Dan Erwin

Downloading Einstein's Brain: The Rat Science Behind Einstein

Early research on Einstein’s brain brought ground-breaking results that impact all of us. But recently, several articles on the widespread use of Einstein’s brain, made available by downloading, fail to mention that seminal research on Einstein by Marian Diamond at UC Berkeley. Surprisingly, her research conclusions still remain outside conventional wisdom and as often as not gain rejection. That’s not just true of the population-at-large.

Diamond wanted to know whether human experience produces measurable changes in the brain. Actually, her conclusions were hinted at by J C Spurzheim as early as 18l5. In 1874 Charles Darwin mentioned that the brains of domestic rabbits were considerably reduced in bulk when compared to wild rabbits, suggesting that domestics did not exert their intellect, instincts and senses as much as those in the wild. Aware of this information, Diamond knew of the work of three of three other scientists at Berkeley, Mark Rosenzweig, Edward Bennett and David Krech who identified a difference between “maze-smart” and “maze-dull” rats.  The rats from the more complex environment showed increased levels of the chemical acetylcholine.  Although the research made hardly a ripple among scientists, those in the know recognized it was a very important finding.  Acetylcholine, you see, is strongly correlated with memory.  And when you reduce our understanding of intelligence to its most basic components, they are two in number:  memory and adaptability.   One pivotal question, however, remained.  Were the “maze-smart” rats already that way at birth?  Was it nature or nurture?

It’s the environment, stupid!
But before Diamond got to Einstein, she worked with rats. Along with the insights of her three Berkeley colleagues, she separated mentally similar rats into three learning environments:  enriched, standard and impoverished.  The enriched cages were filled with toys of interest to rats.  She changed them daily, and provided plenty of cagemates.  In contrast, the impoverished environments had no toys and no cagemates.  After several weeks, the brains of the different groups were studied.  In 100 percent of the enriched rat brains, the animals had significantly thicker cortexes—the outer front layer of the brain structure.  Furthermore, the enriched animals also had more complex dendrites—the branches of the brain cell that conduct impulses.  Both the actual structure of the brain as well as the nerve cell branches were altered by enrichment.   

Still, the research was about rodents, not humans.  In classic scientific fashion, one new discovery leads to another.  By the 1980’s, Diamond had become a renown expert in the neuroscience of enrichment.  A piece of the research from the 1960’s revealed that rats living in enriched environments had more glial cells than those from impoverished environments.  Glial cells are the support cells for the nerve cells.  Just those two cells are responsible for all of the behavior generated by your brain.  It’s the glial cells that establish and maintain the neuron circuitry that makes it possible for you to do complex thinking like strategy and negotiation and innovation—the “higher” thinking. 

Dr. Diamond’s question was whether the glial cells would continue to increase when the neuron’s increased with enrichment.[i]  Active neurons will need still more supporting glial cells.  Her question went to the heart of intelligence and increasing a person’s potential.  How she found the answer is a fascinating story.

Einstein’s brain
As Dr. Diamond tells the story, a German colleague had suggested that the more highly evolved area in the human brain should have more glial cells per neuron.  She checked that out from eleven human, male preserved brains, and found the hunch correct.  Using the available technology, she was able to count out the glia and neurons from her samples, and actually create a ratio between glia and neurons. 

One day she saw a photo from the journal, Science, showing that Einstein’s brain was in a box in a lab in Kansas.  Later, while waiting for her husband who was teaching at UCLA, she mused over her glia/neuron studies, wondering if she could get tissue from Einstein’s brain to assess the ratio between glia and neurons in an exceptionally functioning adult.  She only needed four pieces of tissue, so she called the University of Kansas and tracked down the pathologist who had been at Princeton at the time of Einstein’s death.  Thomas Harvey had had the foresight to fix the brain in celloidin—a substance which hardens tissue--when Einstein died, and the tissue was still in perfect  shape for her kind of research.  Twenty-five years after Harvey’s act of preservation, Diamond began calling and negotiating with him about every six months.  Finally, after three years she received four pieces of sugar-cube sized tissue from Einstein’s brain in a mayonnaise jar filled with fluid.[ii]

Einstein’s tissue was ideally preserved making it possible to compare the ratio of glial/neuron tissue with the eleven normal males in her previous study.  Utilizing the help of a technician and a statistician, she learned that in four major parts of the brain—the right and left prefrontal and inferior parietal cortexes, Einstein had more glial cells per neuron than the average man.  But in the left inferior parietal area of the brain, Einstein had significantly more glial cells.

