I understand and share Bill’s excitement for what we are learning about the brain and how it can inform and strengthen the design and conduct of collaborative processes including Design Thinking. I am so grateful Bill and David offered this exchange. I have organized comments by note page.

Introductory comment: I am familiar with David Rock’s synthesis of the work of multiple neuroscientists and I am also familiar with the research findings of other brain scientists and social psychologists that complement or come to differing conclusions than Rock. The explosion of research in brain sciences since the creation of functional magnetic resonance imaging and other technologies has created a plethora of information, some of it with conflicting conclusions. (I am open to the possibility that I might have misunderstood what you said, Bill!)

Why humans get triggered emotionally?

Because the brain evolved to keep us alive, it is always on alert to notice what is or appears to be a threat to our safety/survival. I think of the triggering/ emotional hijacking process as one in which we have less access to the important functions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) so we are less able to make conscious choices and are driven by the more primitive parts of the brain. I.E., we go into habitual and instinctive self-protection and we have less access to the functions of the PFC. I believe that emotional hijacking is the source of “cognitive hijacking” which is instrumental to confirmation bias, loss aversion and a decreased inability to tolerate cognitive dissonance.

Rock’s SCARF model

This model is so helpful and I like Bill’s succinct wording for each element, e.g., Status relates to “my importance.” In my book “Talk Matters!” I explore each element of this model and how it can be threatened in group/collaborative processes. I also describe how to prevent these threats in the design and conduct of same.

I was struck by the truth of Kristine’s comment that all of these dimensions are threatened in most kids in school and by Marco’s that organizational hierarchies threaten these too. Important to consider how the very processes we use (let along the content) can threaten what people hold “sacred” or their beliefs/mental models. Using the SCARF model to test organizational structure (and culture!) is a terrific idea.

Question of insights

I think it is more accurate to think about how to “relax” the PFC than to shut it off. The latter is not possible unless it is injured in some way. And, the PFC is critical to convergent AND divergent thinking as well as managing the impulsive behaviors that are bound to occur when tackling divergent problems. Because the brain craves certainty/predictability, we need the PFC to help us make conscious choices about how to manage the triggering and reactive behaviors that are bound to occur.

Yes, yes, yes. We need convergent and divergent thinking for “satisfycing.” Interesting how these different forms of thinking also correlate with Myers Briggs Type Indicator profiles.

It is, I believe, more accurate and helpful to note how mindfulness practices help us do “whole brain” thinking rather than thinking in terms of either convergent or divergent; or Type 1 or 2. The works of Daniel J. Siegel, Daniel Goleman, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Eugene Gendlin, and Russell Delman, et al, point towards and can enable a wholistic experiencing through which insights emerge through and with our body sensations, thoughts, feelings and the environment in which we are operating. It is using what Rock calls the default mode and direct experiencing simultaneously.

Mindfulness practice also does two important things related to this conversation. First, it strengthens the networks between the PFC and the rest of the brain enabling us to notice before or early in the process of being triggered so we can do something about it. In other words, mindfulness practice gives us something nature did not: the ability to notice and prevent or manage emotional and cognitive hijacking. Second, when we practice mindfulness the amygdala becomes quieter, less reactive so we are less likely to get triggered or hijacked in the first place!

David, I love the way you integrated other models into this conversation and the nod to Interaction Associates “canonical diagram.”

What is witchcraft?

In addition to visual frames drawing in content from everyone and helping people get out of current realities, visual frames help people feel safer, less defensive and more able engage in both convergent and divergent thinking. It seems that when we make the process more explicit and “certain” (even though it will likely change), people are less anxious and better able to swim in the unknown waters of engaging constructively with uncertain content (i.e., divergent problems with no known solutions).

As you might have noticed, I am passionate about this Exchange! Again, thanks Bill and David for opening the conversation. Perhaps we could collaborate on one that delves into more of the specifics on how brain science and the impact of mindfulness on it can help us design and conduct collaborative processes (like Design Thinking) with diverse stakeholders (racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, ideology, age). This adds another layer of potential threat for people.