Category Archives: Dan's blog

Brain myths #6: Your brain is like a computer

6. Brains are like computers.

Smithsonian: We speak of the brain’s processing speed, its storage capacity, its parallel circuits, inputs and outputs. The metaphor fails at pretty much every level: the brain doesn’t have a set memory capacity that is waiting to be filled up; it doesn’t perform computations in the way a computer does; and even basic visual perception isn’t a passive receiving of inputs because we actively interpret, anticipate and pay attention to different elements of the visual world.

There’s a long history of likening the brain to whatever technology is the most advanced, impressive and vaguely mysterious. Descartes compared the brain to a hydraulic machine. Freud likened emotions to pressure building up in a steam engine. The brain later resembled a telephone switchboard and then an electrical circuit before evolving into a computer; lately it’s turning into a Web browser or the Internet. These metaphors linger in clichés: emotions put the brain “under pressure” and some behaviors are thought to be “hard-wired.”

RapidChange Group: The most important way your brain and a computer are different is this: A computer can only think in a series of “yes” and “no” questions. The human brain can deal with many different inputs, options and possibilities simultaneously. The difference is the one between your dog, who is binary and thus can see in black & white and handle “yes” and “no” but not “maybe” and you, who can see in multiple colors and deal with “maybe” all the time. The computer is a really fast version of your dog. But it is still a dog.

Here’s another way to think about it: What is between Black & White? Most people instinctively say “Gray.” For humans, the full spectrum of color exists between Black (= full saturation of color) and White (= complete absence of color). This difference translates into how we go about solving problems. If we see every issue as binary, we limit our options to Black, White and Gray. In fact, most challenges have a full spectrum of possible answers.

By relying on the analogy of physics and computers, we have greatly limited our ability to creatively solve problems. It is time to start looking at the world through the lens of biology – multiple possibilities, infinite creativity.

Top Myths #7 – We only have five senses

7. We have five senses.
Smithsonian: Sure, sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch are the big ones. But we have many other ways of sensing the world and our place in it. Proprioception is a sense of how our bodies are positioned. Nociception is a sense of pain. We also have a sense of balance—the inner ear is to this sense as the eye is to vision—as well as a sense of body temperature, acceleration and the passage of time.

Compared with other species, though, humans are missing out. Bats and dolphins use sonar to find prey; some birds and insects see ultraviolet light; snakes detect the heat of warmblooded prey; rats, cats, seals and other whiskered creatures use their “vibrissae” to judge spatial relations or detect movements. By the way, have you seen the taste map of the tongue, the diagram showing that different regions are sensitive to salty, sweet, sour or bitter flavors? Also a myth.

RCG: What is interesting about these other senses is how they are related to the primitive Reptilian system – pain, balance, position. When our sense of pain or position is tweaked, our amygdala kicks in and we go into Fight, Flight or Freeze response. Time, however, is a curious one. David Eagleman, in his recent book “Incognito,” talks about time as a “rubbery thing.” His research demonstrates how the unconscious brain edits our experience and plays with our sense of time to protect us, to make more efficient use of our energy or to alter our perception of danger.

Our sense of time also is influenced by how engaged our Neocortex is in the task before us. When our Reptilian and Limbic systems are calmed and the Neocortex is in charge, we experience time flying by while simultaneously “lasting forever.” Why is that? I’m not sure enough research has been done yet to answer that question!

Top myths about the brain, #9 Flashbulb memories

Myth #9. “Flashbulb memories” are precise, detailed and persistent.
Smithsonian: We all have memories that feel as vivid and accurate as a snapshot, usually of some shocking, dramatic event—the assassination of President Kennedy, the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, the attacks of September 11, 2001. People remember exactly where they were, what they were doing, who they were with, what they saw or heard. But several clever experiments have tested people’s memory immediately after a tragedy and again several months or years later. The test subjects tend to be confident that their memories are accurate and say the flashbulb memories are more vivid than other memories. Vivid they may be, but the memories decay over time just as other memories do. People forget important details and add incorrect ones, with no awareness that they’re recreating a muddled scene in their mindsrather than calling up a perfect, photographic reproduction.

