In a comment on a previous post, Audra mentioned Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect by Matthew Lieberman. I’ve read some reviews and am pondering Lieberman’s message. Some of the things he says I already knew and some things I disagree with, so I’ll probably talk more about his ideas in later posts. In the meantime I did enjoy this video of him:
I was also amused by this summary of the book. The article starts with
Want to know how to make social media pay? The answer lies in the surprising insight that pain killers appear to work for broken hearts as well as broken bones…..
But what does the social pleasure/pain principle mean for marketers? First, as pleasure-seeking pain-avoiding creatures, it follows that consumers will be instinctively drawn to products and services that either offer social bonding opportunities, or help them avoid social rejection or isolation. Second, because empathy promotes social bonding, products and services that enhance empathy – our capacity to see and feel what others are feeling (“mindread” each other in Lieberman’s terms ) – will have a natural appeal. Third, and relatedly, we are drawn to products and services that help us live more harmoniously with each other.
Whatever we think of this author’s motives, we have to admit he’s not a passive reader — he believes in putting theory into practice. 😀
What do you think?
February 26, 2014
Why bother to reinvent the wheel? It works. Enjoy.
The poor guy doesn’t know what others have known for years.
What do I think, Jean?
What I think is that it’s disgusting that people so often do things with an eye on potential financial gain. Can’t we just be? Potter about? In our personal garden of Eden? And, by golly, I am saying this as someone who could do with ‘financial gain’. Urgently. But I do detest that mindset. These days you can’t so much as utter a syllable, play a note, make a curry without someone suggesting you turning into a business.
Maybe I should tune into the oldest profession in the world. After all, we all have potential there.
Sorry, Jean, didn’t mean to lower the tone. But when I go mad I go mad. Any ideas how I can convert “going mad” into a lucrative enterprise?
U
I agree. In the past people wanted me to go into business too — no one would take me seriously if I didn’t charge them for my supposed expertise. I can live without being taken seriously. I think some subjects are fascinating and it’s fun to share them.
Well, he had me for about the first five minutes but I began fading when he noted that Tylenol could help relieve heartache and then completely lost me with his statement that social needs actually outweigh physical needs. I don’t think my mother felt my hunger when I was a baby; I think she heard my crying and determined I must be hungry.
As to Mr. Lieberman’s statements regarding us not appreciating the value of our social superpowers (our kryptonite as he refers to it), in my opinion that could easily be debunked when it comes to one of our present day very serious social issues – that being bullying. It seems obvious to me, in an overall sense, that we are fully aware as to how to inflict severe mental pain when we choose to do so and then revel in our accomplishment.
I would love to hear his thoughts on the subject of bullying from both the prospective of the bully and that of the victim.
Just a few of my thoughts on the subject… 🙂
Don’t ‘fade’ from his talk because you don’t like Tylenol. I hate Tylenol too. It has been scientifically proven to help heartache. That’s his point.
It would be interesting if someone compared the effectiveness of Tylenol and Prozac for social pain. What areas of the brain does each one affect? Notice the areas for physical and social pain overlap some but they’re not identical:
An article by another researcher explained the overlap. “Physical pain has two aspects: the sensory experience of pain and the emotional component, in which your brain decides how negative or distressing the pain is. This emotional component of physical pain is similar to the pain experienced as social pain.” I would have thought Tylenol would affect the sensory component, not the emotional. But who knows? It’s pretty clear millions of people are already self-medicating with drugs, both legal and illegal. Not a path I would want to go down.
About bullies — I thought of them too, also that civilizations would never have risen if some groups didn’t dominate others. And that the best way to get a group to stick together is to give it a common enemy. Social forces aren’t always that nice.
well.
nobody wants to be the last one picked when it involves balls.
and nobody ever wants to lose the love of their life. whether too early or later.
and nobody wants to hurt. with or without tylenol. whatever the source of pain.
so…
since you asked…
i think way too much time and money and effort is spent on clinically exploring and proving what everybody already knows! though he states his ‘case’ very well.
i usually enjoy all ted talks. but the more convoluted with science’s proof they are . . .
well. i guess he needs to make a living too.
i wish we spent more time in teaching our children … it always starts there doesn’t it?
i wish we spent more time teaching them simple empathy. for every living being.
for every living creature… human or not.
i wish we just taught them more about love.
loving themselves as an individual. (something i suspect his grandmother didn’t have)
and loving and accepting the individuality of others.
and simply making friends. with all kinds of people. you don’t want to hurt your friends usually.
i see it perhaps as too simple.
but it’s simple that usually works. not kryptonite and not social blah blah blah.
well.
you asked! LOLOL!!!
