Podcast appearances and mentions of Gregory Berns

When neuroscientists scanned the brains of people going along with a group, they expected to find lying. What they found instead was something far stranger. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. We'll get to that study in a minute. But first, I want you to remember the last time you were in a meeting, and you knew something was wrong. The numbers didn't add up. The risk was being underestimated. And someone needed to say it. Then the most senior person in the room spoke first: "I think this is exactly what we need." Heads nodded. Finance agreed. Marketing agreed. The consultant agreed. And by the time it was your turn, you heard yourself saying, "I have some minor concerns, but overall I think it's solid." You're not alone. Research shows that roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern. And among those who stayed quiet, 40% estimated they wasted 2 weeks or more replaying what they didn't say. Two weeks. Mentally rehearsing the point they should have made in a meeting that's already over. That silence isn't a character flaw. It's your neurology working against you. And today I'm going to show you exactly why it happens and how to stop it.  It starts with what was happening inside your head during that meeting you just remembered. Why Your Brain Surrenders to the Group Most people know about the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s. People were asked to match line lengths, and seventy-five percent went along with answers that were obviously wrong. That result gets cited everywhere. But the more important study came fifty years later, and it revealed something the Asch experiment never could. In 2005, neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine and ran a similar conformity task, this time with three-dimensional shape rotation. Like Asch, he planted actors who gave wrong answers. But unlike Asch, he could watch what was happening inside people's brains while the conformity was occurring. Berns expected the MRI to show activity in the prefrontal cortex, the brain's decision-making center, when people went along with wrong answers. That would mean they were knowingly lying to fit in. Just a social calculation. That's not what the scans showed. People who conformed showed no increased activity in decision-making regions. Instead, the activity showed up in the parts of the brain that handle visual and spatial perception, the occipital and parietal areas. The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw. Their brains were rewriting their experience to match the room. And the people who resisted the group? Their scans told a different story. Heightened activity in the amygdala, the brain's threat detection center. The same circuitry that fires when you encounter physical danger lit up when someone disagreed with the group. Berns put it plainly. The fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival. When you caved in that meeting, your neurology wasn't malfunctioning. It was doing exactly what it was designed to do. Keep you safe inside the tribe. This is why what I call mindjacking works so well. Algorithms manufacture social proof by showing you what's trending, what your friends liked, and what similar people chose. Your wiring responds the same way it does at the conference table. You're fighting your own threat-detection system every time you try to hold an independent position within a group. You can't turn off the wiring. But you can learn to catch it in the act. And that starts with one critical distinction. The First Skill: Separating Updating from Caving Sometimes the people around you know something you don't. Changing your mind in a group isn't always a surrender. Sometimes it's the smartest move in the room. The real skill is knowing which one just happened. You can test this in real time. When you feel your position shifting in a group, ask yourself three questions. First: Did someone introduce information I didn't have before? If the CFO reveals a data point that genuinely changes the calculus, updating your view isn't a weakness. It's intelligence. That's new evidence. Second: Can I articulate why I changed my mind, in specific terms? If you can say, "I shifted because of the margin data in Q3 that I hadn't seen," that's a real update. If you can only say, "I don't know, everyone seemed to think it was fine," that's capitulation. Third: Would I have reached this same conclusion alone, with the same information? This is the killer question. If the answer is no, and you only arrived at this position because others were already there, you haven't updated. You've surrendered. Getting this wrong is costly. And not just the one time. When you capitulate and call it updating, you train yourself to stop trusting your own analysis. Do it enough times, and you won't even bother preparing, because you already know you're going to defer. That's how capable people slowly become passengers in rooms where they should be driving. Capture those three questions somewhere you'll see them. They're your real-time check on whether you're being open-minded or spineless. Those questions work when you're already in the meeting and the pressure is live. But what if you could protect your thinking before the pressure even starts? The Pre-Meeting Lock-In The most important thing you can do to protect your independent thinking doesn't happen during the meeting. It happens before. I call it the Pre-Meeting Lock-In, and it takes less than two minutes. Before any meeting where a decision will be made, write down three things:  Your position  Two or three key reasons supporting it What would it take to change your mind Put it on paper. Put it in a note on your phone. Just get it out of your head and into a form you can reference. Why does this work? Because once the discussion starts, your mind is going to quietly edit your memories of what you believed. You'll start thinking, "Well, I wasn't really sure about that point anyway." Your pre-meeting notes are an anchor against that self-deception. They're a record of what you actually thought before the social pressure arrived. You want to see what happens when someone has the analysis but doesn't lock it in?  The night before the Challenger launch in January 1986, engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data. They knew the O-ring seals were dangerous in cold weather. They'd written memos. They'd run the numbers. They recommended against launching. But when NASA pushed back hard on the teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus and excluded the engineers from the room. When the call resumed, management reversed the recommendation. Boisjoly had the analysis. His managers had heard it. But under pressure from their biggest customer, the conclusion got edited in real time. Boisjoly later described it as an unethical forum driven by what he called "intense customer intimidation." He fought like hell, but the room won. That's the most extreme version of the problem. Life and death. But the mechanics are the same in every conference room. The analysis exists. The pressure arrives. And without something anchoring you to what you actually concluded, the room rewrites the story. There's a bonus effect to the Lock-In, too. When you've documented what it would take to change your mind, you've given yourself permission to be genuinely open. You're not being stubborn for the sake of it. You're saying, "Show me evidence that meets this threshold, and I'll update." That's intellectual honesty with a backbone. But you can know exactly what you think and still fail if you can't get anyone else to hear it. How to Dissent and Actually Be Heard Most dissent fails not because it's wrong, but because it's delivered badly.  Blurting out "I think this is a mistake" when the group is already aligned feels like an attack. People get defensive. Your point gets ignored, not because it lacked merit, but because your delivery threatened the group's cohesion. You triggered the same threat response in them that you've been learning to manage in yourself. Charlan Nemeth, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, has studied dissent for decades. You'd expect her research to show that dissent helps groups when the dissenter is right. When someone spots a flaw that everyone else missed. That makes intuitive sense. But that's not what she found. Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully. They consider more information, examine more alternatives, and reach better conclusions. And the group benefits even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong. Even when you're wrong, the act of dissenting makes the group smarter. Your disagreement forces everyone out of autopilot. Decades of research by Moscovici supports this. Minority voices don't just influence people in the moment. They shift perception afterward, in private, long after the meeting ends. That's the good news. The catch is in how the dissent happens. Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic, when someone plays devil's advocate because they were told to. It doesn't produce the same effect. Groups can tell when disagreement is performative. The cognitive benefits only show up when the dissent is authentic. When someone actually believes what they're saying. That means the goal isn't just to voice disagreement. It's to voice it in a way that people can actually receive. And the hardest version of this isn't when you have a minor concern about an otherwise good plan. It's when the whole direction is wrong, and finding something to praise would be dishonest. In those moments, the move is to separate the people from the position. "I respect the work that went into this, and I know this isn't what anyone wants to hear, but I think we're solving the wrong problem." You're honoring the effort while challenging the direction. You're not attacking the tribe. You're trying to save it from a bad bet. When the stakes are lower, and you do see genuine merit, you can lead with that. "The market timing argument is strong, and I want to make sure we've stress-tested one thing before we commit." Same principle. You're working with their wiring instead of against it. Either way, your dissent has value beyond being right. Remember that. It's worth holding onto when your amygdala is screaming at you to stay quiet. Everything so far has assumed you're in a room with other people. Your amygdala can't tell the difference between a conference table and a phone screen. The Rooms You Can't See You're not just in meetings. You're in invisible rooms all day long. And most of the time, you don't even know you've walked into one. Every time you scroll past a post with ten thousand likes and think, "I guess that's the right take." Every time you read three articles with the same conclusion and stop questioning it. Every time an algorithm shows you what similar people chose, and you choose it too. Those are rooms full of nodding heads. And your amygdala responds to them the same way it responds to the conference table. Think about the last time you researched a major purchase. You probably started with some idea of what you wanted. Then you read reviews. Then you checked what was trending. Then you asked friends. By the time you decided, how much of that decision was yours? How much of it was the room? Or think about how you form opinions on topics you haven't studied