RCG: This is a myth that we perpetuated in RapidChange work for years. People do have vivid memories of events such as the Kennedy assassination because there is a lot of emotion attached to them. Which, it turns out, is one of the reasons they aren’t wholly reliable. The part of your brain that holds your long-term memory sits near the part of your brain that is the catalyst for emotional responses. Those emotions and the stories we tell ourselves about those events combine to alter our memories.

Another factor is how the brain uses those stories to keep long-term memories. One of the best explanations of this is found in the book, “Picking Cotton,” a tale of what happens when a victim of violence becomes convinced someone she picks out of lineup is guilty. Eighteen years later, she discovers she was wrong. The reasons and the results make for an inspiring, and humbling, read.

Top 10 Brain Myths Countdown

Smithsonian Magazine this month has posted the “Top 10 Myths About the Brain.” The list is a good place to start a conversation about how a better understanding of the brain – how people Think, Act & Feel – is critical to the success of your organization. I’m going to try to tackle one every day or so until we get through them. Today …

Myth 10. We use only 10 percent of our brains.

Smithsonian: This one sounds so compelling—a precise number, repeated in pop culture for a century, implying that we have huge reserves of untapped mental powers. But the supposedly unused 90 percent of the brain is not some vestigial appendix. Brains are expensive—it takes a lot of energy to build brains during fetal and childhood development and maintain them in adults. Evolutionarily, it would make no sense to carry around surplus brain tissue. Experiments using PET or fMRI scans show that much of the brain is engaged even during simple tasks, and injury to even a small bit of brain can have profound consequences for language, sensory perception, movement or emotion.

Dan: The last 15 years of brain research has demonstrated two relevant points here: 1. Neuroplasticity allows the brain to constantly make new connections and that we continue to make those connections until we die. 2. Most of the work our brain does every day happens in our unconscious – tasks such as making sure our heart beats , our lungs breath and filtering the 12 million bits of information that bombards us every minute.

So why does it feel like there’s more brain power to tap into. Because there is. Interestingly, though, the way our brains are wired makes it a challenge for us to use its best parts. For example, the Reptilian Brain acts like a constant monitoring system. It has a hair-trigger response to anything that seems like a threat – physical or mental. It evolved that way to keep us alive – was that sound a bear or the wind? is that person friend or foe? But when we get scared or angry, the more intelligent parts of our brain are purposely slowed down so we can put our energy into Fighting, Fleeing or Freezing.

Once we learn to recognize that response, we can learn how to shut it down and let our “smart” brain take over. It is harder than it seems, which is why we look at others or ourselves and say, “why aren’t they using their heads?”

Disconnected? Unfortunately, you probably don’t know it

According to ExecuNet, a “professional network for executives,” CEOS aren’t very good at knowing what motivates their “C-level” direct reports. As a result, these executives either leave or they slowly become under-utilized. At worst, they become poison.

Apparently, most C-level folks only hear what they want to hear, assume most people are motivated by money and greed and think their colleagues have more influence on policy than they do personally, according the survey of 2,463 executives, as reported in Monday’s WSJ.

As it turns out, the executives surveyed said they are most motivated by having input into decisions, being heard by the CEO, and having control of their work-life mix. Funny, though, that they don’t think their peers or their employees are motivated by the same interests.

We’re wired to default to the negative – to be on watch for people getting more than we do, for danger, for thinking people are hiding things from us. Evolutionarily speaking, that has kept us alive for thousands of years.

That’s why creating a better workplace culture has to be a deliberate act. We have to be aware of concepts such as “loss-aversion,” “reptilian response” and our natural inclination to seek out information that re-enforces our already established positions.

If we recognize it, we can do something about it.


‘Yes or No’ is not fast enough





69 days, 8 hours.
The time it took to rescue 33 men trapped more than a mile underground after a mine explosion in Chile.




