What is the role of behaviour change in business?

Why should your business consider behaviour change? What good will it actually do? There are a number of reasons for changing staff behaviour, but I am only going to focus on one today. Energy.

Energy is a stunningly unscientific concept that is not even defined by psychologists. We have a very vague vocabulary about it in modern english - we talk about low energy, apathy, lethargy, tiredness, sluggishness or, conversely, high energy, excitement, motivation, passion. But these things mean different things to different people. The ancient Greeks had a wonderful word for this - they called it Kratos which translates roughly (though not exactly) to power. Power is the energy which which we take on the world.

If you’ve ever worked anywhere, ever, you’ll know that many jobs these days are devoid of the immediate satisfaction of the more “fun” activities like gardening, reading, woodworking etc... that we fill our free time with. We tend to lack power. We get through the day, splitting our energy hither and thither, pulled in a million different directions. This is largely a product of a bad work environment which are often ill conceived to deal with these demands.

One of the goals of a behaviour change intervention could be to address this energy dispersal issue. Consider your own daily routine. Imagine yourself as a nexus point of energy, like a star burning all it’s energy out in 360 degree circumference. Your energy is strong in the aggregate but diffuse on a project-by-project basis. Each demand on your time takes more energy just to keep at bay, you might progress a little but at the end of the day, burnt out, hollow, you struggle home and collapse, no real work done - or so it seems.

Your energy of course, is finite, just like a star. You have only so much fuel before you are all burned out. A bad work environment often encourages people to act like stars - in a bad way. We expect people to burn in every direction. Multi-tasking is king and yes-men are given pride of place. A person tackling six projects is, on the surface, more capable than someone handling, three or two.

If you’ll indulge me I’ll stretch this example on a bit further - the nature of light and heat is such that it is weakest when dispersed. It has a physical nature and cannot be multiplied out without a loss of power. So too can we say of a person there Kratos - or power, or energy - cannot be forever stretched whilst expecting it to maintain it’s potency. Instead, consider what happens to light and heat when we focus it; have you ever heard of laser?

A laser is focused light and heat. It travels much further than diffuse light and heat does and is incomparably more powerful. To cut a piece of metal we don’t leave a light bulb hanging over it, we focus the light and heat and slice right through it. A good work environment will encourage people to focus, laser like, their Kratos, and cut through projects that are essential to achieve their goals. Efficiency standards rise, well being rises, and everyone is better off for it.

There are far too many behavioural interventions to go through in this blog post but if you have any questions or want to discuss how you can encourage your employees to become more like lasers and less like light bulbs you can contact us at the Wales Centre for Behaviour Change for a free consultation if you are in the Wales Convergence Zone (www.behaviourscience.org).

What can you learn from Trofim Lysenko?

Trofim Lysenko was the Director of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the 1930s under Josef Stalin.  He was a fierce critic of modern genetic theory, and instead advocated the theory that characteristics acquired by plants during their lives could be inherited by later generations stemming from the changed plants. In other words, if you grafted a branch from one tree onto another, the offspring of that tree would have the hybrid properties of the two trees. Similarly, if you, for example, pulled all the leaves off a shrub it’s descendants would be similarly leafless. A fascinating, internally logical, and very intuitive theory. Unfortunately, it was complete nonsense.

At this time in scientific theory Mendelian genetics had been accepted by the broader scientific community. Mendelian inheritance - the core of this genetics theory - was initially introduced in the work of Gregor Mendel published in 1865 and 1866 and was then rediscovered (as it were) in the early 1900’s. It was initially very controversial as most paradigm shifts in science are, but when the theories were integrated with those of Thomas Morgan in 1915, they became the beginning of what we now know as modern genetic theory.

So, we must ask our self, why did Lysenko receive the attention he did? 20 years after the foundations of genetics had been laid bare for the scientific community Lysenko, a peasant farmer, rose to prominence in the USSR by flatly contradicting what most scientists took as writ. The answer, as I have discussed before, lies in political bias.

Lenin, a monster by all accounts, also introduced the term “politically correct”, meaning of course that the standards of truth were variable and ultimately politically malleable. Something was true if the party decreed it. This was the first, central idea of the communist regime; the State was God.

Second, a popular idea in Marxist ideology is that man is, in his entirety, a product of his class and social environment. Although there is some truth to the notion that we are products of our environment and upbringing our propensity to be reinforced by our environment is a product of our genetic makeup. Marxist intellectuals, however, did not wish to allow people the freedom (as it were) to naturally select their own behaviour, instead a man must be entirely at the whim of his environment.The idea was simple. if they could force people to adopt the moral and practical applications of socialism then the offspring of those first generation would be genetically predisposed to such collectivisation and subjugation at the hand of the state. A beautiful theory, and very appealing to Marxist leaders who, privately, must have realised the difficulty (or impossibility, as we now know)  in maintaining their world indefinitely.