deeply. You read a few articles. They mostly agree. You adopt the consensus. That feels like research. But Berns' scans tell us what's actually happening. Your brain isn't independently weighing the evidence. It's detecting a consensus and rewriting your perception to match. The same process that happens at the conference table is happening every time you open your phone. Mindjacking doesn't need to override your thinking. It just needs to make sure you never finish thinking for yourself before the crowd's answer arrives. And once it arrives, your neurology does the rest. The group doesn't just influence your answer; it shapes it. It rewrites your perception. The Lock-In works for these invisible rooms, too. Before you research a major purchase, write down what you actually want and what you're willing to pay. Before you dive into reviews and opinions, commit your criteria to paper. Before you ask friends what they think about a decision you've already analyzed, record your conclusion. Give yourself the same protection from algorithmic conformity that you'd want before walking into a boardroom. The skill isn't being contrarian. It's being first. First, to your own conclusion, before the room, any room, gets a vote. This is your challenge for the week. Think of one meeting you have coming up where a decision will be made. Before you walk in, open your notes app and type three lines. Line one: what you think. Line two: why. Line three: what would change your mind. That's it. Then sit in that meeting and watch what happens to your thinking when the room pushes back. I think you'll surprise yourself. What if the person you can't resist isn't your boss, your colleagues, or the algorithm? What if it's you? What happens when the decision you need to make threatens something deeper, when being wrong would mean something unbearable about who you are? That's where we're headed next. Closing If this episode gave you something useful, hit that subscribe button. I'm building a complete thinking toolkit here in the Thinking 101 series. If you got value today, share it with someone who could use it, especially anyone heading into a big meeting this week. Drop a comment and tell me: what's the hardest group you've ever had to disagree with? I read every comment and reply. Thanks for watching, and I'll see you in the next episode. Endnotes/References "roughly half of employees stay silent at work rather than voice a concern" / "forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more": VitalSmarts, Costly Conversations: Why The Way Employees Communicate Will Make or Break Your Bottom Line (Provo, UT: VitalSmarts, December 2016). In a study of 1,025 employees, 70 percent reported instances where they or others failed to speak up effectively when a peer did not pull their weight. Half wasted seven days or more avoiding crucial conversations. Forty percent estimated they wasted two weeks or more ruminating about the problem. A 2021 follow-up study by Crucial Learning (formerly VitalSmarts) of 1,100 people found the rumination figure had risen to 43 percent. The script's "roughly half" is drawn from the VitalSmarts finding that the majority of the workforce reported conversation failures, with half losing seven or more days to avoidance behaviors. Primary source: https://www.vitalsmarts.com/press/2016/12/costly-conversations-why-the-way-employees-communicate-will-make-or-break-your-bottom-line/. Follow-up study: https://cruciallearning.com/press/costly-conversations-how-lack-of-communication-is-costing-organizations-thousands-in-revenue/ "the Asch conformity experiments from the 1950s": Solomon E. Asch, "Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments," in Groups, Leadership and Men, ed. Harold Guetzkow (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951), 177–190. The expanded report was published as Solomon E. Asch, "Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority," Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70, no. 9 (1956): 1–70. Asch conducted the line-judgment experiments at Swarthmore College. Participants judged which of three comparison lines matched a standard line, with confederates unanimously giving incorrect answers on critical trials. Across conditions, approximately 75 percent of participants conformed at least once, and the mean conformity rate was approximately one-third of critical trials. Group sizes varied across experiments, typically with 6–8 confederates and one real participant. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-00803-001 "neuroscientist Gregory Berns at Emory University put people inside an MRI machine": Gregory S. Berns, Jonathan Chappelow, Caroline F. Zink, Giuseppe Pagnoni, Megan E. Martin-Skurski, and Jim Richards, "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity and Independence During Mental Rotation," Biological Psychiatry 58, no. 3 (August 1, 2005): 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.04.012. The study used functional magnetic resonance imaging with a mental rotation task. Participants (n=32, ages 19–41) judged whether three-dimensional shapes were rotated versions of each other while four confederates provided answers. Conformity was associated with functional changes in the occipital-parietal network (visual and spatial perception regions), not the prefrontal cortex. Independence was associated with heightened activity in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus, regions linked to emotional salience and threat detection. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "The group wasn't changing people's answers. It was changing what they actually saw": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. The researchers isolated the specifically social element of conformity by comparing brain activation when wrong answers came from a group of people versus when they came from computers. Conformity to group-sourced wrong answers produced greater activation bilaterally in visual cortex and right intraparietal sulcus, overlapping the baseline mental rotation network. Berns interpreted this as evidence that social conformity operates at a perceptual level rather than merely at a decision-making level. Full text PDF: https://pdodds.w3.uvm.edu/files/papers/others/2005/berns2005.pdf "Heightened activity in the amygdala": Berns et al., "Neurobiological Correlates of Social Conformity," 245–253. Participants who gave independent (correct) answers when the group was wrong showed significantly increased activation in the right amygdala and right caudate nucleus. The amygdala is associated with processing emotionally salient stimuli and threats. Berns described these findings as "consistent with the assumptions of social norm theory about the behavioral saliency of standing alone." The script's characterization that "the fear of social isolation activates the same neural machinery as the fear of genuine threats to survival" is an accessible paraphrase of this finding, consistent with the broader social pain literature (e.g., Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), though Berns' paper does not use that exact language. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15978553/ "engineer Roger Boisjoly and his team at Morton Thiokol had the data": Roger M. Boisjoly, "Ethical Decisions — Morton Thiokol and the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster" (paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Annual Meeting, December 13–18, 1987). First presented as a talk at MIT in January 1987. Boisjoly, a specialist in O-ring seals and rocket joints at Morton Thiokol, documented how engineers recommended against the January 28, 1986 launch based on concerns about O-ring performance in cold temperatures. During the pre-launch teleconference, Thiokol management called an off-line caucus, excluded the engineers, and reversed the no-launch recommendation under pressure from NASA. Boisjoly described the forum as constituting "the unethical decision-making forum" driven by customer pressure. He was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Online Ethics Center at the National Academy of Engineering hosts Boisjoly's full account: https://onlineethics.org/cases/ethical-decisions-morton-thiokol-and-space-shuttle-challenger-disaster-introduction. See also Russell P. Boisjoly, Ellen Foster Curtis, and Eugene Mellican, "Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions," Journal of Business Ethics 8, no. 4 (April 1989): 217–230. doi:10.1007/BF00383335. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00383335 "Nemeth discovered that when someone voices a genuine minority opinion, the entire group thinks more carefully": Charlan J. Nemeth, In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business (New York: Basic Books, 2018). Nemeth's research program at UC Berkeley, spanning four decades, demonstrated that exposure to minority dissent stimulates divergent thinking, broader information search, consideration of more alternatives, and higher-quality group decisions. The finding that dissent improves group performance even when the dissenter turns out to be wrong is documented across multiple studies. See also Charlan J. Nemeth, "Minority Influence Theory," IRLE Working Paper No. 218-10 (Berkeley: Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, May 2010). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1pz676t7 "Decades of research by Moscovici": Serge Moscovici, Elisabeth Lage, and Martine Naffrechoux, "Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task," Sociometry 32, no. 4 (December 1969): 365–380. In the original experiment, participants viewed blue slides while two confederates consistently called them green. The consistent minority condition produced a shift in approximately 8 percent of majority judgments toward the minority position, and roughly one-third of participants conformed at least once. In the inconsistent minority condition, the effect was negligible (approximately 1.25 percent). The script's claim that "minority voices don't just influence people in the moment — they shift perception afterward, in private" draws on Moscovici's subsequent conversion theory and research on the delayed and private effects of minority influence, including afterimage studies showing genuine perceptual shifts. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786541 "Nemeth tested what happens when dissent is assigned rather than authentic": Charlan J. Nemeth, Joanie B. Connell, John D. Rogers, and Keith S. Brown, "Improving Decision Making by Means of Dissent," Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, no. 1 (2001): 48–58. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. Groups deliberated a personal injury case under three conditions: authentic dissent (a genuine minority viewpoint), assigned devil's advocate (a member told to argue the opposing side), and no dissent. Authentic dissent was superior in stimulating consideration of opposing positions, original thought, and direct attitude change. The devil's advocate condition did not produce the same cognitive benefits, suggesting that groups detect and discount performative disagreement. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02481.x. See also Charlan Nemeth, Keith Brown, and John Rogers, "Devil's Advocate versus Authentic Dissent: Stimulating Quantity and Quality," European Journal of Social Psychology 31, no. 6 (2001): 707–720. doi:10.1002/ejsp.58.

