There was a recent article that my friend and whistleblower mentor Dr. Fred Whitehurst sent my way, with his customary enticement “what do you think?”
Here’s the piece from Whistleblower Network News: Hard Wires: The Neuropsychology of Speaking Up
Now, before I give you my succinct straightforward take on it, a little history on what’s behind this mulling.
This “hard-wiring” notion is really a blend of the perennial challenge of the “nature vs. nurture” and “free will vs. determinism” conundrums, but here dressed in a neuronal costume. And here, it’s combined with the always seductive lure of going with simple answers to complex questions.
This reminded me of a principle I learned in organizational consulting:
“For every complex challenge, there’s always one simple solution … and it’s nearly invariably wrong.”
The “neuronal basis for all behavior” is an increasingly pervasive dynamic. For example, the argument about how psychopaths amygdalas (a brain structure that mediates the fear response) have been found to be smaller than those of non-psychopaths and therefore that’s the cause of that person’s psychopathy. Or that the frontal lobes of their brains are different in how their ventromedial prefrontal cortex nuclei are wired to their amygdalas. The argument often goes that because of its different size, whether enlarged or atrophied, it must mean that such is not only significant but the cause of the behavior. The thrust of arguments like these is that because this area of the brain on CAT scan or MRI is different that those without known psychopathy, this must be the nasty bugger that causes this.
It’s respectable thinking, certainly. We put together our hypothesis, i.e. that a particular brain area is related to some observed behavior, and then, discovering that that brain area is in fact different between the two conditions (psychopath vs. not), this abnormality therefore must be the cause.
Now, for the most part, this kind of “if this, then this” reasoning helps us navigate the world. Most of the time, when we rely on associational causation it serves us well.
But in the world of neuroanatomy and behavior, this kind of reasoning has led to false conclusions. It turns out that “structure” does not always equal “function,” and that “observed lesion” does not always mean “pathology.”
Early in clinical work, both one’s initial foray into the hospital to learn the art of the physical exam in medical school, and then throughout one’s post-graduate intern and residency training, we’re taught that this or that aberrant finding on CAT or MRI scan does not automatically correlate with the illness as is being manifested. For example, an elder’s brain can show significant shrinkage, but that shrinkage simply doesn’t directly correlate with diminished cognitive function in the form of dementia. In the current patient in our care. the reduced brain volume may or may not explain that person’s confusion of new-onset loss of memory.
What sometimes looks like an obvious causation may in fact not be. It may be just an association, a “correlation” (which is, literally, a co-relation).
So, Are We Truly Brain-wired to NOT Whistleblow?
In my succinct and humble opinion: no.
Might such whistleblower resistance behavior be “brain-circuit influenced?” Sure, that’s fair. But it’s kind of a truism to say as nearly all behavior is brain-circuit mediated.
But truism though it may be, there’s still value in that as acknowledging that, we can see that because brain circuits can be influenced, in the referenced case by the power of the bystander effect, they can also be shaped by other forces, some that promote a certain behavior, others that resist it (like the bystander effect).
Think of driving through a traffic-lit intersection. Which is “brain hard-wired” – for you to drive straight through the red-lighted traffic signal… or refrain from doing so, and to stop your car at the red light?
The hard-wired single circuit thesis could argue that your mission is programmed: “Go to store; store is straight ahead; you’re on a tight schedule; nobody’s around; do it.” Turns out, that’s not really a “wired” circuit like we think of as though there were an extension cord running directly from the idea “go to store” to the foot pedal.
Rather, it’s actually a series of decisions that are made by intersecting circuits. And these “semi-hard-wired” intersecting connections can modify the ultimate action taken.
Look at some of the factors that might influence that dangerous action, running the red light, in order to complete the “go to store” mission:
Factors favoring running the light:
nobody’s around;
I’ve traveled this corner many times;
I’ve got important guests I’m preparing dinner for;
I’ve only got 10 minutes …
But here are some of the factors opposing the action:
I’ve got to obey the law because, well, I’m law-abiding and it just makes sense;
I could get caught and get a ticket - and then I’d be really late and it’d be costly;
I could have an accident and get killed;
And if I got hurt, it’d be a long time before I entertain guests again.
It often only enters into our selfish minds a bit later to also consider …I could crash into someone else and I could hurt or kill them ….
So these are opposing psycho-neurobiological forces. And what happens is there’s a clickety-clack sum-totaling of all the considerations, done in a flash, generally unconsciously, on the decisional spreadsheet in our minds.
What’s interesting about this decisional matrix is that the law of motivational weightings or force vectors applies here. The more sizable one sum total is, the more likely that’s going to be the action taken.
Now, let’s imagine that there was a camera monitoring device and it could record your running that light and would automatically issue a moving violation ticket. Would you be more inclined not to run the light? Of course.