So what has this little trip down history lane have to do with behaviour change and modern psychology? Well modern psychology has been broadly lucky. We have not been subject to the political pressures some modern sciences have (i’m thinking climate science). We are under little pressure, as it were, to agree with modern intellectuals and prop up ailing philosophical movements.

Except there is one aspect of modern psychology that IS under this pressure.

In a sense, it is our Original Sin, our ultimate flaw. You see - as you may have heard - we are unfailingly irrational. Much like the area of climate change (and all it’s difficulties and judgements) has been seized upon by political opportunists on both the left and right so too has the idea that we are (now famously) “Predictably Irrational”.

Yes, we are flawed. To the core. We are incapable of making rational decisions and, as such, must be hand-walked through life by our benevolent leaders. It’s the vogue idea of the radical political leaders who, with apparent benevolence, wish only to relieve us of the burden of freedom. I’ve talked about this before so I won’t dwell, but consider how Lysenkoism may inform this interesting leap to irrationality.

It’s patently clear that we are not predictably irrational - not only does our social, economic, political and environmental world withstand the day to day activity of billions of people who (apparently) should be making irrational decisions, but when you actually look at these experiments (and I have) you find results that say something along the lines of “46% made the wrong choice”. An alarmingly high number, perhaps, but let us not forget 54% chose correctly. Are we supposed to write them off? Why did they choose correctly and the others didn’t?

I propose that we are not definitively doomed to make illogical choices, but are in fact capable of learning how to make rational decisions - we may learn rationality (an idea common in the time of Plato and Aristotle, but apparently forgotten today).

Yet I ask, have you ever tried to convince a psychologist of this? Our political leaders have seemingly decided that their constituents are morons (Gordon Brown calling a woman bigoted, the way Labour Party allow self serving unions to dictate terms to workers, the way Conservatives seem chronically incapable of listening to constituent complaints) and so have lapped up (as a post hoc rationalisation) the idea that we are predictably irrational. It may not surprise you that funding is directed towards those who can - in novel and interesting ways - show why people are incapable of living on their own and need a new social program to help them.

Lysenkoism is still alive in many ways, more as a methodology than a specific idea. Psychologists are pressured to continue lines of research that reinforce the politically correct opinion that people are incapable of making appropriate choices and that the solutions are almost always expansions of government provisions in some way. To suggest the alternative is to be labelled a denier, an extremist or - shock - a Libertarian!

Obviously not all psychologists, funders or politicians are corrupt or malicious. We are all doing the best we can with what we have. I am not saying there is a direct - soviet style - conspiracy to cover up the truth, merely the interaction of conflicting interests between the slave and the master (or, if you prefer, the beggar and the purse-holder). I’d caution you, in whatever line of work you partake, to keep an eye out for Lysenkoism. Never accept a truth, simply because the authority above you has said it. Be critical, skeptical and active-minded and you won’t go far wrong.

Old World Blues

I don’t consider myself a massive gamer. I’ve owned a playstation since the 90’s however and have many fond memories of playing those earlier games, and enjoying the subsequent developments in technology... As I say I am not a massive gamer; I don’t own a headset, I don’t spend my weekends “pwning n00bs” on “CoD” (if that confuses don’t worry... you don’t need to know...), and I don’t queue up to get the latest tech (nearly a decade into it’s life cycle I’ve only just recently bought a PS3).

However, there are a couple of games that, through the ages, have kept my attention either through some accident of association or because the story or gameplay has been spectacular. Two such games from more recent times have been Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas. If those names mean nothing to you, let me hand you over to the capable hands of wikipedia to provide an explanation:

Fallout 3 takes place in the year 2277, 36 years after the setting of Fallout 2 and 200 years after the nuclear apocalypse that devastated the game's world in a future where international conflicts between the United States and China culminated in a Sino-American war in 2077, due to the scarcity of petroleum reserves that ran the economies of both countries. The player character is an inhabitant of Vault 101, a survival shelter designed to protect up to 1,000 humans from the nuclear fallout. When the player character's father disappears under mysterious circumstances, the Overseer, or the leader of the vault, initiates martial law, and sends security forces after the player, who is forced to escape from the Vault and journey into the ruins of Washington, D.C. to track him down. Along the way the player is assisted by a number of human survivors and must battle a myriad of enemies that inhabit the area now known as the "Capital Wasteland".

