I’ve finally cracked Epistemology: Finding straightforward literature which resonated with me helped greatly. Epistemology is basically about what information you think is adequate and legitimate and I finally grasped that my own epistemological stance was blocking my way forward on this topic: I had been looking for an objective definition of each ‘…ism’ and I realised that this topic is actually quite subjective. Crotty says that there are numerous methods and methodologies and that terminology is inconsistently used and defined – what a light bulb moment. In essence the muddle is how it is and there is no one consistent definition for each “..ism” because it is being treated very subjectively – as long as you can state your case it seems to goes. For example, Constructionalism and Constructivism appear the same in some texts and different in others. Crotty’s Constructionalism overlaps Objectivism and Subjectivism, concluding things are a blend of fact and opinion. 

Realising the muddle was ok and I didn’t have to look for a Holy Grail was a liberation: I just needed to pick the ones to underpin my research. So now instead of ending up confused and fraught (which you may be after having just read that section) I’m just going with Crotty’s Constructionalism, as having to choose between being totally Objective or Subjective hadn’t sat well with me so finding something that blends them was a relief. Also, if there’s one thing I understand about Neuroscience at the moment, it is that it’s full of interpretation and in many cases, it can only be constructed, although hopefully it’s doing that using objective research.

So, Epistemology worked on, now time for my Theoretical Perspective which drives your research methodology and is about how you look at the world and make sense of things. Again, it seemed that the main options were quite compartmentalised – now I know why interdisciplinary research is hard work. So, digging further I unearthed Critical Realism. One author has it at the ‘facts might be tainted by research bias’ end of Post-positivism and another author has it at the ‘some things are much more fact based’ end of Interpretivism – perfect. So, I am deciding it is where the two overlap as both definitions are similar: ‘Whilst science can attempt to describe the world factually, that within doing so the researcher brings their own biases and interpretations. Therefore, things can only be known within the bounds of probability.’ Worth keeping in mind when you are reading neuroscience articles.

Having started out by wondering ‘what is the value in doing all this epistemology stuff’, I have discovered that it has helped me become more realistic about the nature of the information I am gathering and creating. And being blocked by my own epistemological bias made me realise that even when you think you clock your own biases that all you actually do is uncover the next layer and there is another one below waiting for you to discover in the future. Tara Swart talking on ‘Neuroscience and Nationalism’ has hope that our ‘in/out group’ biases can be changed, although to date they have been useful for our survival so will changing that be useful or not to our future? Interestingly, I read in Cozolino’s latest book that oxytocin is positively corelated with in-group biases so I wonder how far you can stretch that ‘in-group’ definition.

I think a big part of a doctorate is about making you find your own solid ground and being congruent with your reasons for that. One of the outcomes from this is that I am finding I am much more comfortable with asking people what is behind the question they just asked before I answer it. That has been quite an eye opener as their answers are often different to what I had assumed. That has affected how I have answered the question and, in many cases, how congruent I have been in my answer.

As I have been writing this blog, it’s also made me ponder on some of the realities around coaching. One thought that came to mind was the comment about leaving our biases outside the coaching room. I think the reality is probably closer to, we can do that to some extent although we can only ever be biased. Given we have all had different experiences, and these affect our neural pathways, we can only see things through our own perspective. We can attempt to look at it through others’ eyes, but ultimately, we can never truly do that and being more honest about that could be in service of our coaching.

We also talk about helping clients ‘reach their full potential’ but I wonder who’s ‘full potential’ we are talking about or what we mean by that. I feel that many clients would be happy with just properly embedding the things they want to work on, to improve or deal with their situation. Maybe in many cases the role of coaching is about helping clients to navigate their life now, much of which they didn’t have to handle in their upbringing. Given that much of the brain development happens in our childhood, Cozolino suggests the role of a therapist is akin to that of a parent, in aiding the person to purposefully adapt their neural pathways and make changes. His is also the first book I have read where it seems that the neuroscience is going to be in service of the topic in a meaningful way.

In his video “Nothing magical about consciousness!” Stanislas Dehaene similarly talks about how non-conscious processing influences our actions. It is also a good demonstration of how the same words are used to mean different things: I wonder how many articles on consciousness are really on conscious access? I’m sure that’s nothing to do with gaining reading figures! He mentions how new technology has enhanced neuroscience research and this includes wearable brain scanners which could be a game changer.