What’s the inferior parietal area?  Diamond wanted to study Einstein’s brain because the inferior parietal area focuses upon “higher” mental functions.  Rather than directly receive primary sensory information, that region associates, connects and analyzes inputs from other brain regions.  It handles high level synthesizing and innovating. 

With this research, Dr. Diamond confirmed solidly that highly enriched experiences result in the development of superior intelligence.  In short, neurons that “fire together, wire together.”   And it’s the glia that makes all this possible.

The Fur-Lined Trench
Diamond has broadened and deepened the conclusions of enrichment:  Enriched environments enrich your intelligence.  Buddy, if you want to stay employable you want to keep moving and keep moving into enriched environments.  An environment’s level of enrichment determines a lot more than we ever dreamed about our success.  Some environments, though financially rewarding, can be also be carriers of obsolescence.

Recently, one of my clients was told that if she took a certain executive position, she could dig down for most of her life and have a high-paying “fur-lined trench.”   My response to her was unequivocal:  “A fur-lined trench is nothing more than a grave with both ends knocked out.”  

[i] Diamond, Marian C.  (2001)  Response of the Brain to Enrichment.  New Horizons for Learning. (newhorizons.com).
[ii] Diamond, Marian C.  (n.d.)  Why Einstein’s Brain?  New Horizons for Learning.  (newhorizons.com).

Flickr photo: P1r

"The Luck Factor"

Almost 25% of company founders and business-builders believe that luck is a major factor in their success.  What’s most surprising is that people generate their own luck. But lucky charms, amulets or knocking on wood won’t do it.

Richard Wiseman, the British psychologist, has studied luck from a scientific perspective, learning that it is not strictly random. Wiseman finds that lucky people tend to be more skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities, they listen (pay attention) to their intuitive ideas, use positive expectations and work hard to make lemonade out of lemons. They take a resilient attitude toward life. If you know your psych, you recognize that there are a lot of spin-offs from empirical research built into his “luck factor theory,” beginning with the extensive research on the personal impact of positive attitudes.

In addition, Wiseman finds that unlucky people are generally much more tense and anxious than lucky people, and research has shown that anxiety disrupts people’s ability to notice.  On top of that, those same unlucky people shy away from the very change and variety that would add to the potential for good fortune.

In sum, Wiseman concludes that the differences between the lucky and unlucky people are striking. Lucky people tend to imagine spontaneously how the bad luck they encounter could have been worse and, in doing so, they feel much better about themselves and their lives. This, in turn, helps keep their expectations about the future high, and, increases the likelihood of them continuing to live a lucky life.

The new role of luck
Luck—or even better, serendipity--that aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident, assumes a far more important role in this new economy. In the fascinating new book, The Power of Pull, by John Hagel III, John Seely Brown, and Lang Davison, the authors emphasize the role and importance of serendipity. They define it as the ability to find people and the knowledge they carry with them. In today’s world, where you don’t even know what you’re looking for, finding and attracting knowledge people is key.

Why is this so important? As Pull puts it, when we dive below the surface of events that get so much attention—from both journalists and bloggers—we find that our foundations are constantly shifting. For most of us there is an enormous distance between where we are today and where we’ll need to be in order to fully take advantage of changing opportunities. Not only do we have to keep our eye on the ball—that long-term directional focus—but we all have to amplify our own efforts with the resources of others.