Let’s say on the contrary that even if the intersection was monitored and each and every person who ran it was ticketed with a hefty fine, you happen to “know people” who can make that ticket go away, and that you’ve made that magic happen before because you’re a person “of influence.” How might that alter your behavior? Surely, you’re more inclined to run the light. Why? Because the sum total of push and pull forces leads you in that direction.
What’s interesting about such a decision tree is that some choices cause other modulating influences to be silently overruled. In the entitlement example above, your narcissism overrules another modulating influence that was already there - neurologically soft wired on the point A to point B circuit, trying to remind you that even independent of your prowess at ticket-fixing, you could still get killed, or kill someone else! The amazing thing about various acquired styles, they have the amazing capacity to speak louder than other modulating influences. In a way, it’s an example of narcissism going all the way down to the bioneuronal level and ruling the decisional matrix. Of course, how classic for narcissism. But even so, that doesn’t make it “hard-wired.” It itself can be altered.
Consider this –.let’s say that you’re a “deeply rooted” malignant narcissistic psychopath who can buy anything you want, including ticket-fixing. But you also recently had a life-changing event of a loved one who died in an auto accident caused by a drunk driver who ran a red light at this very intersection. How might your behavior now be influenced? Ten to one, even though you’re still an entitled narcissist to the core whose selfish actions almost seem predictable, in this instance, something else entered the picture. You’’re still on your Whole Foods mission, you’ve still hoity toity guests coming over, and you still , and still have so much influence that not only fix the ticket, you can lean on people to arrange to get the entire recording of the camera footage erased. But because of that single powerful event in your recent past, you are most likely going to stop at that red light.
What’s this say about “hard-wiring?” It says that a) yes, nearly all action decisions are based on brain wiring; but b) the wiring isn’t as simple as a single electrical cord going from point A to point B. You can in fact behavior, even so powerfully embedded that it seems hard wired.
So, what’s this have to do with the philosophy of whistleblowing?
It’s vital to look at the matrix of “causal” influences and understand systems of interconnected causality. A powerful factor – for some people – may be the package of modulating influences known as the Bystander Effect. But for others that might play a role at all. Perhaps there are multiple components of causal influence that promote and detract from one’s decision to blow the whistle. And for some people, one of the wire strands in the “To Blow the Whistle or Not” decisional matrix is that of the much-vaunted bystander effect.1 But there are other factors in the decisional matrix.
Where I believe the piece fails in its seductive reasoning is not per se the fact of brain circuits playing a role in whistleblowing. Brain circuits play a role in nearly everything we engage in. Its reasoning fails to recognize that there are a multitude of brain circuits buzzing all at the same time and influencing each other. So while the bystander effect may play a significant if not determining role for some people, my conversations with lots of whistleblowers lead me to believe there’s a much more significant resistance. It’s the recognition that a very real and irreparable harm could befall you. Sort of like the running the red light, yoru decision is not just about getting to your desired objective in a timely fashion. It’s also about considering the possibility of a devastating crash. And considering that, one experiences immediate - and entirely appropriate - anxiety and anticipatory pain. And there may be additional concurrent considerations of a host of other modifying influences, such as what impact it will have on my job, my family, etc. All of these influences are abuzz in this decisional matrix. That’s not “single-circuit” hard-wired bystander reluctance.
But, imagine this. Imagine if you took that fear and harm away, and simply made it possible for people to speak up without retribution, accompanied with aggressive accountability and even harsh punishment for retaliators. I suspect there’d almost be no resistance to speaking up. Well, except for the group of people who are too lazy or too timid to assert themselves on anything or are too selfish to give a dog poop about anybody else.
That’s why I believe this type of neuro-bio-psychological theory of behavior is so defective. If you remove the retribution and reinforce the importance of speaking up, what do you get? A climate that promotes responsible whistleblowing.
So, how do you get to that?! Ay, to quote Shakespeare, there’s the rub.
But once you understand the matrix of causal influences, then you can begin to develop strategically targeted approaches to enhancing whistleblowing promotor influences. And of course, it’s soft science and calls for hypothesizing. But so far, I’m hoping you’ll agree this line of reasoning seems to make a lot of common sense.
There was a rich piece in today’s New York Times by Joe Klein on the prescient and pithy wisdom of now-deceased Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. And one was his endorsement of that unique mental activity of theorizing, entertaining hunches, envisioning some possible approaches and simply holding them out there, imagining what’s possible.
Back in the ‘70s as Sen. Moynihan grappled with society-wide problems of race and poverty and wondered about possible approaches, he said,
“We are going to have to work our way through these issues. It doesn’t follow that we will, but I don’t know that we won’t.”
Likewise for whistleblowing. It’s a huge challenge, and the forces seem ever more aligned to not just inhibit whistleblowing but to annihilate the whistleblower.
But ponder for a moment - imagine a world where doing the right thing was rewarded, where speaking your truth on behalf of the greater good and the core tenets of human ethicality was actually considered a virtue.
Yes. Imagine!