When Equiteam's Liz Daniels saw a post on Facebook about a groundbreaking study by neuroscientist Gregory Berns, revealing that dogs may love their humans more than food or other dogs—it sparked a deep conversation with fellow horse lover and co-host, Louise Gillings, about the power of connection in the horse world. Connections are essential because they support our overall well-being by increasing happiness and reducing stress, loneliness, and the risk of mental health issues. As usual the pair go off piste as their conversations go to mute giraffes, jellyfish with no brains (or nerves) and what it means to truly feel part of a supportive equestrian community.

Today's wisdom comes from Iconoclast by Gregory Berns.   If you're loving Heroic Wisdom Daily, be sure to subscribe to the emails at heroic.us/wisdom-daily.   And… Imagine unlocking access to the distilled wisdom form 700+ of the greatest books ever written.   That's what Heroic Premium offers: Unlimited access to every Philosopher's Note. Daily inspiration and actionable tools to optimize your energy, work, and love. Personalized coaching features to help you stay consistent and focused   Upgrade to Heroic Premium →   Know someone who'd love this? Share Heroic Wisdom Daily with them, and let's grow together in 2025!   Share Heroic Wisdom Daily →

What does the sense of self give humans over other animals, and how do our storytelling instincts set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom? What can be learned about humans and animals by training a dog to allow humans to scan its brain with an MRI machine?Gregory Berns is a neuroscientist at Emory University and the author of several books, including Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently, The Self Delusion: The New Neuroscience of How We Invent—and Reinvent—Our Identities, and his most recent work, Cowpuppy: An Unexpected Friendship and a Scientist's Journey into the Secret World of Cows.Greg and Gregory discuss the complex interplay between self-perception, social influence, and animal behavior. Referring to his work in The Self Delusion, Gregory delves into how our brains construct and reconstruct our identities, influenced by both sensory information and social pressures. Gregory used brain imaging and machine learning to study conformity, the psychological impacts of social media, and the balancing act between primal instincts and modern life. They also dive into the evolution of human storytelling compared to animal communication, Gregory's groundbreaking MRI research on dogs, and the deep connections formed through living on a farm and working with cows. This insightful episode also touches on the philosophical and theological questions around human behavior, aiming to provide a holistic understanding of the underlying neuroscience and psychology.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Show Links:Recommended Resources:AmygdalaAsch conformity experimentsKanizsa triangleDopamineVentral striatumUmweltMonty RobertsTemple GrandinGuest Profile:GregoryBerns.comFaculty Profile at Emory UniversityWikipedia ProfileSocial Profile on XSocial Profile on InstagramHis Work:Amazon Author PageCowpuppy: An Unexpected Friendship and a Scientist's Journey into the Secret World of CowsThe Self Delusion: The New Neuroscience of How We Invent—and Reinvent—Our IdentitiesWhat It's Like to Be a Dog: And Other Adventures in Animal NeuroscienceHow Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine BrainSatisfaction: Sensation Seeking, Novelty, and the Science of Finding True FulfillmentIconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think DifferentlyPsychology Today ArticlesEpisode Quotes:Human life is telling stories30:16: We're all storytellers, even if you write scientific papers. Ultimately, it's still a story where you do an experiment, you collect data, and yes, I guess at some level, we're testing hypotheses, but most scientific papers these days are not about that, to be honest. Most are more in the exploratory sense, where we're doing experiment because we want to understand something about the world. We might have an idea about it, but it's usually much more nuanced. And then you do the experiment, doesn't turn out the way you expect it. And then it's like, well, what happened? So you tell a story about what you think happened and what it means. And I think, ultimately, that is all that human life is. It is us telling stories, because if it weren't that, then we're not that much different than bees and all the other animals that I study, but we clearly are. Stories go beyond the current state of the art in terms of predictive models31:38: We tell stories to ourselves and to each other to have meaning in our lives. It's not the case that the machine is ever going to care about what's meaningful. So, I do think that meaning, in and of itself, has value to humans that has yet to be captured in any kind of computer model.Are preferences endogenous or constructed?07:36: I think we tend to fool ourselves a little bit in that our preferences are endogenous because it comes back to us thinking about us thinking. It's like, okay, well, I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream. Well, has it always been that way? I don't know. Or is it just something that I have come to believe out of habit, and it's not necessarily the case—or that it even changes based on the circumstance?Why the most meaningful experiences are often the most uncomfortable20:52: I've written a bit about the ways that we might get around that, and one of the ways is novel experiences. The thing about novel experiences is that they're anxiety-provoking—unless, I mean, for the minority of people who thrive on that. For most people, they like the status quo; they like the comfort of things being predictable, and things being unpredictable causes a great deal of anxiety. Even though, if you ask pretty much everyone, the most memorable experiences in their life, the things they think most fondly of, are probably the things that were most difficult, and the things that initially did cause all that anxiety or were uncomfortable. The things that we, as humans, attach meaning to are the things that are meaningful because they're difficult.

If you've ever seen a cute cow video on social media, you might notice they seem to have a lot in common with dogs. They can wag their tails, they love to gobble down tasty treats, and if you're lucky, they might flop over for a nice belly or neck scratch.Cows are clearly emotional animals, but how smart are they exactly? That's the question that neuroscientist and author Dr. Gregory Berns had when he and his wife moved from Atlanta to the Georgia countryside in 2020, and started raising cows of their own. And to better understand them, he applied his years of experience researching the brains of animals, like dogs and dolphins.He joins guest host Sophie Bushwick to talk about his new book, Cowpuppy: An Unexpected Friendship And A Scientist's Journey Into The Secret World Of Cows.Read an excerpt of Cowpuppy: An Unexpected Friendship And A Scientist's Journey Into The Secret World Of Cows.Transcripts for each segment will be available after the show airs on sciencefriday.com. Subscribe to this podcast. Plus, to stay updated on all things science, sign up for Science Friday's newsletters.

Get ready for a moo-ving conversation! This week, Kurt and Tim sit down with Gregory Berns, a psychology professor at Emory University, to explore the secret world of cows. Gregory shares his journey from academic to accidental farmer during the COVID-19 pandemic and how a group of miniature cows changed his life. There's moo-re to cows than meets the eye, and Gregory reveals how his farming adventure turned into a real-life exploration of cow psychology, unveiling behaviors that challenge common assumptions. In today's world, there's often a disconnect between urban dwellers and livestock, and the trio discusses how we can reconnect with farm life and our food sources to become more conscious consumers. But that's not all—tune in to hear how Gregory's innovative “bud box” techniques show how understanding cow psychology can lead to stress-free handling and trust-building on the farm and beyond. Whether you're a city slicker or a country dweller, this episode will expand your perspective and leave you with a newfound appreciation for the complex inner lives of the animals around us. © 2024 Behavioral Grooves Book a time to talk to Tim about Behavioral Grooves here Topics  [0:00] A different type of episode! [2:44] Intro and speed round [4:49] How does a behavioral scientist start raising cows? [12:21] Understanding cow personalities [18:38] Psychology of animal relationships [27:59] Cow psychology and handling techniques [36:51] Music and cows [42:25] Grooving session - understanding our relationship with animals © 2024 Behavioral Grooves Links  Gregory Berns Cowpuppy: An Unexpected Friendship and a Scientist's Journey Into the Secret World of Cows Psychology Today: Cows Musical Links  Lynyrd Skynyrd - Sweet Home Alabama The Band - Don't Do It The Beach Boys - Kokomo

Gregory Berns is a neuroscientist known for his work with dogs and researching they way they think. But after embarking on a new life as an amateur farmer - it was cows that caught his attention.

Dr. Gregory Berns—author, neuroscientist, professor of psychology at Emory University (and an M.D.)—addresses the change he was seeking when he and his wife decided to buy a farm outside of Atlanta, a saga that's among the experiences chronicled in Berns' new book, “Cowpuppy: An Unexpected Friendship and A Scientist's Journey into The Secret World of […] The post Dr. Gregory Berns, neuroscientist, professor, author of “Cowpuppy” first appeared on Talking Animals.