Think about it: if you’re exploring new sets of problems, new territories—what Hagel and buddies call an “edge,” it’s always very, very helpful to learn from the experiences of others. Luck, what I like to think of as “serendipitous encounters,” is not only the best way to gain insight and resolutions, but often the only way to gain those insights. Indeed, as I reflect on those “lucky encounters,” I celebrate my good fortune in the richness, insight and even the blessing they’ve brought to my life and profession.

Creating your own serendipity
In “Pull” the authors argue strongly and wisely for the “shaping” of serendipity rather than treating it as merely a matter of chance. They talk about our all-too-common experiences of needing to know, but not needing to know what you need, and what really exists, much less how to find it or whom. MIT’s Sherry Turkle adds that as a result of internet search engines, fewer and fewer of us really know how to engage in search outside of Googling the internet and using its other search engines. Because the internet completely manages search processes for us, knowledge of those processes has gone the way of the Dodo bird, profoundly limiting resources beyond the internet. Indeed, there seems to be little understanding, for example, that ideational and personal search tends to flow in significantly evolutionary and haphazard formats and that those processes can be manipulated for both ideas and people. Those who grew up, trained in library skills, would understand the processes. But what Hagel and colleagues do for us is a huge updating and revision of the 20^th century environments, knowledge and skills for the 21^st century.

Serenditipitous environments
Pull suggests five environments for enhancing serendipity.

• Geographic spikes—more people live in large urban centers than in any other part of the globe. Different cities offer a wealth of options, providing gathering places for increasing the probability of serendipitous encounters. Most of us think automatically of Silicon Valley for software or Los Angeles for producers and directors. One of my friends is interested in the future applications of technology to food resources and has located in the Twin Cities precisely because of UMN and the many food industries and resources in that area.
• Conferences—These “moving circuses” are especially useful because participants have self-filtered. They provide opportunities for meeting people with information, making possible likely serendipity.
• Online social networks—Virtual environments provide plenty of potential for shaping serendipity. Admittedly, as these environments grow there is potential for low-productivity encounters. Still, choosing the social platforms of interest can provide insight into which initial contacts to pursue.   
• Connection platforms—these platforms help people connect around needs. Open-source software sites such as SAP’s Developer Network are one kind. But eBay and Amazon provide another kind of network. For example, I’ve picked up a couple exceptional contacts simply by reading Amazon’s reviews on a niche book.
• Institutions—Many institutions develop conference strategies, providing options for contacts with people of similar interests. Universities, major industries and large corporations, as well as national conference planners all fit into this category.

Serendipity (luck) comes to those who. . . . know where and how to shape it.  As the authors put it, to get better faster at whatever it is you do, you’ve got to be supported by a broad array of complementary people and resources from which you can pull what you need to raise your rate of performance improvement. And what are the competencies you’ll need to achieve that? Well, that’s for another blog.

Hagel, John III, John Seely Brown and Lang Davison, The Power of Pull: How small moves, smartly made can set big things in motion. (New York: Basic Books), 2010.
See especially: John Hagel's blog, The Edge
Turkle, Sherry, Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. (New York: Basic Books), 2011.
Wiseman, Richard, The Luck Factor. The skeptical inquirer, May/June 2003.
Flickr photo: tim geers

Where HR Goes Wrong--and What To Do About It

Recently I wrote a positive review of HR from the Outside In, by Dave Ulrich and colleagues. Upon serious reflection, I want to offer a caveat to that review. 

I began that blog by saying that this was the book I’d been dreaming about for years. Yes, it is an important book. But it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the role of strategic business thinking as the core focus of company human resource management. Rather than framing the problem as six competency issues, the book would have generated a lot more insight about both the weakness and the solution to the typically secondary HR role in the contemporary corporation. Those of us who’ve consulted at numerous Fortune 100 and 500 companies are well aware that HR often, perhaps inrvitably, lacks significant political clout. That’s a terrible shame because the truth is that HR can make the difference between business success and failure for most any firm.  