157 days, 16.5 hours.
The time it took to stop the BP oil leak more than a mile down in the Gulf of Mexico.

Apples and oranges, you ask? And what could this possibly have to do with your business?

Jonathan Franklin released his book, “33 Men,” in February. It delved into what happened in the mine – the harrowing fear of cannibalism and stories of prayer, hope and despair. Before we become obsessed with salacious details of survival, let’s take a moment to learn from the rescue efforts.

Consider this: Within hours of discovering the miners were alive, the Chilean government and the state-owned mining firm, Codelco, had formed six teams each charged with simultaneously pursuing separate ideas for a rescue. There were at least four different drilling teams, a fifth team looking at a dramatic blast plan and one team looking at what would happen if the miners will still alive and there was no realistic way left to save them.

All six teams were let loose to find an answer. Not necessarily the answer. An answer.

One of the teams turned to NASA for help, another inquired with a South African mining firm and one found a special drill bit developed by a Pennsylvania company being used in the Middle East. Would that bit work in the Chilean rock? Well, let’s give it a shot. Can you get it here tomorrow? Whatever it takes. The team that had been working with NASA stepped forward and said, “hey we can make some changes to our rescue capsule to fit your drill bit.” That’s a little bit simplistic, but as we know, the rest is history.

Now let’s look at the efforts to close the oil leak in the Gulf. Late last year I heard Marcia McNutt, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, talk about her management of the science around the Deep Water Horizon oil spill. She kept talking about the scientists’ search to find “the Answer.” How she brought together all the top minds and listened to them, one after the other. Everything she talked about had a sequential nature to it. First this, then this. When this didn’t work, we turned our attention to … Here’s a good quote, “No research had been done on this, so we had to rely on every technique possible. We’d try one. If that didn’t work, we’d go on to the next one.”

I’m not a chemist or an ocean biologist so I can’t say with authority that the oil leak could have been stopped any sooner. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here, though, by saying that if the Chilean leaders had taken McNutt’s approach, the miners would still be down there.

What’s the difference? And what does it mean to your business?

Our institutions tend to view issues through a binary lens. Things are either right or wrong, black or white, yes or no. When I ask audiences what exists between black and white, the vast majority of people say “gray.” Unfortunately, that’s only true if you’re a reptile, a dog or a computer. For humans, the answer is the full spectrum of colors – black is the full saturation of all colors and white is the complete absence of color.

You might think “yes or no” is the quickest way to deal with something. Often, however, the finality and weight of “yes or no” slows the process and magnifies the importance and impact of the yes and the no.

Humans are one of only a handful of animals to have developed prefrontal lobes and, along with that, the ability to see multiple possible consequences from a single behavior. That means we can piece together an alternative solution from a number of possible solutions. This is an ability we see companies rarely tap into when times get tough. Probably the most famous example of using this capacity is the Apollo 13 mission control team that, together with the astronauts, made a new air filter out of a hodge-podge of available parts, keeping the astronauts alive.

At RapidChange, we call this full-spectrum thinking. The purpose is to take maximum advantage of our intellectual and emotional resources to find effective, efficient and creative answers to the challenges we face. To use it, leaders have to learn how to purposely frame challenges as having multiple answers, not binary ones. As the world gets more complex, it is a skill we sorely need to learn and embrace.

To learn more about full-spectrum thinking … go to

– Dan Suwyn

Will your company have its own “Egypt moment”?

On the streets of Cairo, Egyptians of diverse backgrounds have been demanding rapid change. After 30 years of authoritarian rule, they are calling for a greater voice in how their country is governed.

The pace of the revolt has surprised many observers. The consensus had been that the majority of Egyptians were content to trade their free speech and economic rights for stability and predictability. President Mubarak had eliminated most of his opposition. In return, there had been jobs, food and safety, allowing citizens to not be too worried about what was happening in the rest of the region.

What changed?

