“Research Questions Role Of Neuroscience In Leadership Studies”

Standard

We would question some of this but critical thinking is good.

Take Aways

  • “We find suggestions – that we are at the brink of a neuroscientific revolution in the study of leadership – premature, and a sole focus on neuroscience, at the expense of insights from other social science disciplines, dangerous.”
  • “…it is too simplistic to assume that through neuroscience we can identify ‘good’ leaders and rectify ‘bad’ leaders.

“Research Questions Role Of Neuroscience In Leadership Studies  29/04/2013 excerpted from The FINANCIAL

Research at the University of Liverpool questions the extent to which studies of the human brain are able to offer insights into what constitutes ‘good leadership’. Continue reading

Advertisements

“Genuine anger elicits concessions, but fake anger elicits demands.”

Standard

“Genuine anger elicits concessions, but fake anger elicits demands.”

“The findings show that individuals place particularly high demands, are relatively dissatisfied, and have relatively little interest in negotiating again with opponents who surface-act anger, because they have little trust in them,” the researchers conclude. “The same emotion—anger—has opposite consequences on negotiation processes and outcomes depending on … how authentic the display is perceived to be.”

“Cooperation” and Punishment May Be Just Selfish, Afterall

Standard

Take Away

The researchers found that participants:

  • strongly conditioned their punishment of their partners’ cheating
  • on their own vulnerability to continued bad treatment from their partner…
  • people in these experiments systematically avoided expending effort to reform those who only posed a risk to others..

Evolutionary psychologists study the purpose of punishment and reputation by ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2012)

In an article published September 27 in the journal PLoS ONE, researchers at UC Santa Barbara’s Center for Evolutionary Psychology report new findings that may help settle the debate and provide answers to the behavioral puzzle. Continue reading

Group Punishment Yields Cooperation

Standard

How cooperation is maintained in human societies: Punishment, study suggests (excerpted)

  • by ScienceDaily (May 3, 2010)

The finding challenges previous cooperation/punishment models that argue punishment is uncoordinated and unconditional.

But it turns out that most members of large groups cooperate

  • cooperation is maintained by punishment
  • which reduces the benefits to free riding.
  • Thus, there is the threat of losing societal benefits if a member does not cooperate, which leads to increased group cooperation. Continue reading

Lies and Misinformation are Always the Easiest to Believe

Standard

This article is excerpted:

Take Aways –

  • “Ideology and personal world views can be major obstacles for changing false beliefs and efforts to retract misinformation can backfire and even amplify the erroneous belief
  • Misinformation is easy to accept if it fits in with a prior belief, researchers say, even when the information is known to be false“
  • To be effective, corrections need to tell people what’s true without repeating all the stuff that’s wrong. The more often people hear a false message, the more likely they are to believe it.”.

Why falsehoods are easy to believe
“Misinformation stays in memory and continues to influence our thinking, even if we correctly recall that it is mistaken.  Managing misinformation requires extra cognitive effort from the individual. Continue reading

How Abuse Wins: Sandusky, Lying, Denialism and Protecing the Institution – worth reading

Standard

This is a useful outline of how individuals and institutions denial, pretend and hide from abusive behavior and bullying.  We have to accept that this is default human and institutional behavior and the norm.  Useful lessons to help build awareness and look out for these behaviors.  excerpted from NYT article.  Worth reading.

Bottom Line:

The most senior officials at Penn State had shown a “total and consistent disregard” for the welfare of children, had worked together to actively conceal Mr. Sandusky’s assaults, and had done so for one central reason: fear of bad publicity. That publicity, Mr. Freeh said Thursday, would have hurt the nationally ranked football program, Mr. Paterno’s reputation as a coach of high principles, the Penn State “brand” and the university’s ability to raise money as one of the most respected public institutions in the country.

Abuse Scandal Inquiry Damns Paterno and Penn State  by KEN BELSON  July 12, 2012

In 1998, officials at Penn State, including its president and its legendary football coach, were aware Jerry Sandusky was being investigated by the university’s police department for possibly molesting two young boys in the football building’s showers. They followed the investigation closely, updating one another along the way. Continue reading

“Identifying Influential and Susceptible Members of Social Networks” – Science Mag

Standard

Identifying Influential and Susceptible Members of Social Networks June 21, 2012

A representative sample of 1.3 million Facebook users showed that:

  • younger users are more susceptible than older users,
  • men are more influential than women,
  • women influence men more than they influence other women, and
  • married individuals are the least susceptible to influence in the decision to adopt the product we studied.
  • influential individuals are less susceptible to influence than non-influential individuals and that they cluster in the network, which suggests that influential people with influential friends help spread this product.
  • homophily (the tendency for individuals to choose friends with similar tastes and preferences and thus for preferences to be correlated amongst friends),
  • confounding effects (the tendency for connected individuals to be exposed to the same external stimuli)
  • simultaneity (the tendency for connected individuals to co-influence each other and to behave similarly at approximately the same time)

Influencers – Not Really So
One particularly controversial argument in the peer effects literature is the “influentials” hypothesis—the idea that influential individuals catalyze the diffusion of opinions, behaviors, innovations and products in society.  Continue reading