Wanderer Above the Sea and Fog by Caspar David Friedrich

Changing the Incentives

"Unless we change the incentives, we're not going to move forward."

Bingo.

If I could summarize everything I have written about on my blog - about capitalism, integrity, motivation, faith, consciousness and collaboration - that pretty much sums it up.

Neuron God

By David Flood.  It's feel-good New-Agey religious stuff to open with, but quickly lays out the psychology of faith, pro-social behaviour, etc.  We're seeing these worlds collide increasingly, to good reason; they're one and the same.

Neuroscience and the Mind of Christ

Posted: 12/03/2012 8:50 am

React

AmazingInspiringFunnyScaryHotCrazyImportantWeird

Follow

Christianity , Scripture Commentary , Christianity , forgiveness , Religion and Science ,Scripture Commentary , Apostle Paul , Galatians 5:16-23 , Romans 7:14-23 , Brain Science , Faith And Science , Brain Science , Scripture Study , Religion News

SHARE THIS STORY

15

35

2

Submit this story

I believe in radical grace. I believe in the power of forgiveness and enemy love. But not because I am a naturally peaceful person. I believe it because I have seen the power it has to heal broken lives-- including mine!

But peace and forgiveness are not my natural inclination. When I feel wronged it's like a dark cloud comes over me and all my compassion vanishes. In the middle of that, all I can see is my perspective, all I can think about is defending my rights.

The way of enemy love is not intuitive. The very idea of loving the person you would normally hate is an intentionally provocative idea. But I've seen the profound healing that can come from enemy love, and so I want to follow in that way. I want, as Gandhi said, to "experiment with truth" and put the way of Jesus into practice in my life.

So I start out with baby steps. Practicing forgiveness with little things -- a fight with my wife for example, where we've both, in our anger and frustration, said things that hurt the other. If we're supposed to love our enemies, if Jesus forgave his executioners, can't I at least get over some petty slight? After all, my wife is hardly my "enemy," she's my best friend! So what's going on? Why is it so hard to forgive?

The Apostle Paul speaks of that same struggle. He laments that although he knows the good he should do, he finds that he still does not do it,

"We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature ... For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me." (Romans 7:14-23)

The Greek word sarx which is translated above as "sinful nature" in the NIV is more literally rendered as "the flesh." Paul contrast the "flesh" or "carnal nature" (which is characterized by lust, anger, etc.) with "the way of the Spirit" which, in contrast, is characterized by love,

"So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other ... The acts of the flesh are obvious... But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5:16-23)

So if I desire to walk by the Spirit, why is it that when I'm in the middle of conflict I so quickly revert to that self-focused carnal mind? Questions like these have lead many Christians into a pit of self-doubt and condemnation. What's going on?

I'd like to suggest that new research in neuroscience can give us some really important insights into these questions.

When we are triggered in an argument, feeling flooded and emotionally threatened, this activates the amygdala, which is the part of the brain involved in the processing of raw emotions such as anger and fear. The amygdala is essentially the brain's watchtower, and when it is fired up in alarm mode, it sends out neurochemicals which effectively shut down the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is the part of your brain associated with things like relational connection, empathy, impulse control, self-reflection, moral judgement and conscience -- in short, the part of your brain in charge of what we might call the social-self.

The brain's "shut-down" function has a practical survival function: It means that when we are in danger our brain kicks into alarm mode which can save our life. But it also means that when we get triggered in a argument with a loved one, the smart and compassionate part of our brain is temporarily turned off, which can make us do thoughtless and hurtful things.

So there's a very real reason neurologically that we become so self-focused in a fight. It's not a reflection of our character, so much as it is a kind of brain reflex based on a perceived threat. When we are unaware of this, we can get swept up in those feelings. But once we recognize what is happening, we can address what's going on in our bodies. This involves a two-step process:

The first step is to recognize what is going on in us. The part of our brain in charge of making good judgments has been temporarily shut down by our amygdala. So when Paul writes, "It is no longer I myself who do it" we can now answer: That's exactly right, it's your amygdala. Where we can perhaps nuance Paul's perspective a bit is recognizing that this is not something "evil," rather it's a protective reflex of the brain. This can be life-saving when we are in actual danger, but becomes dysfunctional when emotional reactivity makes us see an "enemy" in a loved one. It's a good thing that is out of balance.

This brings us to the second step: We need to have the maturity and humility to recognize that because we are emotionally triggered, we need time. We might compare this to having the maturity to recognize when you've had too much to drink, and handing over your keys. Similarly, when we're "under the influence" of the amygdala, we need to recognize that the smart and social part of our brain is impaired, and consequently have the maturity so let it wait, to cool down first. After all, as Paul says, forbearance and self-control are part of the fruits of the spirit too!