Whereas Fallout: New Vegas:

[...] is based in a post-apocalyptic, open world environment around the area of Nevada, California, and Arizona. The player takes control of the character known as the Courier, who is hired by a delivery service to take an unknown package across the Mojave Desert to Las Vegas Strip but is intercepted, shot in the head, and left for dead by a mysterious man who steals the package. After being found by a friendly local robot, Victor, and healed by a man named Doc Mitchell, the Courier is thrust back into the desert to seek revenge and recover the stolen package. By doing this, the player becomes caught between various factions competing for control over the desert and its most valuable asset, the Hoover Dam, ultimately coming to shape the future of its inhabitants.

Why am I telling you about this? Well I am getting there...be patient.

These games are some of the most compelling, interesting, and thought-provoking games I have ever played. The dry humour and sometimes devastating emotional impact combined with excellent story progression and replay value like nothing else make it worth the price in and of itself.

I was playing Fallout: New Vegas last night, in fact, and had completed one of the Downloadable Content packages called Old World Blues. Now, before I carry on, one of things that is really quite disturbing about the series is the constant reference to nostalgia. Despite total annihilation and utter destruction there is almost a pathetic, desperate attempt by many of the inhabitants of this world to preserve the old way of life and bring back the 50’s style life of the former civilisation.

Completing Old World Blues I was struck by the message of it all; don’t cling to the past to the exclusion of the future. Don’t spend your life trying to resurrect some golden age, instead appreciate what you have now and look to the future to develop something new.

What does this mean for us? Well it’s not my usual pure-behaviour screed, so forgive me a moment of philosophical postulation. I wanted to share with you a sentiment that I felt very strongly from this game. Many characters are practically driven mad, driven to do unspeakable things, in the name of resurrecting a lost and fatally flawed (read; trigger happy) culture. Now we aren’t nearly so bad in our own lives or indeed in our national lives, but consider the implications.

There is always a desire to return to what we perceived to work before. Many politicians in the UK seem to suggest policies that were first put in place in the 1950’s, a wholly different context. Or indeed there is a case of rose tinted glasses. Under state control the trains in the UK were not managed effectively or efficiently, there was chronic under investment and poor service all around. Partial privatisation has led to a massive increase in quality and service provision, but there is still some who nostalgically long for the days of state control.

Under times of stress there is a tendency for many adults to desire regression to a childlike state - something Freud spoke about at length. We also tend to look backward fondly e.g. “when I was a child it was perfectly safe to play outside, nowadays...” and so on.

I suggest we give up looking to the past in an attempt to restore the golden age that never was, and instead look to the future. Analyse the culture we live in and the lives we each, individually live, and say what works, and what doesn’t, and be done with the what doesn’t and work on what does. We can only gain from such an exercise, and maybe - in the words of the Fallout narrator - we can swap out our Old World Blues for some New World Hope.

Wouldn’t that be something?

Changes in Shopping Behaviour.

First things;

I apologise for being absent for so long! Life caught up with me. I can't promise I'll be regularly posting over the near future because I am incredibly busy but I will be trying!

On to the blog post...

The economic downturn that has so plagued western civilisation these past 5 or so years is finally, painfully, slowly receding and ordinary folks are starting to feel a bit of extra change weighing down their wallets.

The extra money is a welcome relief for many, the sharp rise in prices for things like food and petrol have really stung people and it’s nice to see them slow - if not stop - for a while. Now as a behavioural psychologist I’m always interested to see how changes in an environment - both social and physical - and how that impacts behaviour. Looking back over the economic downturn there has been one area where behaviour has dramatically (and possibly permanently) changed; shopping behaviour.

First a bit of history (within my lifetime...) on shopping habits in the UK; incidentally this is completely unscientific and totally anecdotal. To counter this I offer some caveats; my family are typical, Northern middle class. We were not poor, nor were we particularly well off. My mom was not a North London suburbanite spending £250 a week on Waitrose special pate, nor were we scraping by to get food on the table. We were just sort of... in the middle. So I like to think that my experience was fairly typical.

When I was young I remember going to two supermarkets; Tesco and Sainsbury’s. Waitrose, the granddaddy of upper-class shopping experience had not bothered to open a store in the North, as the London-based company no doubt considers us far too impoverished (Northern Pride moment over...). Sainsbury’s was always nicer to me, but according to my mum “too expensive”. Tesco was considered just right. ASDA (our Walmart) was not considered an option as it was generally agreed the quality wasn’t as good for the savings. At the bottom of the pile was Aldi, Lidl and Netto (the latter being now defunct). It was not considered proper to go to these shops and I genuinely think it never occurred to many middle earners to go.

