Has brain science reached a tipping point? Do mediators and lawyers ‘need to incorporate neuroscience into their practice’?

From Stephanie West Allen’s blog on Neuroscience and conflict resolution .

Ed Batista, Leadership Coach at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, posted today about the use of neuroscience in coaching, leadership and learning. His thoughtful post includes due concern about “neuro-hype” and the limitations of the science, topics on which I have posted before (posts here). Batista’s discussion about limitations includes the link to a very good article from Haaretz.com titled “Of two minds“. From the article:

[M]any scientists are taking issue with the rising dominance of brain sciences within the study of the human mind and human behavior. Psychologists, philosophers and even a large number of brain researchers maintain that many of the studies that are attracting public interest are scientifically untenable, rely on as-yet-unproven technologies, or simply show the obvious after appalling financial investments. Others argue that the studies are unethical and subject to commercial manipulation.

Nevertheless, the science does have some good information and need not be ignored. Batista says:

[W]e’re clearly at a point where humanistic professionals–executive coaches, OD consultants, experiential educators–need to incorporate neuroscience into their practices.

I add mediators and lawyers to that list of professionals who “need to incorporate neuroscience into their practices.” Why? For the many reasons I have blogged about here and about which I will continue to write.

                       

Stephanie West Allen

Stephanie West Allen, JD, practiced law in California for several years, held offices in local bar associations, and wrote chapters for California Continuing Education of the Bar. While in CA, Stephanie completed several five-day mediation training programs with the Center for Mediation in Law, as well as a two-year intensive… MORE >