutions and avoid being wrong, we find it difficult to be open to the process of ‘trial and error’.  Unfortunately for us most things are just too complex, interrelated and alive for us to get it right all the time.

The challenge is whether we can allow the necessary flexibility and adaptability into our organisations……..

The informal, café style meeting was opened by Nick Bouras, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry – King’s College London and Chair of the Trust’s Research Advisory Group. Professor Bouras outlined the aims for the event and introduced three initial presentations by Lord David Owen, Daedalus Trustee; Professor John Stein of Magdalen College and Dr John Coates of Judge Business School, Cambridge.

Lord Owen referred to the suggestion, made in an article he co-authored with Jonathan Davidson of Duke University, that what the authors labelled ‘hubris syndrome’ might be considered to be an acquired personality disorder.  Lord Owen also cited research in other areas of neuroscience providing strong indications that, whatever conclusions might be reached regarding hubris syndrome, the questions raised by the concept clearly complex area that calls for serious, interdisciplinary research.

Professor John Stein requested that consideration be given to the development of the human brain in the context of human social evolution.  The neurology underlying possible conditions such as hubris syndrome is itself enormously complex and worthy of discussion with and beyond the neuroscientific community.  Questions needing to be considered include those associated with the fact that people appear to like hubristic leaders and, more generally, with the question as to how reesrch might help us.

Dr John Coates’  research hypothesised that changed levels of both dopamine and testosterone are likely to be associated with changes in behaviour on the part of traders responding to positive or negative market trends and the postitions that they take.  His hypothesis with regard to testosterone was borne out by a study in which he compared the hormone levels and profits and losses of individual traders at regular intervals during several days’ trading.  He cited, as an example, the “Winner Effect” that suggests winning on a first occasion is associated with a rise in levels of testosterone.  This is associated with an increased expectation that the chance of winning for a second time has also risen, encouraging greater risk taking on the part of the trader.  He suggests that our institutional managerial and compensation schemes need to dampen rather than encourage such biologically-driven feedback loops.

Following the introductory presentations each participant was invited to join one of four café tables and to participate with others in addressing a question related to the issues that had been raised.

GROUP A:  RAPPORTEUR – DR PETER GARRARD  What are the most important factors (biological, psychological, social, organizational, cultural) which might exacerbate poor decision-making and increase excessive risk-taking by leaders?

GROUP B: RAPPORTEUR: MR GEOFF MARLOW (SoL-UK Director)  Is hubris associated with particular forms of social organisation? Might some ways of organising increase or decrease the risk of hubris?

GROUP C: RAPPORTEUR: Ms DEBORAH BOOTH What processes (biological, psychological, social, organisational and cultural) might institutions be able to deploy to improve decision-making and decrease excessive risk-taking by leaders?

GROUP D: RAPPORTEUR: DR GRAHAM ROBINSON (SoL-UK Director)  “What are the wider societal and institutional implications of hubristic behaviour in the current social, political and economic climate?”

SoL-UK is pleased to support Daedalus Trust in this work.  We will be providing updates but if you would like further detailed information please go to the Daedalus Trust website.

The diagram we developed has a central ‘core’ which is meant to represent the interaction of the SoL communities based on our collective DNA, supported by a combination of actual and virtual ‘spaces’ for interaction. For example, this includes shared guidelines, rules & ways of belonging, face to face forums, and so on.

The individual SoL communities themselves are represented by green ‘planets’ orbiting the core. These are different shapes to reflect the fact that each community might be quite unique in how it organises based on the local needs.

There are words surrounding the outside (such as Glocal Projects, Subsidiarity Social Good, and Professional Pool with assured credibility) representing some aspects of the whole, but are not ‘mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive’.

While there is a great deal of work to be done to clarify the concepts on the diagram, I believe that this is a significant step forward in the development of what we as a group stand for and how we can move forward.

What better way to start that creating a vision of Global SoL as a Living System.

One of the most interesting discussions was focused on the purpose/vision/aspiration for SoL globally. It resulted in a Statement of Intent which says: ‘We, as the SoL Communities, agree on and/are willing to together create “The Global Association of SoL Communities” to progress towards the vision of a living system enabled by a new non-profit, membership driven, legal entity with a minimum structure.’

The wording of ‘global association of SoL communities’ was to convey that each community has the right to define its own way based on the aspirations, needs and inspirations of the members of that community – and in all likelihood the ‘global association of SoL communities’ will simply be called ‘Global SoL’.

It is important to note that everyone present agreed with the vision of SoL Global as a living system that helps other organisations operate as living systems (rather than a ‘machine for producting dollars.’)

Geoff will comment further on their discussion around ‘The Vision of a Living System’ at a later date.