That was in the 90’s. Fast forward to 2009 and there is a wholly different feeling among the savvy shoppers of middle England and beyond. Tesco is overpriced, Sainsbury’s is too fancy (and way too expensive), Waitrose is “for posh southerners”, and ASDA is becoming a bit more acceptable, but the real difference has been in the verbal and physical behaviour levelled at Aldi and Lidl. No longer are they considered obscure, lower class continental supermarkets with poor quality food and factory-rejects. They are now chic, stylish, and a mark of a savvy shopper. Among the shoppers can now be seen more of the “AB” class - what normal people call middle class - shopping alongside the people from generally deprived socio-economic categories.

What can explain this? My own two cents on the issue is that when public opinion shifted away from the spend and spend model of government characterised by the neoliberalism of Tony Blair’s New Labour government and towards the more traditional austerity mindset associated with Conservatives public attitude towards affluent spending also shifted. We were poorer in terms of inflation and wage depression, prices rose at an out of control rate and all of a sudden the Tesco shop that one week was £90 suddenly because £150 or more. Further people started to question the quality of what they were buying. Was this bread really worth £1.20?

A money-saving mindset emerged. Cool was no longer being a yuppie and flashing your cash around on conspicuous purchases it became “the thing to do” to save money and appear frugal. It was no longer reinforcing, in other words, to pay £5 for some scottish smoked salmon. But here’s the rub; supermarkets didn’t catch on quick enough to this, expecting their hegemonic control of food distribution in the UK to be relatively unchallenged since people (before 2009) wouldn’t generally stomach the low end shops.

Unfortunately for the supermarkets (and fortunately for us, the consumer) Aldi and Lidl started to aggressively market themselves as the equal-but-cheaper alternative. Their products, they claimed, were as good if not better than the “big four” but were sometimes more than half the price. When people saw £3 bottles of wine being declared some of the best in the world, and high end products like aged cheese and meats reduced to bargain prices without skimping on quality a shift occurred. The favourable social environment towards personal money saving efforts along with the very tangible reinforcement of more money in the bank account the setting was ripe for a shift in consumer behaviour.

I know plenty of people - including some very well to do people - who proudly and unashamedly shop almost exclusively at Lidl and Aldi and will tell anyone they can that Serrano Ham is only £1.50 a pack.

My own change in behaviour has been quite strong. I am a typical, bargain hunting young adult. I haven’t the cash to flash around at Waitrose, nor even Tesco (who routinely punish me for bothering to grace their doorstep). For the last three years my main supermarket has been Morrisons, a sort of middle of the road shop. However recently I have shifted almost completely to Aldi. For a comparison in terms of prices me and my girlfriend spend about £70 a week on food, I did a comparable shop at Aldi and found I spent only £30! That is a significant saving. Obviously results may vary depending on what you buy or how large your family is.

Consider, finally, that the time is right to support this kind of behaviour change. There is a strong, supportive verbal community and immediate reinforcing contingencies associated with it.

**Disclaimer; I do not work for, nor am paid by, Aldi, Lidl or anyone else. I just think shopping behaviour is fascinating**

Bias in Science

One of the funny things about political bias is that it's incredibly difficult to detect it in yourself. You spend so long identifying with a certain ideology that - eventually - it seems like a self evident fact. We can see a number of examples of this in modern society, but one example I want to draw on is this article from 2010.

Note, first of all, the smug sense of satisfaction. The author has found a theory that explains why Liberals are better than Conservatives. Tres bien! No need to worry folks, we've settled in once and for all. As much as I'd love to lay into the personality factors present in this article I want to stick to the psychological issues at work.

The problem with this article is not the internal logic (although that is a bit iffy) but just bad science in general. First of all note the definition of Liberal:

"...the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others." 

 This definition is fine as it goes, so long as it is true. But is it? One of the main problems with deductive reasoning is that you have to start with a true premise and work down, but how do you know the premise is true? You have to work up (inductively) from evidence. Is there evidence that this definition is true? I'm sure many Liberals would identify strongly with it, but I know plenty of Conservatives (particularly Christians) who would ALSO identify with it. What are we to make of that? The author offers no reasoning for this definition, merely that it is "reasonable" to assume that's what defines Liberalism (presumably the opposite idea; not caring for others and unwilling to contribute private resources to help people is indicative of Conservatism, but as I said earlier can we reasonably assume that?), the author also claims that this "usually" translates to support for welfare programs. The author does not entertain the idea that a person may wish to help others but also oppose welfare programs (trust me, these people exist.