Does your dog truly love you or are they faking it? A recent Newsweek cover story posed that very question and revealed that scientific research provides an answer! Really, no Really! But can science really prove how your dog feels about you? Or for that matter, can it prove TRUE love, between animals or people? Fascinated by the scientific inquiry, Jason and Peter turned to Dr. Gregory Berns…the Distinguished Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory University, and the scientist who conducted the actual “Love Research”, even going so far as using MRIs to discover what's really going on in a dog's brain! Pet parents…prepare yourself for the truth! IN THIS EPISODE: So…do our dogs actually love us? How the dog, hunting Osama bin Laden led to the first canine MRI. Utilizing MRIs to determine dog's true emotions. Food and praise light up a dog's brain reward center but is that love? Dog racism? Alligator companionship? Cow love? Re-examining animal psychology. Jason's movie, Hachi: A Dog's Tale - a story of true dog love or just love for snacks? Does our increasing understanding of animal capabilities impact how we treat them? Eating or not eating the animals that have the capacity to love us. What's too cute to eat and our definitive take on cannibalism. GoogleHEIM: The 3-year time window for certain types of dog lovers. *** FOLLOW DR. BERNS: Website - GregoryBerns.com X - @gberns Newly released book: “Cowpuppy: An Unexpected Friendship and a Scientist's Journey into the Secret World of Cows” *** FOLLOW REALLY NO REALLY: www.reallynoreally.com Instagram YouTube TikTok Facebook Threads XSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

  Gregory Berns, M.D., Ph.D. is the Distinguished Professor of Neuroeconomics in the Psychology Department at Emory University, where he directs the Center for Neuropolicy and Facility for Education and Research in Neuroscience. He pioneered the use of brain imaging technologies to understand human motivation and decision-making. Now, he uses MRI techniques to study the brains and minds of both humans and a wide range of other animals. Dr. Berns is the author of What It's Like to Be a Dog, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller, How Dogs Love Us, Iconoclast, Satisfaction, and The Self Delusion. Dr. Berns and his wife live on a farm outside of Atlanta with several dogs, chickens, and some very special cows.

Dogs and the humans who cherish them have a unique bond unlike any other. We wonder all too often, do our dogs love us as much as we love them? What are they really thinking? Are we projecting our own feelings onto t​hese treasured family members in trying to understand them? In this  "classic" episode first released in 2020, Emory University neuroscientist Dr. Gregory Berns, discusses some of his extraordinary findings.   After spending years using MRI imaging technology to study the human brain, he then used this same approach to study dogs' brains. It turns out that our furry friends are much smarter than we thought! For more information, transcripts, and all episodes, please visit https://thisisyourbrain.com For more about Weill Cornell Medicine Neurological Surgery, please visit https://neurosurgery.weillcornell.org

Today David and Josh further delve into the issue of dogs and their understanding of complex emotions by watching a ted talk by Dr Gregory Berns on if dogs ACTUALLY love you!

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/gregory_berns_what_emotions_look_like_in_a_dog_s_brain ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/127-academic-words-reference-from-gregory-berns-what-emotions-look-like-in-a-dogs-brain-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/a3EE8CHaW8I (All Words) https://youtu.be/ns7cgkyISDo (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/2H5NObzlw5c (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

Season 1 is over. Season 2 is coming. In the meanwhile, please enjoy some highlights from the archives. This highlight revisits episode four, where Ilari talks with psychiatrist and neuroscientist Gregory Berns about his recent book, Self Delusion.  In this flashback, Berns explains why he thinks psychiatry has been led astray by "medicine envy" and why we misunderstand many of the root causes of mental illness. For more show notes and links, see the original episode.

What is it like to be a non-human animal? Can neuroscience tell us the answer? In one of the most famous philosophy essays of the 20th century, Thomas Nagel suggested that we can never use science to know what it is like to be another animal, say, a bat. Neuroscience can describe bat physiology. But it can never tell us “what it is like to be a bat”. Gregory Berns is an animal neuroscientist. As you might guess, he disagrees with Nagel. Berns is a pioneer in using fMRI scanning on dogs (who in his lab, participate voluntarily). And Berns believes that studying the dog brain can tell us what it is like to be a dog - or at least, give us a hint. In this discussion, Ilari and Prof Berns discuss: Do dogs love their owners? The origins and findings of the Dog Project. Would Nagel actually disagree with Berns' conclusions? Is attributing human emotions to dogs a form of anthropomorphism? The Panksepp vs Barrett debate in affective neuroscience: Are emotions hardwired to our brain? Or are they dependent on concepts and language? Animal welfare and speciesism: Are some species "special" in relevant ways? How do Prof Berns and Ilari approach the issue of animal welfare in their diets? Names mentioned Rene Descartes (French philosopher, 1596-1650) Thomas Nagel (20th Century, 1937-) Jeremy Bentham (British philosopher & utilitarian, 1748-1832) Jaak Panksepp (Estonian-American neuroscientist, 1943-2017) Lisa Feldman Barrett (American neuroscientist, 1963-) Hal Hertzhog (anthrozoologist) Technical terms mentioned fMRI (brain scanning technology) PET (brain scanning technology) Chemotaxis Claustrum Brain stem Extra points Get in touch: email makela.ilari@outlook.com or form https://on-humans.podcastpage.io/contact Ilari's bonus recommendation (not a paid promotion): Gourmet-level insect foods from YumBug https://www.yumbug.com/shop

Who are you? It's a question you've had to answer if you've ever moved, changed jobs, or started a new relationship. And it's natural that who you are will change with each new experience you gain and new memories you form. The “story of you” will be different. At the same time, our brain is an incredible editor. With limited storage space for memories, it's got to pick and choose. It does that by connecting the dots between them to give us the stories we tell about ourselves. In other words, who we are is who we say we are. It's informed by our past, our present, and predictions we make about our future. That's both tremendously freeing and just a little bit scary. At any moment, we're not one self, we're many selves. And that self is constructed. By us. Gregory Berns walks us through all of this and more in his latest book, The Self Delusion: The New Neuroscience of How We Invent – and Reinvent – Our Identities. He points out that we are, by nature, storytellers, and he shares ways to put that skill to work for us, so we can avoid regret and prioritize our values. This is a great book to read if you're feeling stuck or trying to make a major life decision. It'll help you weigh the options and gain a different perspective on how you see yourself. Episode Links Changing the Narrative of Your Self How Do the Books We Read Change Our Brains? Dinosaurs by Lydia Millet The Team Learn more about host, Gayle Allen, and producer, Rob Mancabelli, here. Support the Podcast If you like the show, please rate and review it on iTunes or wherever you subscribe, and tell a friend or family member about the show. Subscribe Click here and then scroll down to see a sample of sites where you can subscribe.

Sean Illing talks with neuroscientist Gregory Berns, author of The Self Delusion. Berns claims that the idea of a unified, persistent self is a kind of illusion, and that we are better understood as multiple selves at different moments in time, tied together by a story — which is what we call our identity. Sean and Greg also talk about whether the brain is a computer, how perception works, the limits of thinking too much about thinking, and what psychedelics can do to disrupt and change the stories we tell about ourselves. Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), host, The Gray Area Guest: Gregory Berns (@gberns), author; professor of psychology and distinguished professor of neuroeconomics, Emory University References:  The Self Delusion: The New Neuroscience of How We Invent — and Reinvent — Our Identities by Gregory Berns (Basic; 2022) More on the "Ship of Theseus" by Noah Levin "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" by David Chalmers (Journal of Consciousness Studies 2; 1995) More on "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" by Josh Weisberg (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) "The extraordinary therapeutic potential of psychedelic drugs, explained" by Sean Illing (Vox; Mar. 8, 2019)   Enjoyed this episode? Rate The Gray Area ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of The Gray Area. Subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Support Vox Conversations by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Engineer: Patrick Boyd Editorial Director, Vox Talk: A.M. Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Neuroscientist Greg Berns, who scanned dogs' brains to find out if they love their humans, now has a new book, The Self Delusion, that challenges what we humans know about ourselves.

We like to box things into neat categories. We like to box ourselves into a ‘Self', a ‘Me', an independent ‘Soul', caged away from the rest of the world by the bags of our skin. When something goes wrong in our mental health, we like to box the issue into neat buckets of mental health disorders and search for an answer from within this individuated cage. On the other hand, we like to think of the ‘Self' as a solid, unified, and permanent ‘Me', making any fundamental change to ourselves difficult. What if this is all a mistake? Today's guest is Gregory Berns, a psychiatrist and a professor of neuroscience at Emory University. His most recent book, published today on the 18th of October, is titled 'Self Delusion: The Neuroscience of How We Invent – and Reinvent – Our Identities'. (Order the book from Basic Books or Amazon. ) Ilari and professor Berns discuss topics such as: Does Berns agree with Buddha and David Hume about the illusionary nature of self? Why would a psychiatrist care about this issue? The neuroscience of how fictional stories shape who we are Dissociative identity disorder (DID, also known as multiple personality disorder, MPD) Can social pressure change what we see? Is it problematic to think of mental health problems as neat buckets? Or should we think of them on a continuum? Bern's answer to ‘what is missing from our biological approach to mental health?' Why does it feel right to locate the soul in the heart, rather than the brain? Internal family systems therapy (IFST) Work mentioned and other references Metaphors We Live By (George Lakoff & Mark Johnson) Bowling Alone (By Robert D. Putnam) Bern's et al. on fiction and the brain Bern's et al. on the neuroscience of conformity Paper on 3rd person memory & depression Technical terms and names mentioned David Hume Resting-state fMRI (Wikipedia) Dissociative Identity disorder DID (Wikipedia) Conformity & Solomon Ash's classic studies DSM (a major diagnostic manual for mental health) Internal family system therapy (IFST, in the episode, mistakenly called internal family dynamics therapy) Cognitive behavioural therapy

