Neuro-Talk Sucks You In

Brains on Purpose illustrates a trend in popular science writing--mention the interaction with brain chemistry or structure and whatever you're writing increases in legitimacy and clout.

It also popularizes topics that might slip past public notice. Since I work in dispute resolution, I'm constantly hearing the mournful cry of "Why don't people use dispute resolution services more?" As in why don't mediators/facilitators/arbitrators building their practice get more business.

The blog's review of the Harvard Business Review article Investigative Negotiation by Deepak Malhotra and Max H. Bazerman highlights the strengths of questioning techniques that are the backbone of interest-based negotiation. Bazerman knows what he's talking about--he's been writing and teaching on the psychology of negotiation and judgment for years at Harvard Business School.

The articles main points repackage interest-based negotiation:

• 
  

Ask why the other side wants what it wants. (Note: I discourage the use of "why" questions and use other inquiries to uncover the reasons.)

Mitigate the other party’s constraints.

Interpret demands as opportunities.

Create common ground with adversaries.

Investigate even if the deal seems lost.

• 
  

Essentially, to negotiate well ask questions to uncover information that can lead opportunities for a deal. This is a nice catch phrase but within the field it is not necessary new content. Well researched and helpful certainly, but not new.

But watch how Brains on Purpose links our fascination with brains with an established theory:

The brain likes to be creatively engaged. Creative and thoughtful engagement lessens stress and fear, and therefore can lead to better ideas. An activity important to conflict resolution, and an activity of creative engagement, is questioning. Our brains like to formulate and answer questions.

The brain likes to be a detective and the detective work helps in negotiation. The authors of the Harvard Business Review article "Investigative Negotiation" say, "The best way to get what you’re after in a negotiation—sometimes the only way—is to approach the situation the way a detective approaches a crime scene." The brain gives that statement a high five.

BonP's focus is the interaction between conflict resolution and neuroscience. Authors Stephanie West Allen and Jeffrey Schwartz write very thoughtful posts with good sourcing. They've tapped public interest in the mind and recognize the risks of the fascination of "neuro-talk."

Neuro-talk is what we call use of the science to create misleading brain myths or make ungrounded leaps from the research to unjustifiable conclusions.

How much of a link is there between the hardware (brain) and the software (what we do with our brain) when it comes to negotiation? Psychology is drawing more on hard science data certainly, but what's at risk by an overemphasis on neurology? What other research areas are overlooked when we become saturated in one aspect of a multifaceted discipline?

Too much reliance on one form of insight parallels the anxiety in the dispute resolution field that only certain professional roles (i.e. lawyers) are truly qualified to do the work. The interdisciplinary nature of the field is our challenge to a unified identity but also why what we do will survive. Being able to integrate diverse backgrounds allows adaptation. Neuroscience's role in understanding conflict resolution draws the interest of new constituencies but we should keep our ears tuned to chorus of research areas to enhance our understanding.