Another sticky issue that the author blithely tosses aside is the fact that Conservatives are more charitable (presumably because they are more religious). This, according to the author, is explained by the theory because truly altruistic Liberals don't mind giving indiscriminately and so support blanket higher taxes and welfare programs. Conservatives on the other hand are deeply prejudiced people who want to decide who they help (the example is, unsurprisingly, old white men) and who they don't want to help (poor black women).

Finally the author presents us with some seemingly unselfconscious circular logic. A common complaint, they say, is that Liberals control the major social institutions. This, apparently, is true. It's true, according to the author, because Liberals are smarter, and therefore more likely to control things. How do we know they are smarter? because those same institutions have done studies proving it. Apparently unable to acknowledge this bias the author ends by alluding to the apparent evolutionary novelty of Liberalism (as opposed to Conservatism) and stating that the smarter people (liberals) are therefore more adaptive to modern society.

Now, I don't want you to get the impression I am ragging on Liberals and vaunting the Conservatives. I'm not a fan of either group and I don't identify with either one. In fact, like a lot of young people, I tend to take a more eclectic view of personal philosophy and political ideology. Sometimes I take a liberal stand, sometimes a conservative one and sometimes (more often than not) I take a mixed stand.

My point is that politics is one of those areas where we have a vested interest in preserving the integrity of our group and actively harming the integrity of the out group. Liberals are convinced Conservatives are evil, and vice versa. The problem is that when this bias bleeds into science we can become incredibly stupid. One only has to take two ideologically opposed media institutions, for example, to see how twisted facts can become; for example The Guardian - a broadly left wing paper in the UK - will often carry stories of the depravity and general incompetence of Conservatives in and out of government. Similarly the Telegraph - a right-wing paper of similar repute - will carry studies, facts, figures and so on about how bad the Liberals are.

Who is right? We don't know, because unless you dig up the research and look for yourself (and let's be honest, who does that?) you are at the mercy of the authors bias. I could probably do a similar analysis as I have done above by picking apart an article on why Conservatives are better than Liberals and you'd see the exact same level of bias.

Hopefully this blog post has given you a bit of a flavour for the problems with a) hypothetico-deductive reasoning based on faulty premises and b) the dangers of political (or other) biases in science.

Just remember that there are plenty of idiots on both sides of the fence... 

"Debate is Over Syndrome": Applicable to Psychology?

I just read an interesting article here. Joel Kotkin talks about a well known (but little acknowledged) problem in broad intellectual society. The problem he describes is a simple one, the majority view is taken as "settled" fact and dissent is punished, sometimes quite vociferously, by members of the in-group.

Kotkin talks about this in the context of Climate Change, a contentious issue that I don't want to get in to here. He points out that a frequent refrain is heard; "The science is settled". Debate on climate change is stifled and ridiculed and people have lost jobs, careers, and fame because of their views. Worse, he points out that the people who are doing the punishing are usually the ones who are most certain of their own right-ness. Namely left-leaning intellectuals and well-funded right-leaning media moguls.

Typically, only one of those groups are considered to be biased; the right-leaning ones. However true of both groups is a blindness to the possibility that an error could have been made. In climate change this is seen in the scarily obtuse way it is discussed, the ridicule aimed at dissenters, and the sheer arrogance of proponents towards those who question established facts.

Climate change is a contentious issue as I said, I don't want to debate whether its real, or if it is, who or what is causing it. As far as I am concerned there is something there, but the science is far from settled.

Now on to the real reason I brought up this essay. I'm not so much interested in political bias (although it is a fascinating subject) but rather Psychologist Bias. I am a Radical Behaviourist, and as such definitely part of a (strong) minority. My views are casually belittled and in some cases ridiculed by the public and certain outspoken intellectuals. Most of this arises from misunderstandings, especially among the public; "Don't behaviourists believe we don't have thoughts? Don't they hurt animals and think people are the same as pigeons?" and so on...

Another example, more prevalent among academics, is the belittling of experimental methods. The behaviourist is not a fan of statistical inference. Not because we are afraid of statistics (although I do dislike them!) but because we don't see as many opportunities to use them as a standard experimental psychologist might. In Behaviour Analysis we use a method called single-case designs (not to be confused with case studies) which use a number of methods (mostly non-statistical) to analyse individuals or small groups and their behaviour.

