I was interested to see that some brain imaging research has shown that people tend to switch off their critical faculties in the presence of expert advice.

Is that an argument for becoming a bigger and better 'expert', or for not giving advice and choosing to work Cleanly? Or does it depend on the context?

From Cialdini's Articles About Influence and Persuasion Science and Practice

A recent brain-imaging study (Engelman, Capra, Noussair, & Berns, 2009) tells us why such a step would work. Participants in the study were asked to make a series of unfamiliar financial choices some of which were accompanied by advice from an expert source (a prominent economist). When the economist’s guidance was available, choices were powerfully affected by this expert’s advice. The reason was revealed in the brain activation patterns of the participants. In the presence of expert advice, the areas of the participants’ brains linked to critical thinking and counterarguing flat-lined.

These findings help explain why expert communicators are so effective. It’s not that people consider a legitimate authority’s position merely a single important factor that, when combined with other important factors, tips the balance in favor of one choice over another. Instead, especially when they are unsure of themselves, people allow the authority’s opinion to dominate the other factors—indeed, even shutting down cognitive consideration of those other factors. As one of the study’s authors said in describing how his findings challenged the traditional model of rational decision-making, “In this [traditional] worldview, people take advice, integrate it with their own information, and come to a decision. If that were actually true, we’d have seen activity in brain regions that guide decisions. But, what we found is that when someone receives expert advice, that activity went away.”

(Chris, I'm quoting this big chunk of content because Cialdini's site tends to take stuff down relatively quickly)

(this is all from Tyler from real social dynamics, i dont take credit for any of it)

Well thats how we got so far as a species. we dont have the time to measure everything so we go off other peoples second hand experience, its called being in a society. this is a blessing and a curse

Its a blessing in that someone told us that we cant jump off a 12 storey building and live. Instead of being told it was completely safe to jump this height. What if we learnt in school when we were 5 that things only fall at a constant speed and there wasnt any more impact on our body the higher we fell? What if we grew up watching movies of people jumping off of buildings and walking away like nothing happened?

Its a curse in that in that we could make possibly even a bad financial decision because a "prominent economist" told us to. Or we do something that is really really wrong just because everyone else is doing it (the dark side of humanity)

Or adopt superficial/toxic beliefs just because of the confidence the people around us have in those beliefs.

Its no use denying how we have been built. If we accept it we can understand it, we can prevent its bad side. Its time to come out of the closet XD

anouther example from Tyler:

He tells a story about staying in a apartment and waking up to a earthquake in a beachfront town. Runs outside to see everyone else come out, have a look outside, see everyone cares, and go back to bed.

What would happen if a group of us started running around and screaming in that situation?

judy wrote:

I was interested to see that some brain imaging research has shown that people tend to switch off their critical faculties in the presence of expert advice.

Maybe this is a reflection of the External meta program at work, in which case it would be "some poeple tend to switch off" in certain contexts with certain experts.

judy wrote:

Is that an argument for becoming a bigger and better 'expert', or for not giving advice and choosing to work Cleanly? Or does it depend on the context?

I think it does depend on context and specifically your own desired outcome, as the communicator / expert, in that context.

Judy, I chose to move recently from the "mere" Project Manager's role to the Internal Project Management Consultant/Advisor.

It was a very interesting transition and the very aspect highlighted by you seems to have constituted a big part of it.

People approach me now as a "verified and recognised" expert, which is funny because I operate in the same company and there was no magic wand that touched my forehead and transformed me into a seasoned expert in an instant. I am still the same low key guy, but the formal annointing seems to have made the difference.

As Michael Halls like to say: the one who sets the frame wins the game.

Even the role "formally changed," as a project management consultant and advisor I still have the same objective: to fix what needs fixing and bring those (who believe they need it or not) to the next level of high-performance and personal potential.

When I sense that the "formal authority/recognition" frame would work better, I pre-frame the session or workshop so that I "refresh or reinforce the new anointing." In cases I believe informal frame would bring better results, I do the opposite and operate as "old role Jurek." In cases like that I would say something to the effect,

"Guys, you know I was given this new role, but lets proceed as we did couple of months ago (e.g. before it tool place). You have trhe evidence that things worked well and let me share with you that my simple minded and very practical advise this time would be to..."

The point is: we always must act from a some selected frame, and who sets the frame, wins the game, meaning gets to the outcome (which from the ecology point of view should be set from the win/win perspective).

Framing provides the lever. Positioning yourself as amn Advisor or "Go Clean" allows you to practically apply the principle.

Judy -- I just happen to be a TOTAL EXPERT on this subject (cough) -- and I take two bits from it..

1. become more conscious of my criteria for being suggestible
2. take note that there are people who become suggestible when they think you're an expert.. and keep it in mind if you want to influence someone..


Jurek -- thanks for sharing that, it's awesome. i love it. "the one who sets the frame wins the game"

why wasn't I visiting nlp forums before? what the hell was wrong with me?

You have operated from a not most useful frame.... by the way, the saying originates from Michael Hall's Secrets of Personal Mastery, readable and non-technical textbook explicating the presuppositions of Neuro-Semantics, which to my understanding is the same core NLP but presented from a bit different set of frames (like meta-states, etc.). You may want to have a go. Cheers & Regards

META-Thanks Jarek for the example,
Its always good to put a context to Michael Hall quotes.

It just goes to show how when you set the frame, it totally changes how your brain interprets the information.

I remember Tony Robbins talking about how powerful certainty is,
which is a 100% belief. This relates, because the label 'expert 'is just a belief they know what their talking about.
And maybe a..

Note: Who do you find yourself labelling as an "expert"?
Learning from this study, What moment can you recall where you shut down your decision-making and just followed an "experts" advice?
When is it bad to do this?
-If "following experts blindly" is a state, and so is questioning and making decisions, How can you notice which one your activating the next time your learning a skill from a trainer? What is the sign that tells you to look for more information?

PS. You just re-evoked my curiosity, to read studies like those!!!!!

"What is the sign that tells you to look for more information?"

You may want to have a look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, which presents a useful and simple model of so called paradigm shift process.

To me, this model is about the ability to maintain the observer position (do you want to call it meta-position?) that allows to keep any question or related "solution" as an open proposition. This means that it is always appropriate to ask another question, it is always OK to challenge the advise given - the only limit seems to be set by the pragmatism trying to avoid the analysis paralysis.

I personally always keep looking for more information if the advise received seems to lack coherence with the overall picture, it appears to be "shaky" when future-paced and of course if I seem to belive that it does not give me the maximum flexibility in the given situation.

I represent an old Psycho-Cybernetics school (Maxwell Maltz) that adhered to the system's theory and the principle that the agent with the most flexibility would win in a given situation, thus - whenever and wherever advise is asked for and consequently given, it needs to past the test of maximizing it... Any advise that seems to put me in a stuck position calls for more information and development by definition. Cheers and regards.