The economy slowed down, resulting in high unemployment and rising food prices. Then there was the successful, social-media aided revolution in Tunisia. But those were simply the “last straws.”

There are a number of things influencing events in Egypt. Yet what’s happening there is also happening on a micro-level in many American companies. From a cognitive brain perspective, Egypt has reached a tipping point in a natural process driven by the way our brains develop. This process happens at the individual, group and societal level and it offers lessons for businesses and organizations.

The dominant generation Mubarak has ruled – those now in their 50s and beyond – had known mostly upheaval, war and insecurity. They were driven by a primary need for Safety. But their children, a generation that has only known safety, is moving up the brain into the Limbic system. They want Respect. They want a voice at the table, accountability from leaders, the ability to control their future and levels of autonomy of which their parents had not dared dream.

That generation now makes up more than 52 percent of Egypt’s population.

This progression, from the Safety needs of the Reptilian Brain to the Respect needs of the Limbic Brain, is the way we’re all wired. It keeps us alive. When we’re feeling safe, we don’t stay satisfied. We look for signs that we are being heard and respected. That’s what is happening in Egypt on a national level and it was, in many ways, very predictable. If the Egyptian people can get through the troubling days ahead restoring respect for all parties, they have a chance at engaging their fellow citizens in a truly rewarding dialogue.

The enemy for the Egyptian people today is no longer Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood, but instead fear and anger. Fear and anger engages the Reptilian brain’s responses of fight, flight or freeze.

Look within your own organization. In some companies we see Boomers who have been willing to trade their voice and respect for safety. There are Millenials and Xers who have only known safety and, no matter what the economy looks like, they are demanding respect, a voice and levels of autonomy that seem out-of-sync with their elders.

How leaders respond to those Limbic needs will determine their success. As I write this, brute force and cynicism are only making things worse in Egypt. You cannot avoid these moments. You can anticipate them. Ask yourself how you are responding to veteran employees who have begun to “retire while working?” How are your managers approaching those younger employees who have new ideas or unconventional requests? What happens when your customers ask you for something unusual? Do you understand what “revolutions” are happening among your suppliers?

Safety and Respect. You cannot dazzle people with your logic, reason and creativity until those needs are met. With an understanding of the way we’re wired, you can be ready for your own “Egypt moment.”

Dan Suwyn

Top 10 Lessons from PopTech, version 1.0

Change is not an event. It is a constant. Three days at PopTech make that abundantly clear. Sixty-five speakers, any of whose ideas could significantly change your business. Then there are the 400+ attendees off whom those ideas bounce in animated and brilliant directions.

How do we make sense of all this research, all these trends, all these innovations – both good and bad? The first lesson of PopTech is that you can’t. And because one person cannot keep track of this complexity, it requires a certain type of management approach to engage as many people as possible in this task.

It is also clear that the best people out there are looking for companies and organizations that promote this engaged business environment. Even in these difficult employment times, folks are walking away from companies who don’t respect their contributions.

Again and again, we heard success stories from companies, non-profits and NGOs that told of smart leaders using an understanding of how people Think, Act and Feel to break through gridlock.

So if you want to be the leader of that “Engaged and Enriched Business Environment,” here is my current Top 10 lessons I’ve put to use since PopTech, besides “Camden, Maine, is beautiful in Autumn.” As the weeks go on, this list may change so stay tuned. In the meantime, see if and how they may apply to your work and life.

1. People are really tired of other people being certain. – Dr. David Eagleman

2. Company. Verb. Target. Outcome. Keep it simple and keep it clear.

3. Know your mission; measure the right things; measure them well. – Kevin Starr, Mulago Foundation

4. Leaders need to embrace “the permanent possibility of someone else having a better idea.” – Kathryn Schulz, author, “Being Wrong”

5. When something goes wrong, first answer these questions: What happened? Who has been affected? What now? How do we prevent this from happening again? There will be plenty of time to affix blame.