The future impact
The authors clearly state, in the first page, that the purpose of their book is to support the alignment, integration and innovation of HR practices in individual and organizational performance. A couple paragraphs later they dissect their statement into three questions:

• What should HR professionals be, know, and do to be seen as personally effective?
• What should HR professionals be, know and do to improve business success?
• What should HR departments focus on to improve business performance?

They also make clear from the get-go that by business they refer to the company’s business, not merely the objectives of the HR department. They then proceed to examine six competencies to respond to those questions, emphasizing the role of “strategic positioner.” In that chapter they spend six pages discussing how to think and talk about the business’ strategic positioning. This is the richest part of the book, but there is much more to be learned about the strategic impact that HR can have upon the work force and the business.

What is to be done?
HR from the Outside In purports to be a cutting-edge, strategic book, but the description of the strategic focus, challenge and need is far more detailed than the brief chapter that addresses strategic positioning. This disconnect goes to the very core of why the discipline of HR exists in the first place. Until HR addresses that most basic issue in laser-like focus, attitude surveys, case studies, abstract conclusions and competency discussions will likely have marginal impact. 

Sure, strategy has become an over-used buzzword and gotten lost in the business jargon. Many of us know that IBM’s former CEO, Lou Gerstner, pooh-poohed strategy and went for tactics. Gerstner was talking out of both sides of his mouth, for strategically, he completely changed the business—and its customer, enhancing his firm’s long-term success and profitability. From the very outset, that was a strategic move. 

At bottom, the truth is that far too few understand strategy, and that’s a problem. Indeed, half-a-dozen years ago, Christian Mitreanu asked in an MIT Sloan Management Opinion whether it was a bad word? He didn’t get around to a rarified definition of strategy, but he made an important point: strategy must include an ongoing cultivation of understanding the business’ customer, which is at the heart of the matter. 

The ever-astute Roger Martin detailed this customer focus in a brilliant blog on strategy, entitled The execution trap. But at the least every HR manager and exec needs to put Michael Porter’s article, What is strategy? on the permanent front lobes and make certain that every HR move ties either directly or indirectly into the firm’s business. Porter argues that strategy rests on a unique set of activities that delivers a unique mix of value to the chosen customer niche. But you can memorize the rest of his seminal article. 

Now, why did I quickly summarize the meaning of strategy and point my readers to three articles? Very simple: over thirty years of consulting, I’ve become convinced that very few companies have a valued strategy—yeah, strategy is tough to create and execute—and it’s a rare bird in any company that really understands his firm’s customer and his firm’s business. 

What this means is that everybody in HR needs to be able to talk, create, think and execute HR tactics that tie directly into his firm’s strategy. That’ll mean that HR folk argue, fuss, disagree, collaborate and contribute magnificently to every single damn business discipline, beginning with their CEO.  So what Ulrich needs, desperately, is example after example after example where his readers are shown exactly how HR’s every move ties directly into the firm’s strategy. Ulrich and colleagues should know enough about adult learning to realize that two-or three examples ain’t enough—and that the strategic competency need to be drummed into every HR reader’s head. The other five competencies should all be subsumed under strategy. 

Until that happens, HR will continue to be a dead-end, talking about sets of HR competencies, and existing for its own sake, much like technology, glorying in its toys, existed for its own sake well into the ‘nineties. 

The good news is that if HR reframes the challenge, it becomes an opportunity. HR can help build institutions that enable more of us to achieve our potential, differentiating us from machines, providing us with more job challenges and harnessing the people-power to set very big things in motion. And, oh yeah, then we’ll sit at the right hand of the CEO.

Flickr photo: Knowledge Capital

Why Won't Politicians Explain Their Big Policy Proposals?

Every pundit, commentator and his sister have complained recently about the failure of the Democratic and Republican candidates to explain their big policy proposals adequately. As a former executive and a long-term consultant to executives the response to that issue is obvious: No astute politician or executive is ever going to explain his big policies until they’ve been vetted, rubber-stamped by relevant associates, and the timing and location are strategically appropriate.