The layer below the hype is worth getting to.

Is it really a month ago since I did the last blog? I suppose that means a lot must have been happening. Not quite so much on the neuroscience side as I have been working hard to get my resubmission sorted but I am reading (trying) Damasio’s latest book ‘Self comes to mind’. I definitely think I have learned more about human nature and behaviour through reading these types of books than any ‘Neuroscience for ...’ book. I find the neuroscience elements go in subliminally as they are often being used and I don’t feel anxious that I need to know all that stuff. Anyway I have a proper textbook for that if I need it.

Let me give you a few themes from the book:

Simple cells, in order to survive, must be able to detect internal and external changes. They must have a response policy for these and be able to act to avoid the threat. The response policy needs to have conditions which if met trigger a movement as the simple cell does not ‘think’. It appears as if the cells act with intention but they don’t. They are just doing what they do which all adds up to a lot. Brains evolved to make this more effective and varied, so they can ‘sense, decide and act’.

The basic intention of the organism’s design is to maintain structure with the overarching purpose to survive so genes can be reproduced. (Easy to forget when life seems to be about which mobile phone or App to buy.) Therefore incentive mechanisms are needed for guidance, so chemicals are released to signal good things (dopamine, oxytocin) or threats (cortisol , Prolactin) to optimise behaviour towards or away from. However, if you have senses you have far more information on the external situation. Therefore, we have developed beyond mere survival to having certain ranges of well-being.

He’s also big on the brain making maps; maps of everything. Brains are constantly up dating their map of the body so it knows that it’s ok or whether it has to do something to get in back within that tight range of requirements needed for survival. He also suggests that event maps make up our memories. He feels that it is more efficient to store ways of recreating maps than every detail of a memory. In essence, the map retriggers the detail of that event within us. There certainly seems to be a lot of evidence that there is neural firing similar to the original event, which happens when we recall it. This can mean that if a memory gets triggered in some way – of which there are many – then a response happens whether we like it or not. Depending on its strength and our abilities to control it, it may undermine what we are doing at that moment. Sometimes we will know this is happening (typically from explicit memories) and sometimes we just know how we feel, and assume that the current situation is making us feel that way (usually from implicit memories). Useful to know when the other person acts ‘irrationally’.

He talks about how we might learn due to mirror neurons. These mimic in our brain what we see others doing. This means we encode how to do things and may be partly how we learn so many things as we grow up.  He talks about how if we have encoded it through mirror neurons then we can act it out as required. It makes me think in coaching that maybe I might need to do more real-plays of situations that my coachees want to handle so that they have a memory of doing it. In essence it puts it in their system. I wonder if this is why visualisation has an effect. Seems like a topic that could have more relevance once further explored and understood, so maybe one to look out for.

The saga of my panel has continued and it has been interesting to notice how I have been going through the change curve and what has helped that. It definitely helped to know that I have passed, although the conditions I need to meet are as stringent as I’d feared. Knowing was a mixed blessing as it rekindled some of the emotions but at I least understood the size of the task. Later that week we met as a group and it was helpful to talk about it. Partly it ‘normalised’ the experience and partly it enabled me to explore my options going forward. I also untangled what I felt I could have done differently, from the situation’s dynamic. This certainly helped me think more rationally and tempered the emotional response. I read in LaDoux that the emotional response is about creating action to re-stabilise the system and that once that action happens, the inhibitory neurons are fired to turn off the fight/ flight response. So the act of creating a response quenches what initiate it.

Another week passed until I spoke with my Advisor about the conditions, so I started by tackling the obvious ones. Doing one thing helped me to think clearer and then another condition made more sense, so I started working on that as well. Then I understood another, so by the time I spoke with my Advisor I had sent through my plan for addressing 5/6 of the conditions.

One useful outcome is that I now feel even more certain that my research method is well chosen as I have had to put up a stronger defence of it. Martin Seligman in ‘Authentic Happiness’ says that people move on when they can make something ‘good’ out of the situation, no matter how small. I’d go with that. And although begrudgingly at first, I have got to ‘acceptance’ on the change curve mainly because I have separated what I feel is inexcusable behaviour from the extra thinking the conditions have made me do. Now I can handle the two things independently.