Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow: The Magic of Neuroscience
I was recently quoted in an article called “Brain Training.” The article is on applying neuroscience to the workplace, and all the great benefits this would bring about.
I was skeptical. My comment was this:
“While it’s certainly possible to gain some improvement in decision making abilities by better understanding how our brains work, I question how significant the improvement will be “in the field.” It strikes me as rather like trying to learn jujitsu or tennis through a detailed study of body mechanics. Will it help? To some degree, but ultimately, if you want to become skilled in those sports you have to get out and practice under the supervision of a good coach.
To the extend that brain sciences can help us develop better training programs, they are a big plus. But they cannot replace practice.”
The author didn’t quite use all of this, but he kept the general point.
Today, I read about a study out of Harvard that found that simply referring to neuroscience as the explanation for a phenomenon increases the likelihood that people will believe the explanation, even when the explanation has no inherent meaning: “the effect is due to frontal lobe circuitry.”
In its own way, it is no more meaningful than the famous line from Doctor Who: “Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!” which Jon Pertwee famously made up after he forgot his technobabble.
And yet, it works. Businesses are spending tons of money using neuroscience to explain employee behavior instead of looking at what’s happening in front of their eyes!
Why are they so convinced that neuroscience will find the answer, and that the answer will then be easy to apply in the office? Must be due to frontal lobe circuitry.
