23: Science--Models And Measurements
While Descartes is often the target of theories that insist emotion, rather than thought, is the primary motivator, he was quite an amazing scientist given the knowledge of his time: he reasoned that muscles are controlled by nerves, which later proved to be true, though he also reasoned that they were powered by the fluid of life (auqa vitae) as electricity had no been discovered.
Likewise, Descartes analogy for the brain is the homunculus - a "little man" who lived inside a person's head, watching through their eyes and hearing through their ears, and manipulating levers to control our movements. Taken literally, it's a silly notion and not at all satisfactory (if the homunculus controls the man, who controls the homunculus?), but the basic concept is similar top what even modern theories have to offer: is not the notion of a subconscious mind much the same?
Scientists and philosophers of the present age are just as likely to find their models for the function of the brain to be just as laughable a few decades or centuries from now, though our hope is that a greater proportion of the concepts will bear up over time. We must, however, be careful to avoid some of the traps and inaccuracies of past theories.
Decision Making
When philosophers ponder questions such as "Who are we?" and "How do we know who we are?" they are touching on the notions of consciousness and perception. Psychologists translate these basic ideas into models of human thought and behavior. Scientists test very specific elements of these assumptions.
Practitioners such as economists and marketers seek to apply all of this knowledge to achieve specific results. The problem is that their decisions are only as accurate as their theoretical basis, which is often wanting.
While neuromarketing adds accuracy to the science of motivation, its greater contribution should be that no longer enables us to ignore the other disciplines: we must consolidate the theories of philosophy, psychology, and science to have a better understanding of consciousness.
For the practitioner, consciousness less important than decision-making: we are less concerned with how a person discovers the existence of an apple or perceives it to be different to a pear than the decision to purchase the apple rather than the pear.
But we must also realize that consciousness and perception are not at all irrelevant to decision-making: they are inputs to the decision, and the decision itself depends on the facts provided by consciousness and perception.
Models And Measurement
In our effort to understand the brain and how decisions are made, we must have a theory (model) of how the brain works, supported by measures (metrics) of behavior that confirm the model.
In the present era, we have the ability to take biological measures of the brain in a way that is different to what has previously been possible. Measurements of pulse, respiration, perspiration, and muscular movement indirectly suggest what is going on inside a person's head. The MRI and EEG look directly at the brain itself.
However, we still face two serious problems:
- The measurements we gain from modern instruments are not coordinated by a model
- The models that we have do not accurately account of the measurements
The term "neurobullshitting" (EN: yep, the authors' term) has been used as a derogatory term for neuromarketing's various flawed attempts to overcome these problems - and with good reason, as there are many who have published articles and sold consulting services based on bad or nonexistent models and metrics.
Bit that the same time, this dismissal is broad, and sweeps away the earnest attempts of many qualified theorists to define an accurate model and apply reliable metrics.
One of the greatest flaws of previous models is that they worked from the outside-in: they begin with observable behavior, and guess at the motivation. In the present day, we are attempting to work from the inside out - to examine our metrics of brain activity and reason what behavior it will cause. And where the two collide, there is much debate and conjecture.
We can discard the new science and continue to defend our "pet theories: about behavior, or we can reject previous theories in favor of the newer bio-measures. The author asserts that both of these actions lead to neurobullshitting. If a theory discards conjecture without due consideration, ignoring any suggestions to the contrary, the adherents to that theory are motivated by narcissism
As such, developing a better understanding of the brain/brand puzzle requires humility and objectivity to resolve conflicting theories, with a genuine intention to discover as much of the truth as can be known.