Why do we care for others? Why did morality evolve? Is unselfish behaviour possible in a Darwinian world? Patricia Churchland joins to discuss these topics with your host, Ilari Mäkelä. Author of Conscience: Origins of Moral Intuition, Patricia Churchland is an emerita professor of Philosophy at UC San Diego. Ilari and Professor Churchland discuss topics such as: Warm-bloodedness and morality Psychological egoism vs unselfish behaviour Neurobiology of care: Oxytocin, cannabinoids, opioids Elements of morality: How much of morality is about care, vs problem-solving, cooperation, and social learning? Churchland's criticism of Western moral philosophy Neurophilosophy: is studying the brain all that useful? Free will: does studying the brain show that free will does not exist? Technical terms mentioned: Endothermy (i.e. warm-bloodedness) Cortex Oxytocin, vasopressin Endogenous opioids and cannabinoids Utilitarian ethics Kantian ethics (i.e. deontology) Metta meditation Vitalism Names mentioned: Christophe Boesch (chimpanzee adoption) Peggy Mason (helping behaviour in rats) Sue Carter (oxytocin and stress) David Hume & Adam Smith Mencius (early Confucian philosopher) [For Ilari's article on Mencius, see An Empirical Argument for Mencius' Theory of Human Nature] The Dalai Lama (H.H. the 14th) Simon Blackburn (contemporary Cambridge philosopher) Dan Bowling (placebo and oxytocin) Olivia Goldhill (review of Conscience for the New York Times) Lidija Haas (review of Conscience for the Harper Magazine) Other scholars to follow (Churchland's recommendations) Topics in this interview Frans de Waal Owen Flanagan Philosophy & neuroscience more generally Nick Lane (genetics and evolution) Ann-Sophie Barwich (neurophilosophy of smell) Gregory Berns (soon to appear on the podcast) Ned Block (philosophy of cognition)

What's it like to be a dog being experimented on in a laboratory? A cat in the kill room of an animal “shelter”? A cow in a slaughterhouse? A mouse on a glue trap? A deer being hunted? A pig on a factory farm?Animals have eyes and they see with them, the way we humans see with ours. They have ears and they hear with them; again, just like us. They have legs and they walk with them. They have mouths and they eat with them and so on. The idea that the eyes of animals see, the ears of animals hear, and the legs of animals walk the way they do for us is so obvious, it seems unworthy of comment. Few would doubt that the anatomical structures we share with animals function for them just as they function for us. This seems obvious, logical.And yet, we convince ourselves that there's an exception: the brain. Though animals have brains, they don't think with them like we do: they have no self-awareness, no concept of death, no ability to love, no mother-baby bond, no understanding of what's to come. It's all just instinct.Why is it better for humans to believe this? To pretend that this is true?If there is no conception of death, a “shelter” can kill cats without any moral repercussions. It's just like going to sleep, says PETA, except they never wake up.If there is no mother-baby bond, we can take a newly born calf and turn him into veal, while we take his mother's milk — his birthright — for our own children to drink.If there is no understanding of what's to come for the animal entering a slaughterhouse, then killing animals to eat them poses no moral imperative not to.Intuitively, we know that none of this is true. How can it be that every body part of an animal functions the way it functions for us, except the brain?It is often said that our understanding and knowledge of death separates the human animal from all other animals. We alone know that we will die — that one day, suddenly or slowly, our life, our loves, our dreams will end. Surely this awareness sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, we say, pointing to some of our greatest art, music, and literature — all inspired by what we know: that death awaits every living being. And yet, how very odd it is that we should be the only animal to know what life ultimately has in store for us. We share biological histories and physiologies — DNA, eyes, muscles, nerves, neurons, hormones — with other animals, and these may lead to similar behaviors, thought processes, and emotions — even about death.The author is right: we are not the only animal to know what life ultimately has in store for us. As scientists now admit, death is a great equalizer among different species. But it is not the only one; so is the capacity to love —“love may be natural selection's most compelling force, driving us and our fellow animals to care beyond reason for our families, loved ones, and children.” Pigs, for example, have been found to be optimistic and agreeable, prefer familiar individuals to strangers, are sensitive to the experience of others, make decisions based on empathy, and have unique personality traits that overlap that of humans. They are not alone.Based on (non-invasive) MRI scans of brains, Dr. Gregory Berns shows how consciousness and self-awareness and similar subjective experiences are not exclusive to humans or even unique among a select few species in the animal kingdom. They are the rule, not the exception.Using some of the latest findings in comparative neurobiology — specifically the study of how different parts of the brain are connected to each other — he offers scientific proof of what we already intuitively know but conveniently ignore: that when the “structures in the brains of animals” are “organized in the same way as the corresponding parts of our brains,” and “these parts look the same” and “function[ ] in the same way,” then the subjective experiences are the same or at least similar.Specifically, if the animal has a cortex — like dogs, cats, mice, deer, cows, and pigs — the animal is sentient. And “Beyond sentience lies consciousness and self-awareness.” As such, “its subjective experience can be understood by degrees of similarity to ours”:With similar brain architectures for the experience of joy, pain, and even social bonds, we can assume that animals experience these things much like we do, albeit without the words for those subjective states…If you want to know what it's like to be a dog being experimented on, a cat in the kill room of an animal shelter, a cow in a slaughterhouse, a mouse on a glue trap, a deer being hunted, or a pig on a factory farm, imagine how you might experience those things:An animal who is aware of his or her own pain and suffering may well experience the existential fear associated with imminent death. And awareness of other animals' fear can only heighten such terror.Terror. The same thing we would feel.That alone should make us kinder to animals, intolerant of their killing, and unwilling to engage in actions which cause them to suffer. We shouldn't torture a dog in a laboratory. We shouldn't kill a cat in an animal “shelter.” We shouldn't hunt deer. We shouldn't kill rodents with glue traps. We shouldn't confine a pig on a factory farm. “[L]ogically,” says Dr. Berns, “we shouldn't eat a cow…”But deep down, when one strips away the self-serving justifications, all of us already knew that. As does Dr. Berns, who admits — like so many others — that he tragically continues to do so anyway. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe

Many secrets are locked inside the brain, including fundamental questions of how individuals perceive the world. Some researchers are seeking answers by mapping brain activity in response to stimuli. This work typically involves human subjects, but certain scientists are branching out to understand the minds of other animals. Niki Spahich from The Scientist's Creative Services team spoke with Gregory Berns, a neuroscientist at Emory University who scans the brains of dogs trained to enter MRI machines, to learn more.   The Scientist Speaks is a podcast produced by The Scientist's Creative Services team. Our podcast is by scientists and for scientists. Once a month, we bring you the stories behind news-worthy molecular biology research.

[Ciência] Resenha do livro "O iconoclasta", do neurocientista Gregory Berns. O link para a resenha escrita está aqui. Você pode comprar o livro diretamente aqui: www.minhaestantecolorida.com

Cognitive neuroscientist Caroline Leaf talks about how neuroplasticity gives us keys to how to think better.  Neuroeconomist Gregory Berns elaborates on the evidence that neuroscience is providing on how to think differently.