I don't want to get too technical as I realise a lot of my readers are not trained scientists and it would probably get rather boring if I started expounding on the relative merits of p values and ANOVA's. What I want to point out is that the view I talked about above, the "debate is over syndrome", is quite prevalent among some psychologists. Now to be sure, I don't want to paint with a broad brush and I realise that many psychologists are quite respectful of behavioural psychologists and understand the reasons for why we do what we do, none the less there are some who believe that "the debate is over" and behavioural psychology lost. Anything I can do as a behavioural psychologist pales in comparison to the power of a statistical test and a hypothetico-deductive, mentalistic attitude.

There is still a lot we can learn from behavioural psychology, and from the methods and philosophical approach it employs, and I think it's highly premature to claim that the debate is over and cognitivism won. If you find yourself thinking this, I encourage you to meditate on these words by philosopher Ayn Rand; "Check your premises".

It is not, nor ever will be, my intention to offend. Cognitive Psychology has opened up a whole new, fascinating world of research to the psychologist and it would be foolish to ignore it's impact on the science, but at the same time it's important to remember that behavioural psychology is a viable, exciting science that still has a lot to teach us, and I, for one, hope more academics come to realise that more could be done if we set aside the dictatorial mindset of "debate is over" and returned to the halcyon days of science as an exercise in curiosity.

What are we for?

What are we for?

I recently read this article article by Jeffrey Tucker, if you don’t know who Jeffrey is he’s a libertarian intellectual and one of the founders of the new social network liberty.me. This article addressed a simple issue; the libertarian movement has a large contingent of individuals who are firmly against X. Where X means any particular issue that is corrosive to the general ideas of Libertarianism. Jeffrey Tucker likens this attitude to the Brutalist Movement in architecture that reared it’s ugly head in the 1950’s. In other words, he is pointing out that Libertarianism is quite firmly against anything that encroaches on freedom, and takes a certain glee in defending the supposedly undefendable (link).

My point here is not to talk about Libertarianism as such but to abstract out from the article the general principle that to be against something is simply not enough, you have to be for something.

As Jeffrey points out Libertarianism is actually pro- a lot of things, things like freedom, prosperity, love, etc... and that the overall message we should be transmitting to people is that we are for something wonderful, not just against something bad. So too do we have a similar problem in mainstream psychology. A number of wonderful charities operate in the mental health world, for example, they do amazing work bringing awareness to the public and to the government about mental health issues, reducing stigma, improving care and community access and generally doing their best to counteract the mainstream message that mental illness is an overwhelmingly bad experience for the individual and society. Indeed one only has to look back 50 years or so to see the shocking treatment perpetrated against people with mental illness; they were shunned, degraded, abused, locked away and generally excluded from a society that considered them sub-normal and beyond remediation.

As we now know, thanks in part to the work of these charities, people with mental illness are perfectly capable of interacting with society, sometimes with help, sometimes on their own, and that to have a mental illness is not a personal failing or a sign of weakness but something to be understood, in some cases treated and in others managed.

A similar example in a somewhat different vein is the recent explosion of behavioural economics literature. Books such as Nudge, Thinking Fast and Slow, Predictably Irrational and others all carry the same message. We aren’t as smart as we thought we were. In some cases the literature is valid, in others it’s hyperbole, but the overarching message is “hold up sunshine, you might need a hand with those pesky thoughts of yours”. By highlighting our lack of omniscience and faulty logic these books are referenced gleefully by the brutalist intellectuals in the economic and psychological world as proof - a fait accompli - that we are a dangerously irrational group of people and can’t be trusted even with the little freedom we are permitted.

Both of these examples provide a hint at the brutalist movement (as per Jeffrey Tucker’s analysis) that operates in the psychological and economics movement. The mental health issue highlights a focus on something that is generally considered a negative issue and tries to make it a positive (or at least normalise it), whereas the behavioural economics issue highlights the sometimes disturbingly gleeful attitude present in people happy to be vindicated in their less-than-rosy view of humankind.

Indeed, in both cases we know what we are against. We are against abuse of the mentally ill, and we are against the freedom typically afforded to people in western society (since we are so incapable of functioning rationally). But what are we for?

Broadly speaking both the above examples do offer things we should be for; the equal treatment of the mentally ill and a tighter restriction on the choices we can make respectively. One offers bringing people to the average level of acceptance, the other offers tearing people down a peg or two to make sure we don’t do something foolish. Whilst the first is a laudable goal (the second less so...) neither are particularly inspiring to me. To be sure some people derive a great deal of inspiration from both and good for them, but to me it doesn't suggest a grand goal, or a shining light on the horizon. I repeat my earlier question; what are we for?