There's a temptation here to simplify the above equation, focusing on only one of the above two points: Some may want to stress the fact that the "flesh" of emotional reactivity is an involuntary bodily reaction which is not our conscious choice, and therefore argue that it is "not our fault." Others will stress the opposite point, arguing that we need to take charge of our ingrained behavioral patterns and feelings. The reality is that both are true at the same time. We therefore need to have a complex and integrated understanding of how these two seemingly opposed factors work in tandem.

On the one hand, understanding what is going on in our brains means we do not need to beat ourselves up about it. This is our body's unconscious involuntary reaction to feeling emotionally threatened, separated, insecure. Understanding what is going on in us can be comforting and normalizing. These are not bad choices we are making. In fact, they are not choices at all; they are involuntary reactions to a perceived threat. The thinking and social part of our brain has been shut down by our brain's panic center.

We can't help how we feel, but we can learn to mange what we do with those feelings, so we are not driven by emotional reactivity. Simply recognizing that our thinking and social-self is impaired is not enough however. Instead, we need to learn to recognize when we are flooded with reactive emotion, and exercise the maturity, humility and responsibility to wait until we can cool off and think socially again.

Paul tells us that as we walk in this way of the Spirit, that we will be "transformed by the renewing of our minds." Neuroscience confirms that again Paul was on to something big: It's a concept known as neuroplasticity, which refers the brain's ability to change itself based on our experiences. Amazingly, our brain actually structurally changes, based on the input it receives, creating new synaptic linkages and even growing new neurons. This means that, as we learn to engage our thinking and social prefrontal cortex in times of stress, our brain re-wires itself over time to be more naturally compassionate and social, and less driven by our "carnal" reactive emotions.

It's exciting to see new research on the brain verifying what the Apostle Paul saw so long ago. Of course It's never easy to change old patterns, and involves hard work. But hopefully, understanding how our minds work can help us get a little closer to having the "mind of Christ" as we learn to follow in that way.

Derek Flood is the author of Healing the Gospel: A Radical Vision for Grace, Justice and the Cross. Follow Derek on Twitter @theRebelGod.

The Best Innovations Start Free

I

Commercial services soon followed, and though they started life as a free service – because operators hadn't figured out how to charge for them – it was quickly realised there was money to be made from texting as the number rose dramatically.

Texting started off free, and turned out to be quite profitable.  But, again, it started off free.  If the strict profit model had been applied here, we'd never have had texting - it needed to exist first for its value to be proven.  Someone had to take the risk by going pro-social with the service, first. The evolution of Facebook has followed a similar pattern - what starts off as fun, innovative and free becomes commercialized over time as the money people start to smell opportunity, then start to fear loss.

It all goes to show us - innovative value-add isn't tied to capitalism and can therefore exist independent of it.  Capitalism, on other other hand, can only exist where it has innovation to manipulate.  When time was, such was the case with feudalism and entrepreneurialism, too. 

When it becomes solely about profit and related status, personal risk ceases to be desirable; consequences get downloaded to those with less to gain and more to lose, reducing the opportunity for innovation.  Instead, sure things are what get bet on.  In changing times, there's little that's 100% certain - even the buckets one tends to think of as immutable, like natural resources, aren't the cornucopia we often take them for.

Innovation is essential for growth, but it's dependent on vision first, capital second.  Something to think about.

Proactive Mental Health in Ontario

A good start would be proactive care to stop health problems before they become seriously expensive.

Hmm... how do you consciously get ahead of the healthcare challenges crippling our workforce and weighing down both families and provincial fiances today?

Can you create new jobs and improve productivity and innovation through the same process, killing two birds with one stone?

Something to think about, eh?

Communication: People Need Symbols

"For me, The Dark Knight Rises is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol.

 

"He can be anybody, and that was very important to us."

 

Anonymous uses Guy Fawkes, partially to conceal the identity of members but also to create an identifiable brand.  We might think of this and cringe, but symbols are fundamental to the way we view our world.  Flags are symbols.  Uniforms are symbols.  Even letters are symbols, representing intangibles like sound.  Zero represents a concept, nothingness, that doesn't even exist in nature.

 

We communicate the world we live in through metaphor - images painted on cave walls, languages, parables, art are all expressions of the world as we interpret it - not as the world is in and of itself.  Like any telephone game, layers and personal experiences get added to the expression of what is over time until the metaphor we communicate is something entirely different than the thing it represents.  Thus, bridges have gender, ideologies are understood as uniform blocks, The Other is separate from ourselves. 

 

The invention and use of symbols is a powerful tool - essentially, the building block of communication.  Through symbols, we can record information across time, we can teach, we can conceptualize, plan, build, etc, but it equally creates a filter between the world we are a part of and the world we comprehend in our heads.  Call it a prison for your mind.