What do our dogs think about all day? Do dogs experience emotions like people do? Gregory Berns is a bestselling author and a professor at Emory University where he studies animal neuroscience. On this episode of The Show Show About Science, he joins Nate to talk about how he trained dogs to go into an MRI scanner—completely awake—so he could figure out what they think and feel. Learn more about Gregory's work here: http://gregoryberns.com/

When Is It Time To Say Goodbye? Imagine you’re having a conversation with someone. You may get the sense that they have somewhere else to be. Or you might start feeling restless, and use an excuse to cut the conversation short. Sometimes, you feel like you could talk for HOURS. Chances are you’re wrong every time.  In a study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Adam Mastroianni and colleagues tried to figure out how good humans are at judging the ideal length of a conversation. They found that both participants agreed a conversation ended at the right time in only 2% of their trials. And the difference between one partner’s desired conversation length and the actual length of a conversation could be as much as 50%—so in a 10 minute conversation, your partner might have wanted to talk to you for as little as 5 minutes, or as much as 15 minutes. SciFri’s Charles Bergquist talks with Mastroianni about these results, and why the “exit ramps” to a conversation are rarely where you want them to be. Talking Through The History Of Our Teeth Most of us have never thought much about why we have teeth. But if you’re the parent of a teething infant, the question becomes a whole lot more relevant: While you impatiently wait for baby’s teeth to poke through, or soothe your teething toddler in the middle of the night, you might find yourself wondering why humans go through all this trouble for a set of teeth that are only temporary. In a decade, your child will have shed their baby teeth to make room for their adult counterparts, and all this fuss will be but a distant—albeit painful—memory for both you and your former infant. But one such question can lead to another. Are baby and adult teeth made of the same stuff? Why can’t we just grow a new tooth if we lose one? And how did ancient people take care of their teeth? Biological anthropologist and ancient tooth expert Shara Bailey joins Ira to discuss why our teeth are the way they are.  A Look Back At The Time Of The Tasmanian Tiger Last week, conservation biologists on Twitter were all aflutter as rumors circulated that a creature called a “thylacine,” better known as a “Tasmanian tiger,” had been caught on camera in the Tasmanian bush. Thylacines have been considered extinct since the mid 80’s, but there are still those who believe—or hope—they still exist.  In a video posted to YouTube, Neil Waters, President of the Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia, shared the news of what he thought looked like images of two adult thylacines and a baby. Unfortunately, this time the animal caught on camera was identified as a pademelon. But at Science Friday, we’ll never pass up an opportunity to celebrate a charismatic creature. Last January, SciFri’s Elah Feder spoke with Neil Waters and Gregory Berns, a psychology professor at Emory University, about the fascinating history of the Tasmanian tiger. 

What happens in our brains when we’re confronted with decisions? And why do some people dread making decisions more than others? Dr. Gregory Berns, neuroscientist and Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory University, explains that there are different brain systems involved in the decisions we make. When faced with choices, we want to pursue pleasure and happiness as much as we want to avoid pain and negative outcomes. Decision making is also about projecting ourselves into the future and how much uncertainty we can handle.

Have you ever wondered what a dog was thinking? I know I have and, amazingly, today's guest has some answers. Dr. Gregory Burns (http://gregoryberns.com/) is a neuroscientist who holds both a doctorate in medicine as well as a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering. He is a professor of psychology at Emory University and has found a way to comfortably place dogs in a functional MRI machine to discover what areas of their brains are active in the face of various cues. His book, How Dogs Love Us, is a Wall Street Journal Bestseller and it has been heralded by multiple media outlets, including the Boston Globe, which said it “explains why our two species have lived together so long and happily.” As for me, I say it is utterly fascinating and highly recommended to anyone who loves dogs or is curious about their behavior. So join Greg and me as we have a lively and highly informative conversation about how dogs think.

​Dogs and the humans who cherish them have a unique bond unlike any other. We wonder all too often, do our dogs love us as much as we love them? What are they really thinking? Are we projecting our own feelings onto t​hese treasured family members in trying to understand them? Emory University neuroscientist Dr. Gregory Berns, has made some extraordinary findings. After spending years using MRI imaging technology to study the human brain, he then used this same approach to study dogs’ brains. It turns out that our furry friends are much smarter than we thought!

This could be the best job ever, working as a neuroscientist studying the brains of dogs. That's what Gregory Berns does and came on to explain what he has learned about the inside working of a dogs mind. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Get book summaries with FREE 1-page PDFs here: https://frodeosen.com/ Subscribe to join 1,600+ Self-Help Junkies ► https://www.youtube.com/c/frodeosen?s...Follow Me On Social MediaFacebook ► https://www.facebook.com/championsofp...Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/frodeosen/Twitter ► https://twitter.com/FrodeOsenTikTok ► @frodeosenLinkedIn ► https://www.linkedin.com/in/frode-osen-934037b6/~ Created by Frode Osen, here to help you improve your life and your character faster through self-help book summaries and YouTube videos

Get book summaries with FREE 1-page PDFs here: https://frodeosen.com/ Subscribe to join 1,600+ Self-Help Junkies ► https://www.youtube.com/c/frodeosen?s...Follow Me On Social MediaFacebook ► https://www.facebook.com/championsofp...Instagram ► https://www.instagram.com/frodeosen/Twitter ► https://twitter.com/FrodeOsenTikTok ► @frodeosenLinkedIn ► https://www.linkedin.com/in/frode-osen-934037b6/~ Created by Frode Osen, here to help you improve your life and your character faster through self-help book summaries and YouTube videos

Dr. Berns comes on Your Pet matters to talk about his experiment of using MRI to scan dogs brain to see what they are thinking, as well as his book How Dogs Love Us. Stephanie Kowalewski also stops by for a Hound help segment.

Gregory Berns, M.D., Ph.D., author of our Cerebrum magazine cover story, “Decoding the Canine Mind,” the Distinguished Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory University and “How Dogs Love Us” (New Harvest, 2013), explains the challenges scanning the brain of a dog, what motivated him to specialize in canine cognition, and more. Podcast Transcript: https://on.dana.org/cerebrum-transcript-berns

In the context of climate change, geoengineering refers to deliberate, large-scale manipulations of the planet to slow the effects of human-induced global warming—whether by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it safely, or altering the atmosphere to reflect the amount of incoming sunlight that is absorbed as heat.  But neither strategy is uncomplicated to deploy. Carbon capture is expensive and is often used to enhance fossil fuel extraction, not to actually reduce emissions. Meanwhile, altering our atmosphere would require maintenance indefinitely until we actually reduce emissions—that, or risk a whiplash of warming that plants could not adapt to.  UCLA researcher Holly Buck is the author of a new book that examines these complexities. She explains to Ira why geoengineering could still be a valid strategy for buying time while we reduce emissions, and why any serious deployment of geoengineering technology would require a re-imagining of society as well. Welcome to the Charismatic Creature Corner! Last month, we introduced this new monthly segment about creatures (broadly defined) that we deem charismatic (even more broadly defined).  In the first creature spotlight, we marveled at slime molds, which look and feel like snot but can solve mazes. This time, a far more conventionally charismatic creature was nominated—but one mired in tragedy and mystery.  Meet the Tasmanian tiger, believed to have gone extinct decades ago, but spotted all over Australia to this day. Tasmanian tigers, also known as “thylacines,” look like dogs, have stripes like tigers, but aren’t closely related to either because they’re actually marsupials. They have pouches like kangaroos and koalas, and are even believed to have hopped on two feet at times!   The last known Tasmanian tiger died in a zoo in 1936 and they were declared extinct in the 1980s, but people claim to have never stopped seeing them. There have been thousands of sightings of Tasmanian tigers, crossing roads and disappearing into the bush, lurking around campsites, even following people on their way home. But solid proof eludes us. So if they’re truly still around, they’re particularly sneaky at hiding from modern surveillance.  Science Friday’s Elah Feder returns to convince Ira that Tasmanian tigers—dead or alive—are indeed worthy of our coveted Charismatic Creature title, with the help of Gregory Berns, a psychology professor at Emory University. We also hear from Neil Waters, president of the Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia, who’s dedicating the next two years of his life to finding proof the tigers are still out there. Nara Bopp was working at a thrift store in Moab, Utah the morning of March 4 when her desk started moving. “I immediately assumed that it was a garbage truck,” Bopp said. She looked out the window. No garbage truck. No construction nearby either. So she did the same thing she does every time something weird happens in Moab: She logged onto the town’s unofficial Facebook page to see what was up. “Pretty much everyone was saying: ‘Did you just feel that earthquake?’ or, ‘Did you just feel something shaking? Was that an earthquake? Does Moab even get earthquakes? This is crazy,’” Bopp said. Moab doesn’t normally have earthquakes people can feel. This one—at a magnitude 4.5—didn’t cause any damage. But it was enough to get people’s attention in communities all along the Utah-Colorado border. Many took to social media to post about the uncharacteristic shaking. Earthquakes can feel like a freak of nature, something that strikes at random. But not this one. There’s no question where it came from and that human activity caused it. Since the turn of the 20th century, the Colorado River and its tributaries have been dammed and diverted to sustain the growth of massive cities and large-scale farming in the American Southwest. Attempts to bend the river system to humanity’s will have also led to all kinds of unintended consequences. In Colorado’s Paradox Valley, those unintended consequences take the form of earthquakes. Read more at sciencefriday.com.