I could detail hundreds of complaints about the failure of leaders to explain big policy, but the first one I noticed this morning was that of the very astute David Brooks in today’s NYT column. Here are the relevant comments: There was a vague hint of a major tax reform. There was a vague promise to accept an agreement based on the principle of the Simpson-Bowles committee on deficit reduction. But it’s hard to be enthusiastic about President Obama truly championing initiatives that get no more than a sentence or a clause. . . . President Obama has the intelligence, the dexterity and the sense of balance to navigate these crosscutting challenges. But he apparently lacks the creativity to break out of the partisan categories, the trench warfare gridlock. Thursday night’s speech showed the character and his potential. It didn’t show audacity and the fulfillment of that potential. 

These kinds of comments have become so ordinary and common that you’ll find pundits leveling them at every politician, every party and just about every person in politics nearly every day during this season.

The fact of the matter--and every pundit damn well knows, or they shouldn’t be in the writing or talking business—is that there are a number of very important reasons not to succumb to those demands. Indeed, Eric Eisenberg, who has studied this issue in depth, concludes that the truly effective leader often has to be strategically ambiguous. 

Strategic ambiguity
The research in organizational communication reveals that intentional miscommunication and the failure to communicate are as prevalent as intentionally clear communication. The wise politician and leader recognize that the downside of ambiguity is a lot better than the downside of a very tentative set of strategies that may or may not succeed. There are a number of reasons why that is so:

• Politicians and execs want to preserve their privileged positions.  When the information they actually provide lacks objectives that can be readily measured, they’ve limited the critical options of pundits. Pundits, of course, are in the business of critiquing, so it’s no wonder they’re frustrated with Obama and Romney. They provide too little information for them to further their career.
• Politicians and execs also want the permission and opportunity to make various moves that a single, objective and measurable goal would not permit. That limits the potential for “gotcha games.” You know: the type of critique that Tim Russert popularized and that are fodder for every intelligent pundit. “But last year, you said blah, blah, blah, blah. Why are you inconsistent, changing your mind, direction,” or. . . whatever? In addition, most leaders want the freedom of ambiguity to pilot numerous initiatives without having to engage in full disclosure. On top of that, once they’ve made some decisions regarding those initiatives, they also want the freedom to figure out the best persuasive language and the best way to position their proposals to relevant stakeholders. Limiting “gotcha games,” and especially uninformed critiquing is par for the course in the world of 24/7 media.
• Above all, politicians and execs want a great deal of flexibility and creativity for problem resolution and organizational strategy. Ambiguity inevitably provides opportunity for a great deal of flexibility and creativity.

What’s the pundit and message receiver to do? 
When the issue is important, the astute receiver digs back into the leader’s past, searching for details on the leader’s previous decisions. They’ll look closely at the person’s commitments, allegiances, decision-making processes, attitudes, tactical and strategic orientations and most any other relevant facts they can get. It’s a well-developed and often used strategy when writers and talkers can’t get the information they believed they needed—or deserved. The other conclusion drawn by pundits, of course, is that the politician has nothing left in the toolkit.

But ultimately, when pundits verbalize about such failures, I suspect what you’re getting is an attempt to push the candidate, a self-serving announcement about their knowledge of the subject and the candidate, attempts to disparage the person, a frustrated response to situational limitations, or a professional whine. In short, it’s a statement about the punditocracy and the limitations of the fourth estate.  The ability of such folk to draw an infinite number of conclusions from little data is a wonder to behold. And every recipient of these daily messages really, really needs the competencies to assess these messages and their often questionable validity.  

Still, if you stay the course with the politician or the exec, what you’ll find is that it’s not unusual for all of the pundits’ conclusions to be dead wrong. It’s not that I’m whitewashing politicians and execs, but I tend to trust them a bit more than the barrage we get from a seemingly endless number of pundits: so-called professionals who come to the media far too often with practically no training or valid experience, but supported by a thoughtless, witless ideology. 

Flickr photo: 3rdeyepro