XOXO
‘everything i needed to know… i learned in kindergarten.’
good book. or was it just a little essay? good.
We get Science and Science News, and I think the studies are a good idea. But he’s out of his field when he starts talking about how his research relates to real life. He hasn’t checked to see what people have known for years and what is new. I’m a bit embarrassed for him.
I believe this guy on every level.
I saw a movie that illustrates social connection in teaching. The teacher goes into a classroom of hoodlum losers in his white shirt, tie & suit. They fight with each other. He intervenes. Why do you feel this? What does this do? etc. He gets them all connecting socially before he ever starts teaching History. You gotta see this movie. It’s rated tops.
When Tom gets back from his hike I’ll tell you the name of the movie & the famous actor that plays the part of the teacher. Tom’s my computer brain, that recalls well.
To Sir, With Love, ll
Sidney Poitier (actor)
Do you believe him when he says we can mind read — know what the other person is thinking because we know how we would think in a given situation? Examples where this kind of thinking has led to disasters are too numerous to mention.
If you’ve learned something new from the video, though, that’s great.
Let me edit. I believe this guy but not on every level.
I missed the part about mind reading. I try to guess the other person’s thinking & I’m usually wrong.
In the preface to the book – which I bought after seeing the comment, the author says that he thinks pleasure and pain “govern us far less than we typically assume”.
[Reading the sentences involved is what persuaded me to buy the book. I am so tired of reductionist ‘brain science’.]
So the marketer may be an active reader but they are not a close reader.
It seems to me when he’s talking about good leaders he still believes in pleasure and pain, it’s just that he’s emphasizing social pleasure and pain rather than physical. How about telling us more as you read the book. How much is new to you? Do you disagree with any of it? I would love to hear your opinions.
Shall do. Not much new so far.
So far I’m finding it a bit repetitious. Also I’m getting annoyed with the (usual for this kind of ‘science’ book) importing of teleology to evolution – the ‘evolution has designed us for’ (or in this case ‘evolution designed our brains too’ or even ‘evolution placed a bet on’).
If people want the prestige of science to back their ideas, I guess that is OK. But when they import teleology (the rejection of which was one of the foundations of empirical science) I get annoyed.
There is lots of good stuff on our social nature and how this gets neglected.
What was new for me? All the brain science stuff. Especially the idea that preparing material to teach others might be a different kind of memorising to that which is used when just attempting to understand the material.
But mostly this comes down to taking our socialness seriously. Rather than emphasising just the cerebral. Which probably isn’t news to those of us with any kind of commitment to wholism.
So, for those with an agenda for a bigger sense of health, the implications of the research are a bit underwhelming.
However the book is a treasure trove of references to studies about the difference taking our social nature seriously can make.
Thanks! The trouble is people have known for years about how to get kids to learn, groups to work well together, etc. A Wall Street Journal article wondered why companies don’t use this knowledge. Their answer — most bosses like to show their authority. Yuck!
I have heard that some schools have older kids teach younger ones. They both benefit a lot. As I recall Stephen Covey said the most important thing when you read his book was to tell someone else what you learned. Certainly when I read the news I’m always thinking, “How would I write about this in a post?” The nice thing about the internet is we don’t have to remember all the details, we can always look them up again, instead we can mull over what events mean, how ideas connect with one another.
Thank you for sharing what you’re getting from the book.
A terrific book, I think. What interests me most is his way of thinking about questions: why have people developed the specific experiments they have to explore a more general idea, and what happens so they go on to try other approaches? And why does he think, e.g., a lot of talk about mirror neurons is off-base, and what would be needed to take the next step? And his ideas about “mentalizing” which by the way includes a discussion of 3 different things he might mean when he says “mind-reading”, only one of which is the often faulty “mind-reading” done when we assume what we’d mean by something is what the other person means too. I’d say, forget the reviews and read the book!
I’m glad you’re enjoying it. I was happy to find this video because I wanted to give him a chance to use his own words rather than to draw conclusions from just reviews. I’m afraid I had trouble watching the whole thing because it felt he was talking down to his audience.
Since then I did a bit more research. Most of his students love him because he makes the concepts so easy and it’s easy to get an A in his class. One person felt the way I do — it’s aimed at too low a level. Because of your recommendation I will give him one more chance — I’ll read the free sample on Kindle. At any rate I’ll keep my eye out for him in Science and Science News.
Also, please feel free to share any insights you get from him here.