Brainy Thing:  16:15    Behind the Redwood Curtain:  27:41   Margaret finished the Laura Nelkin Kairos wristlet https://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/kairos-2.   She particularly liked the randomness of the bead placement.  This was a kit and Laura offers 5 different colorways on her etsy store.     Catherine hasn’t done much knitting but she’s working on a pair of Baby Socks https://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/baby-socks-23  and has reaped the rewards of her dishcloth exchange.    https://www.ravelry.com/groups/annual-dishcloth-swap: Some of the patterns she received are Blossom (crochet),   The Almost Lost Washcloth https://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/the-almost-lost-washcloth;   in swimming pool colorway, The Sail Away Dishcloth—  (joann’s )  and  Poppy.       Brainy Thing:  Brain Changes in Animal-Human Interactions Why does it feel so good to pet your animal (or even watch colorful fish?)   There’s a whole world of research out there and recent studies show chemical and structural changes in both animal and human brains when they interact.  And those changes make both  feel good.   Book mentioned :  How Dogs Love Us:  A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain   by Gregory Berns     Other research links:   https://www.google.com/search?q=prolactine&oq=prolactine&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.12407j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4625213/ns/health-pet_health/t/puppy-love----its-better-you-think/#.XYve7GRKgUQ https://www.cnet.com/news/my-week-with-aibo-what-its-like-to-live-with-sonys-robot-dog/ http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/robotic-dog/y.   Welcome to episode 108 of Teaching Your Brain to Knit, a bit delayed because of power outages and other events.   Today, we will explore how the brain changes in animal and human interactions;  we’ll talk about a cute little beaded wristlet;  report on the Annual Washcloth exchange,  and discuss a Northcoast landmark — the Samoa Cookhouse.     Thank you for listening to our podcast.  You can subscribe to us on most podcasting platforms including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Shownotes are on Ravelry and on many podcast platforms, embedded in the show.  We’re behind posting on our Webpage but we’ll catch up someday.       Behind the Redwood Curtain:  The Samoa Cookhouse   samoa cookhouse winter hours  https://www.samoacookhouse.net/menu    

Neste Drops do Podcast Meu Nome Não É Não falamos sobre uma pesquisa com ressonância magnética em cães e respostas do cérebro canino para odores familiares e não familiares, de Gregory Berns, Mark Spivak e Andrew Brooks. Além desse assunto, … O post #37 – Drops: Sobre Ciência, cursos e pesquisa sobre cães e odores familiares apareceu primeiro em Meu Nome Não É Não.

Somethings how we think about issues leads us to getting stuck in ruts. This can cause problems in how we relate to others about difficult topics. Dr. Gregory Berns shares evidence from neuroscience about how we can begin to think differently.

Le MorningNote Show : Épisode 266 - Penser différemment : 3 étapes pour devenir un iconoclaste, inspiré du livre "Iconoclast" de Gregory Berns.Une idée

Staying curious and thinking well can be hard.  Dr. Gregory Berns elaborates on the evidence that neuroscience is providing on how to think differently.

What does science say about how constraints introduced into a system can breed innovation and new ideas? What role does fear have in the iconoclast’s life? What are poor habits or better disciplines that might improve iconoclastic thinking? Listen, as Dr. Gregory Berns elaborates on the evidence that neuroscience is providing on how to think differently.

This interview was originally broadcast in January, 2018.

In this wide-ranging dialogue (recorded on September 1, 2017) on the nature of consciousness Dr. Michael Shermer talks with Dr. Gregory Berns, Distinguished Professor of Neuroeconomics and Director of the Center for Neuropolicy and Facility for Education and Research in Neuroscience. Dr. Berns is famous for his use of fMRI to study canine cognitive function in awake, unrestrained dogs. The goals of his research are to non-invasively map the perceptual and decision systems of the dog’s brain and to predict likelihood of success in service dogs. He also uses diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to reconstruct the white matter pathways of a wide variety of other mammals, including dolphins, sea lions, coyotes, and the extinct Tasmanian tiger. Shermer and Berns address the so-called “Hard Problem of Consciousness” of “what is it like to be a bat (or dog)?” What is it like to be another sentient being has been impossible to understand until and unless we can get inside the other conscious creature’s head. Now we can thanks to this new technology. Of course, we cannot have a first-person subjective experience of being a dog—and in this sense the “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is something of a conceptual error inasmuch as it can never be answered in this first-person subjective sense, but we can come close to understanding what dogs (and other conscious creatures) are thinking and feeling.

www.DogCastRadio.comGregory Berns talks about his book What It's Like to be a Dog, which is a thought provoking and fascinating read. Sue Corfield tells us about the dog activity holidays she runs in the beautiful Shropshire countryside. Plus we've rounded up some happy stories for the DogCast Radio News.

www.DogCastRadio.comGregory Berns talks about his book What It's Like to be a Dog, which is a thought provoking and fascinating read. Sue Corfield tells us about the dog activity holidays she runs in the beautiful Shropshire countryside. Plus we've rounded up some happy stories for the DogCast Radio News.

Welcome to the 412th episode of Our Hen House! First, Mariann talks to Gregory Berns about his new book, What It’s Like To Be A Dog and Other Adventures in Animal Neuroscience, what we have in common with dogs, and […]

The Dog Show #445 – September 6, 2017 What can we learn about a dog's experience of life by scanning dog brain activity in an MRI? Gregory Berns joins us today to answer this and so much more about his … Read More

What is it like to be a dog? Modern neuroscience may allow us to peer beyond the veil of how a dog perceives the world. On this episode, Dr. Gregory Berns discussed what it is like to be a dog.

Wonder what the iconoclast’s brain looks like? Well, that’s what this book is all about. Our guide is Gregory Berns, one of the world’s leading pioneers (iconoclasts?) in the field of neuroeconomics. Berns is a professor in the department of Psychiatry and Economics and at the Goizeta Business School at Emory University. This book is a fascinating look at the three primary facets of the iconoclast’s brain (perception + courage + social skills), brought to life via research studies and biographical sketches of modern iconoclasts. Big Ideas we cover: how to change the way you see the world, how to control your fear and how to build your social skills (hint: be a good human).

Wonder what the iconoclast’s brain looks like? Well, that’s what this book is all about. Our guide is Gregory Berns, one of the world’s leading pioneers (iconoclasts?) in the field of neuroeconomics. Berns is a professor in the department of Psychiatry and Economics and at the Goizeta Business School at Emory University. This book is a fascinating look at the three primary facets of the iconoclast’s brain (perception + courage + social skills), brought to life via research studies and biographical sketches of modern iconoclasts. Big Ideas we cover: how to change the way you see the world, how to control your fear and how to build your social skills (hint: be a good human).

La felicidad depende en mayor medida de la satisfacción que del placer mismo, según Gregory Berns

La felicidad depende en mayor medida de la satisfacción que del placer mismo, según Gregory Berns

What can we learn from brain imaging, and what are its limits? Drs. Gregory Berns and Scott Lilienfeld will discuss – and debate – the promise and perils of brain imaging with regard to mind-reading, neuromarketing, lie detection, criminal responsibility, and psychiatric diagnosis. More broadly, they will explore scientific and ethical controversies concerning neuroimaging, and strive to separate fact from fiction in both popular and academic coverage of this technology. (March 27, 2014)

What can we learn from brain imaging, and what are its limits? Drs. Gregory Berns and Scott Lilienfeld will discuss – and debate – the promise and perils of brain imaging with regard to mind-reading, neuromarketing, lie detection, criminal responsibility, and psychiatric diagnosis. More broadly, they will explore scientific and ethical controversies concerning neuroimaging, and strive to separate fact from fiction in both popular and academic coverage of this technology. (March 27, 2014)

The powerful bond between humans and dogs is one that’s uniquely cherished. Loyal, obedient, and affectionate, they are truly 'man’s best friend.' But do dogs love us the way we love them? Jon Patch talks to Emory University neuroscientist Gregory Berns, who had spent decades using MRI imaging technology to study how the human brain works, but a different question still nagged at him: What is my dog thinking? Questions or Comments? Send them to: jon@petliferadio.com More details on this episode MP3 Podcast - How Dogs Love Us with Jon Patch

Kathryn interviews neurologist Dr. Gregory Berns, author of “How Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain”. In his ground breaking new book, Dr. Berns shares the story of how he trained dogs to sit quietly during an MRI and reveals remarkable findings that will transform the way we communicate with man's best friend. Berns' research has been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and on CNN, NPR, and ABC. Kathryn also interviews Michael Samuels MD, author of “Healing with the Arts: A 12-Week Program to Heal Yourself and Your Community”. Healing through art has the potential to ease suffering, soothe anxiety, address trauma and transform lives. Healing with the Arts provides researched and proven concepts to harness the power to heal physical, mental and spiritual wounds. Michael Samuels MD is the co-founder and director of Arts as a Healing Force and teaches at San Francisco State University's Institute of Holistic Studies.