6. Local analogies work best when trying to fix a problem; Regional analogies work best when trying to innovate; and Long Distance analogies help explain things. – Kevin Dunbar, researcher

6. One important thing we’ve learned from fMRI research: Data you don’t like, you don’t process.

7. Donald Ingbar has the best job in the world:

8. The future is here, its just not evenly distributed. – Lisa Gansky, author of The Mesh

9. You can’t have accountability without some significant level of autonomy.

10. Emotions shouldn’t drive most of our decisions AND they are critical data for making good decisions.

PopTech lessons: When complexity outstrips understanding

In her new book, “The Watchman’s Rattle,” Rebecca D. Costa makes the case that great societies – the Incas, the Mayans, the Romans, etc. – failed when their ability to create complexity outstripped most people’s ability to understand and unravel that complexity. What happens at that point, she writes, is that science and/or technology then requires a sense of “belief” similar to religion.

When religion and science both require “belief,” gridlock is inevitable. That gridlock pushes generation after generation to postpone finding solutions to clearly solvable problems, let alone attempting to tackle the really complex issues that mount up at an increasingly rapid pace.

Costa’s theory struck home to me during PopTech, especially around its Science Fellows program. There was a time when the citizen-scientist was a staple of America’s self-definition: Jefferson, Franklin, Rush, Edison, Bell, Einstein, to skip around a few generations. At a time when our nation and our planet face unprecedented challenges, surprisingly few working scientists and researchers become visible, actively engaged public leaders.

“This lack of visible scientific leaders has real consequences,” according to the program’s mission statement. “Without them, science’s influence is diminished in public debate.”

Each year, PopTech selects up to 20 high-potential, early- and mid-career scientists working in areas of critical importance to the nation and the planet, such as: energy, food, water, public health, climate change, conservation ecology, green chemistry, computing, education, oceans, and national security.

These fellows are trained by leaders in communications, media and public engagement. Fellows are also provided with significant opportunities to raise their public profile and that of their work through a variety of media, and to participate in a peer-level alumni network.

Societies work better, Costa writes, when religion and science can co-exist. Bringing that into balance in today’s society requires public education to completely reform the way it approaches Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.

Click here to learn more about PopTech’s Science Fellows.

PopTech Lessons: “Prisoners of a broken system”

Deborah Kenny, head of the Harlem Village School, says that if you want to understand the gridlock in public education today, it comes to this:

“There are 75 different ways to teach middle school math,” Kenny said from the stage at PopTech. “I see all those choices as a good thing. My school district sees that as a bad thing.”

Kenny and her board member and back-up singer, John Legend, described our current public schools as the product of the industrial age, a time when the expectations of children were little more than to learn enough to operate inside a factory or on the family farm.

That early 1800s Industrial Model was designed to prepare people to be citizens in a less complex society. We continue to try to impose factory conditions and protocols on teachers instead of treating them as knowledge workers. So instead of fully engaged professionals, our system encouraged the creation of unions,  whose main purpose was protection of teacher’s rights and jobs rather than fostering of talent.

This “industrial mindset” has failed to bring out passion in many teachers and treated students like replaceable widgets. If we are going to create learning cultures that ignite a student’s passion for learning, we need an “Enriched Environment” where there is both autonomy and accountability for children and teachers.

There are plenty of examples of success. One of them, the Engineering Workshop at West Philadelphia High School was on display at PopTech. A group of students in this otherwise struggling school have won the Race du Sol with their own design of a high-mileage hybrid car, defeating for-profit car companies, engineering schools and even MIT. They also were finalists for the $10 million X-Prize for a 100+ mpg, commercially viable sports car.

What do these two examples have in common? Leadership at both schools gave teachers the autonomy and accountability to pursue the mastery of their specialty. Their progress fed their sense of purpose, which translated into an ability to excite and connect with students.

Notice it had nothing to do with the School Board, the Main Office or the Superintendent.

“Too many of our children are prisoners of a broken system,” Legend told the audience. “Our children need the space to dig deep. We need to realize that intelligence is not one-size fits all.”