The psychology movement lacks a defining goal, we aren’t working towards a common goal as such, excluding the broad remit to better understand human psychology. I don’t think we are ready, as a science, for some sort of grand end for which to work toward. Personally, however, I believe that there is a definite reason for psychology, and it’s the reason I put up with the rigors of academic life. I believe that Psychology should be for helping people achieve their utmost best. Not just broadly, as in society, but individually. I want each person to have the tools and the knowledge to be better. Better in the way they think, act, remember, love, pursue their dreams, approach their relationships, tackle their jobs and so on. What we should be for is the advancement of a persons ultimate potential.

We are a long way off a bright future of optimal humans. Society is awash in poor thinking (myself included) and we simply don’t know enough to make people better, yet. One day, though, perhaps in my lifetime, perhaps not, I hope that people are able to access psychology as a necessity, as a way of increasing their ability to pursue their own goals and improve their life in a way that would be impossible to imagine today.

That is what I am for. That is the goal I pursue. I try not to be against the things I see that are wrong in the world, I try and be for the things I want to see in the world. I suggest that you do the same and maybe tomorrow the world will be a better place for it.

Privatizing Science: The way forward?

I recently read a wonderful article on the increasing privatisation of science in America. Here in the UK Science is still seen as a public good, something to be handled properly by the government. To suggest privatisation is to suggest the spectre of Thatcherism. It conjures image of shady businessmen funding science that supports their blood-thirsty desire for ever increasing profits and to hell with the noble vision of disinterested science.

It is no secret, however, that even the most viable sciences are seeing their funding slashed. The government is having to deal with huge debt and torn between the idea of raising taxes significantly or cutting spending they chose to cut spending. We can debate the merits of austerity vs. public spending another time but either way funding has to come from somewhere.

This article points out that wealthy individuals, keen to shake off their miserly image and re-establish their image as philanthropists and agents of the public good, are starting to fund science in their own image.

Psychology has not seen this influx of private funding yet, seen as less marketable and still socially viable by the government, it has remained relatively immune - but it too has seen it’s funding slashed. So here is the question? would privately funded psychology be viable? (by that I mean both in the public good AND profitable for the donors?)

You would be mistaken for thinking that psychology is a relatively pure and abstract science. Just peruse the latest journals and you’ll see articles like: “Curtailing Chimpanzee Exploitation”, “Charting the Islands of Memory”, and “CREB3L1 Regulates Arginine Vasopressin Expression”. Fascinating, yes. Interesting (to a psychologist), yes. Useful to the man on the street? errmmm not so much.

You could argue that science isn’t supposed to be useful to the man on the street. It’s an esoteric subject, something to be preserved for it’s own sake. Again we could argue what the proper role of science is to society, but we still have a huge problem; society isn’t listening. People want more bang for their buck. They want to know that their taxes are going to something worthwhile and, as has been shown in the Western world recently, will pull that funding (by voting for austerity), if they feel it isn’t measuring up. So what’s to be done?

Well first of all, lets remember that psychology, despite the best efforts of pundits, isn’t ALL about neuroscience. It has it’s place, to be sure, but Neuroscience is but one aspect of human psychology. My own work at the Wales Centre for Behaviour Change (check out our new website!) involves taking psychology from the academy in it’s raw, esoteric form and making it work for the people. We help with all sorts of issues from safety in the workplace, to improving staff well-being and everything in between. We work with businesses to help them solve the problems they are facing.

This is a real, social benefit. We do research, but we also apply. We are attempting to bridge the gap between ivory tower and office, it’s not an easy task and fraught with dangers, but the point is we are doing it. Psychology, especially behavioural psychology, is a relatively untapped resource for the business owner.

There is, however, resistance. Seen as selling out, or profiteering, psychologists who do overly sell themselves can come under fire for doing so. I am incredibly lucky to work with people both in my team and in my department who understand the necessity of this fact and who willingly engage with the external world to enrich both our research and their business.

The problem is that our funding is hard to come by. Research councils are concerned with a certain type of science and more often than not that science isn’t about helping a business increase their profit margin. This is where privately-funded research can come to the fore. By funding the sort of research that has real world applicability we can both preserve the pure-research side of our work and still maintain viability and connection with the outside world.

I wager there will always be a desire and need for government funded research, but a 21st century approach to science will, in my opinion, involve the marrying of both private interests for the sort of work that applies directly to real world problems, and government funding for the blue sky thinking.

The medico-centric mentality

The medico-centric mentality is a term I use for the commonly held belief that the central pillar of good health is to be found in the pharmacological medical tradition - in other words; doctors.