Kathryn interviews neurologist Dr. Gregory Berns, author of “How Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain”. In his ground breaking new book, Dr. Berns shares the story of how he trained dogs to sit quietly during an MRI and reveals remarkable findings that will transform the way we communicate with man's best friend. Berns' research has been featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and on CNN, NPR, and ABC. Kathryn also interviews Michael Samuels MD, author of “Healing with the Arts: A 12-Week Program to Heal Yourself and Your Community”. Healing through art has the potential to ease suffering, soothe anxiety, address trauma and transform lives. Healing with the Arts provides researched and proven concepts to harness the power to heal physical, mental and spiritual wounds. Michael Samuels MD is the co-founder and director of Arts as a Healing Force and teaches at San Francisco State University's Institute of Holistic Studies.

The powerful bond between humans and dogs is one that’s uniquely cherished. Loyal, obedient, & affectionate, they are truly 'man’s best friend.' But do dogs love us the way we love them? Jon Patch talks to Emory University neuroscientist Gregory Berns, who had spent decades using MRI imaging technology to study how the human brain works, but a different question still nagged at him: What is my dog thinking? Questions or Comments? Send them to: jon@petliferadio.com. More details on this episode MP3 Podcast - How Dogs Love Us with Jon Patch var ACE_AR = {Site: '845738', Size: '468060'};

Talk from "Fairness Conference: An Interdisciplinary Reflection on the Meanings of Fairness." Co-sponsored by the Emory Office of the Provost, the Emory Cognition Project, the Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, and the Emory Center for Ethics, October 18-19, 2012.

Gregory Berns, the Distinguished Chair of Neuroeconomics at Emory University and author of "Iconoclast."

Warren sits down with Gregory Berns at the W Seattle's Earth & Ocean restaurant to discuss the makings of an iconoclast, the fine line between wackjob and revolutionary, and the drugs needed to alter your reality. http://www.thewarrenreport.com

Part Two: If You've Got the Nerve. “The brain has three natural roadblocks that stand in the way of truly innovative thinking:1.    flawed perception2.    fear of failure3.    the inability to persuade others.”– Dr. Gregory Berns, neuroscientist, psychiatrist, and Distinguished Chair of Neuroeconomics at Emory University.Need a fresh perspective? Want to alter your perception, think new thoughts, create a whole new paradigm? 1.   Look at a map of your city. Choose an area unfamiliar to you. Drive there, then get out and walk for an hour. Call a friend to come and pick you up.2.   Go into a restaurant you suspect you won't like. Order something weird.3.   Sit at a bus stop for 30 minutes. Talk with whomever sits down next to you.4.   Attend the worship services of a faith that is not your own.5.   Read out loud to someone else http://www.bartleby.com/119/1.html (The Road Not Taken) by Robert Frost.6.   Watch How to Hype a Black and Mild on YouTube. http://mondaymemo.wpengine.com/?ShowMe=HowToHypeABlackAndMild ((7 min., 38sec.))7.   Attend https://wizardacademy.org/scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=249 (ESCAPE THE BOX,) the advanced session of Free the Beagle at Wizard Academy.“It typically takes a novel stimulus – either a new piece of information or getting out of the environment in which an individual has become comfortable – to jolt attentional systems awake and reconfigure both perception and imagination. The more radical and novel the change, the greater the likelihood of new insights being generated.” – p.58, Iconoclast, by Gregory Berns. If you're like most people, you read that quote from Greg Berns last week and said, “I get it,” but then you didn't actually do anything. James Michener won the Pulitzer Prize in 1948 for his book, Tales of the South Pacific. He went on to earn more than one hundred million dollars as the author of more than 40 novels. At age 88, Michener wrote, “When young people in my writing classes ask what subjects they should study to become writers, I surprise them by replying: ‘Ceramics and eurhythmic dancing.' When they look surprised I explain: ‘Ceramics so you can feel form evolving through your fingertips molding the moist clay, and eurhythmic dancing so you can experience the flow of motion through your body. You might develop a sense of freedom that way.'” – This Noble Land, chap.10 But it's unlikely that any of his students ever took those classes. They just thought, “Form and freedom. I get it,” and carried on as they were, unchanged. But I'm convinced Michener meant what he said. His advice to his students was to push themselves to do things that didn't come naturally to them. He urged them to stir the deep waters of the unconscious mind. Transformation happens experientially, not intellectually. James Michener knew this. Dr. Gregory Berns knows this. Dr. Richard D. Grant knows this. And now you know it, too. Two and a half years ago I wrote, “Humans are peculiar creatures. We are capable of much, yet do little. Doubt, insecurity, fear and ambition blind our wide-open eyes to the colors of meaningful life. We hibernate, deep in the bellies of our comfort zones… Do you want to expand your world? Meet interesting people? Learn about different cultures? Then get on your hands and knees, drop to your belly and squirm under the fence that surrounds your insulated life.” – from the preface and back cover of People Stories, Inside the Outside. Cognoscenti http://mondaymemo.wpengine.com/?ShowMe=DaveLoFranco (Dave Lofranco) came to me recently and said, “Let's actually do what Michener said. If you'll find a dance instructor and a pottery teacher, I'll donate the...

On January 19, 1998, I wrote a Monday Morning Memo titled, Creativity is an Inert Gas. It was published as chapter 89 in The Wizard of Ads. These are a few of its paragraphs:      Moments of emotional recovery are the best times to think about problems you have not been able to solve. Great, creative insights follow times of great stress. It's a law of the universe.Think of creativity as an inert gas, a substance unique. An inert gas cannot enter into compounds with other substances because, in each of its atoms, the outer ring of electrons is completely full. An inert gas is stable and cannot be changed.Unless you jolt it with too much stimulation.Pass a current through an inert gas and a single electron in the outer ring of each atom will be pushed into an orbit where it does not belong. But it cannot stay there. As the electron falls back into its proper place, the excess energy is released as light.This is a miracle witnessed nightly on ten million street corners in America. Without argon and mercury vapor streetlights, America would be a very dark place, indeed. Without the radiant beauty of neon, we would be a much less colorful people.Recovery from overstimulation is a magical moment. As each crisis dissipates and your emotional electrons return to their proper orbits, don't close your eyes to the light.Use it for all it's worth.Ten years after I wrote that memo, Gregory Berns, a neuroscientist, published the following: “Did you know that when you see the same thing over and over again, your brain uses less and less energy? Your mind already knows what it's seeing, so it doesn't make the effort to process the event again. Just putting yourself in new situations can make you see things differently and jump-start your creativity.” – inside front flap, Iconoclast, by Gregory Berns. Dr. Gregory Berns is a heavyweight: he's a neuroscientist, a psychiatrist, and the Distinguished Chair of Neuroeconomics at Emory University. His research has been profiled in the New York Times, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal. His new book, Iconoclast, was published by Harvard Business School Press. According to Berns, the tendency of the brain is to take shortcuts through categorization. “Categories are death to imagination… Often the harder one tries to think differently, the more rigid the categories become. There is a better way, a path that jolts the brain out of preconceived notions of what it is seeing: bombard the brain with new experiences. Only then will it be forced out of efficiency mode and reconfigure its neural networks… The surest way to evoke the imagination is to confront the perceptual system with people, places and things it hasn't seen before.” – condensed from pages 54 and 58 https://wizardacademy.org/scripts/default.asp (Wizard Academy) takes you by surprise. It's a nonstop new experience. Aroooo! Do you remember how I was saying that moments of recovery from overstimulation are magical times for creative thinking? Now let's look at Dr. Berns' next statement: “It typically takes a novel stimulus – either a new piece of information or getting out of the environment in which an individual has become comfortable – to jolt attentional systems awake and reconfigure both perception and imagination. The more radical and novel the change, the greater the likelihood of new insights being generated.” – p.58, Iconoclast, by Gregory Berns Looking to make a change? Remember: transformation happens experientially, not intellectually. Come to Wizard Academy. Things happen here that can't happen anywhere else. Or at least that's what we've been told. Roy H. Williams

Guest: Gregory Berns, MD, PhD Host: Cathleen Margolin, PhD Dr. Gregory Berns discusses the use of functional MRI to better understand the teenage brain.

Guest: Gregory Berns, MD, PhD Host: Cathleen Margolin, PhD Dr. Gregory Berns will be discussing his book, Satisfaction - The Science of Finding True Fulfillment.

Guest: Gregory Berns, MD, PhD Host: Cathleen Margolin, PhD Dr. Gregory Berns discusses what brain studies can tell us about satisfaction and pain.

Guest: Gregory Berns, MD, PhD Host: Cathleen Margolin, PhD Dr. Gregory Berns discusses "Neuroeconomics" - the combination of neuroscience and economics used to better understand the brain reward system.