 

Cultures around the world have identified this concept, through metaphor, and have equally proposed solutions, which in turn become wrapped in metaphor.  We like to focus on the ever-expanding differences, but here's the thing - when you get passed the telephone-game of social adaptation, you find core concepts and symbols that are truly universal in nature, like the tree, the snake or the circle.

 

The differences aren't a bad thing - they add diversity, complexity and through co-morbidity, opportunity.  It's social evolution, an exact mirror of what happens with biological evolution.  It pays, though, to always stay grounded in where the diversity stems from.  The predecessor of symbolism, that nebulous Centre, is the emotional starting point of our communication big bang.  From the centre stem all things; therefore, from the centre, all things can be unravelled, understood and rebuilt.

 

Those of us yearning for a connection with something greater than ourselves, meaning to life, etc. and look for an external diety or an external paradise are caught in a cycle of conceptualization.  The answers we seek aren't boxed definitions at all, but rather the absence thereof. 

Meaning is not found without; it's felt from within.  Those who become too enchanted by symbols lose the opportunity to divine the understanding they can otherwise unlock.

Are Our Public Services At Risk?

 

“The value we bring to society is tremendous and we will continue to risk much for our cities and neighbourhoods. I dislike being in a position where I am defending our bargaining system in a public format,” he said.

 

This past week, a new addition was welcomed to our family; the professional medical care we received was top-notch, surpassed only by the human connection and empathy of the doctors, nurses and other specialists we encountered.  There was one surprise, though - on the Labour and Delivery floor walked a couple of penny-pinchers in suits carrying clipboards, looking over the medical staff's shoulders and discouraging supply use wherever possible.  The professionals we dealt with referred often to the pressure being placed on them to move patients out of the system as quickly as possible to reduce cost to the overall system. 

 

It's a theme I have come across many times in the past year or so - police officers confessing to personal and system strain due to an insufficient number of officers on patrol; obstetricians frustrated at the score of stories being circulated about the use of cosmetic Cesarean Sections, which is not reflective of their patient experiences at all; front-line service providers ranging from teachers to phone operators saying they need to put their foot down somewhere, because what is being demanded of them isn't long-term sustainable.

 

The arguments surfacing are all about money - the Political Right will decry well-heeled public servants living high of the taxpayer hog, due mostly to union interference.  The easy answer goes like this - kill the unions, roll back the extravagant wages and benefits of these police officers, paramedics, fire fighters, nurses, doctors, water inspectors, teachers, etc. and let the free market determine what their services are truly worth.  But truly, can you put a dollar value on preemptive social care?

 

I have also come across public servants who felt constrained from doing their work by the nature of the system in place.  When I was hit a number of months ago by a negligent driver, the officer who ended up with my case actively discouraged me from seeking justice, saying it would be a waste of time; he'd been through the ringer on similar cases countless times.  He sounded downright defeatist and professed a disturbing lack of faith in our justice system, seeing as how he was part of that system.  That wasn't the first or last time I have encountered front-line service providers who feel their efforts are often futile. 

 

It almost becomes a vicious circle - instead of serving a noble cause, front-line service providers come to accept they haven't enough fingers to plug all the holes in the dyke and instead look at their job as a pay cheque and try to get what they can from it; that's the trend being set up and down the social scale, after all.  As the economic watering hole shrinks, the haves are shoring up their interests at the expense of the have-nots who are beginning to believe that the cards are stacked against them.  It's wholly disheartening.

 

The same holds true for politics; the Party of Transparency has become as opaque as any in Canada's history, while the odd slip of a story of entitlement or cronyism, or perhaps down-right corruption, creeps through to an already-preoccupied public consciousness.  People are loosing faith in our public system; instead of the complete collapse that threatens in Greece, we instead face democratic death by a thousand cuts.  The pragmatic are hedging their bets and turning elsewhere than the polling booth to exert their influence and keep trouble from lapping at their shores.

 

Penny-pinching, service-hoarding, self-interest trumping social contributions - it's all very tragedy of the commons, all very feudal.  But it doesn't have to be that way.  The best public servants aren't in it for the money; it does a disservice to their contributions to think otherwise.  It's true that, given meaningful work, some food and regular acknowledgement, volunteers will work endless hours willingly on causes they believe.  The same can be true of public sector employees - if we provide decent wages and benefits, get that part out of the way, then add value to their work experience and provide the best environments for them to work in, we can motivate a whole new level of commitment, contribution, productivity and even innovation.

 

But we have to take a leap of faith to try this model out - there are few templates to follow.

 

I look at the emerging trends, then I look at the bright new face that greats me every day - and I wonder what sort of society he will inherit.  I hope that it will be a strong one.  That, after all, is what Canada should be about.