I am sure it has another name, but I prefer medico-centric mentality because it best sums it up. In this view medicine stands as the pinnacle of health-giving practices. Surrounding it in various orbits are the "complimentary" practices, starting from the most like medicine (Psychiatry) to the far reaches of crazy like crystal healing and sun-worshiping. Everything else falls somewhere on a continuum in-between.

Good health is reduced to biological perfection. Within the confines of the body this is quite effective. Something goes wrong and we correct it. As the science of medicine progresses we get better and better at fixing the things that go wrong. As it goes this is wonderful, but here's the problem; we aren't JUST bodies.

Passed off as one of the orbital "compliments" to good health is psychology. Begrudgingly doctors refer patients to psychologists because medical science hasn't figured out a way to drug away depression or unhappiness. Psychiatry is not exactly an example of successful integration; the mystical psychoanalysis was replaced merely with pharmaco-reductionism stating that all psychological problems are merely problems of neuro-chemistry (for a great discussion of this problem see Doctoring the Mind by Prof. Richard Bentall).

Non-medical psychology such as Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy and Behaviour Analytic interventions are seen as useful to a limited population but only until such a time as medical science becomes the cure-all.

Why is this a problem? Well as I mentioned earlier we are not just bodies. I am not here making the case for a "mind" as a separate, non-physical entity, rather as a distinct, natural thing that is real and physical but none-the-less irreducible to merely biology. A major problem in modern philosophy is that of the mind/body dichotomy. We are told there are two alternatives; either we have a mind which is none-physical, non-natural and that is, for all intents and purposes non-real. The converse is the idea that the mind is reducible to a stimulus-response function of electrical activity in nerves that gives us the illusion of awareness.

Personally I reject this dichotomy; I view consciousness as the aggregate summation of sensory experience condensed into conceptual knowledge and concretised through verbal behaviour. In other words it's a fully integrated faculty, both natural and yet distinct from the body as such. A proper treatise on this subject is beyond a blog post and frankly beyond my skills to articulate, however I'd refer to the works of Ayn Rand, particularly her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and the fantastic new book How We Know by the philosopher Dr. Harry Binswanger who's book I will be reviewing in the next month or so (time depending).

Why the segue into philosophy? Because the idea that the mind is actually merely electrical impulses is the dominant view in medicine and in our broader culture. Here's the rub; we are an unhappy society. We all complain of psychological problems. We are stressed, unhappy, tired, bitter and angry. We treat our mind as a passive thing, something we are just "born with" that remains immutable and intractable. A mysterious force whose ways are shrouded in darkness to be controlled only by the proper application of the newest, shiniest drug.

The benefits of proper psychological health are clear to see. Pioneering work in mindfulness-based stress reduction, for example, show the positive impact of training our cognitive faculty. The benefits of a superior education, a frequent reading habit, even the practice of gratitude and awareness all result in positive, real benefits. I am not talking here of mystical, other-worldly experiences. I am talking about real, practical benefits like more adaptive stress management. A positive approach to work and relationships. Better sleeping patterns. Greater economic earning power. And so on and so on.

The novel Dune by Frank Herbert offers an insight into this idea; in a far-future world thinking machines (computers) are outlawed, and instead humans, highly training to compute at astronomical rates (called Mentats) are used as human computers to work things out. Now that's an unrealistic example, but it perfectly characterises the issue at hand. Our consciousness is trainable. We know this from experimental evidence, our faculty of learning, for example, shows that we can affect change in our minds through deliberate action.

Unfortunately the science of cognitive training is in it's infancy. We know very little about how to consistently improve human cognition. Behaviour Analysis provides a clue to this area; Verbal Behaviour is a little understood branch of behaviour analysis that deals with cognition and language. It shows us that our language (and by extension our cognition) is malleable and capable of improvement. How? Well that's something we haven't fully figured it out.

A good starting point, however, is the much ballyhooed 3rd and 4th wave of therapies such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT, or Training, in a workplace setting) and Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) both of which seek to effect behaviour change through managing language and private-events (thoughts).

I propose, therefore, a new model. For want of a better term I will call it the Objective Health Model (OHM) that, at it's core, rejects the reductionist model of S-R neuropsychology and at the same time rejects the mystical, Platonic notion of a "mind without reality". Instead it maintains that consciousness is both distinct (and irreducible) and yet also naturalistic and understandable. In this model physical health is put alongside (not above) psychological health with a bi-directional arrow between the two (signifying the idea that one entails, and is linked to, the other.