demanding results, and he can't really do much to help kids and students and teachers get there. so, they keep pushing the feds keep pushing the testing lever, and now we see where it's gotten us. you have this kind of crazy quilt of testing. if there is something positive to say, then it is that the 40-some states that have adopted the common core state in other wordses are doing something that all of the world's education super powers have done. it's very, very hard to inject rigor into a system. one way to do it ises to set clear rigorous, more coherent targets for what kids should know at every agreed -- grade level than what you had before. that consistency and clarity is lacking from the u.s. system, partly because of federalism. so you're seeing huge fights over the standards, right? some of the fights need to happen. some of them do not.

and would not happen in another country. those documents are living documents, and finland, korea, poleland, all these countries have standard. finland has them for every subject, not just math and reading but home ed and history and this i thing that is within our grasp if we can continue down this path, keep tweaking the standards, that's fine, the assessments or a whole nuther thing that is going to go down this spring, but having clear rigor is consistent standards is probably the smartest reform we've made in 20 years. thank you so much for having me here. it's greed have this audience here. [applause] pgh [inaudible] pgh [inaudible questions] conversation pgh [inaudible] pgh [inaudible questions] conversation pgh [inaudible] pgh [inaudible questions] conversation.

>> next up from the science pavilion at the national book festival, sally satel. >> welcome to the national book festival. imwendy malone any of the u.s. copyright office of the library of congress. please note we're recording this presentation for later webcasting. over ask a question during the presentation you're giving permission to use you in the webcast, and also please turn awful electronic devices. it's my pleasure to introduce sally satel. a psychiatrist and resident scholar at the american enter prize student. the was an acities tenant

professor at yale university, where she remains a lecturer. satel is the author of many scholarly articles and books, including drug treatment, the case for coercion, and pcmd, how political correctness is corrupting medicine. in brainwashed, the seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience, published by basic books in 2013, she and co-authors, schoolingist scott felled reveal how neuroscience glosses over its limitations and complexities, often obscuring the factors in psychology that shape our behavior and identities. they analyze what brain scan and other under row technologies can and cannot tell us about our are ourselves and stress the complex nature of hour selfhood, free will and personal responsibility.

please public, sally satel. [applause] >> it's great to see everyone. thank you. apologies about the slide projector. it's a little small but most of my slides aren't very busy. so, in fact, my first slide is a copy of the cover of the book, and to be honest, right after the decided on that, i really thought of a better title. i wanted to beer 50" shades of gray matter." and that's not just the play on the popular novel. but it's explicitly meant to evoke the concept of see ducks. -- seduction. in this case the seduction into certain beliefs about behavior

that technology is like brain scanning can lead us to, and the epitomy of seduction is a brain scan, which is now the signature technology of modern neuroscience. in fact someone said the brain scan has now replaced the atom as the symbol of science. but that's a brain scan, and it's really quite a wonderous thing. the reason why i consider it's perfect storm of seduction is that so many forces converge on it. first, it's an absolutely dazzling technology. we're not going into that in too much depth. it's very complicate. a whole chapter in the book. but it's amazing technology and like all technologies is promises objectivity and a more scientific gaze. it's about the brain.

neuroscience, of course, is about the brain. which is a masterwork of nature. about 80 billion cells. or neurons, each communicating with thousands of others, which is more connections than the milky way. it's the organ of the self. and people tend to think, understandably, that it can reveal all kinds of secrets about human nature. it's visual. and we are highly visual primates, which is not something you can say about genes. anyone can see a brain scan. it's harder to see nucleic acid. lastly there's almost an element of surprise that accompanies brain scans. people tend to think -- especially people who are not steeped in science, not particularly sophisticate net that realm, and why should they be. the original person reading the science times, oh, my gosh, look, it's in the brain. it's in the brain.

that's a very key phrase. well, of course it's in the brain. all thoughts and emotions are in the brain. where else would the biological correlation of behavior, emotion and thinking be? not in the ann pancreas. they're in the brain. you have seen headlines, political bias affects brain activity, accompanied by a brain scan. mass anxiety in the brain. of course, and says psychiatrists, these kind of headlines annoy me. proof that depression is real because we have brain scan to show that, or anorexia or ptsd, now we know the civilization real. we knew it before. we didn't need a brain school to tell us that. we need a brain scan to tell us some things. right enough it's mainly in the realm of research. there aren't that many clinical applications but a few. but in the realm of research, and very good research, but,

like so much of research, when it filters through the press and into the popular media, things get distorted. the phrase, in the brain, is seductive in another way, because it kind of carries an exculpatory whiff, the, don't blame me, don't blame my brain and also the notion that if x lights up your hear the phrase lights up -- that means there's increased activity, in a particular area of the brain. there's always activity in the brain. if there's not, you're dead. anyway, if x lights up, then y behavior inevitably happened, and that is not the case either. and we'll be talking about that. you seek why that sort of conceit, the x lighting up and y then inevitably following, it would be so appealing to trial lawyers, and indeed now there's a whole new field called,

neurolaw. which is looking at the implications of brain science for understanding the criminal mind. but it's a really nice story that criminal -- that defense attorneys can tell. you see, your honor, my client has this in his brain. he could not control himself. he could not form the intent needed to commit a crime. this is a misreading of neuroimaging. sometimes, without question, people do have problems with their brains that render them legally insane, so that they're not culpable. all kind of damages -- damage can happen to one's cognitive apparatus, rendering people either not cull -- not culpable at all or, less culpable, so they're not excused but their sentence is mitigated.

that happens clearly, but the point is that, at this point in time, and things might change with technology evolving -- at this point in time we cannot distinguish who those people are through brain scans. we can't distinguish an impulse that is irrye zestable from one that was nose resisted. this is a key point i want to return to as well. finally, another misconception of popular readings of brain scans is the notion that you can actually pinpoint emotions. or complex -- subtle emotions or complex feelings. that's just simply not true. and in fact, that kind of activity has led to the phrase -- to accuse over simplification of the reading of brain images, as being akin to

neofriendology. as if the brain is highly modular and specific areas of it are involved soley with certain kind of reactions. now, clearly certain parts of the brain are more involved, more heavily in mediating certain kinds of reactions. we know that be the -- but that part of the brain figures prominently in processing perceptions of novelty or surprise, so there's not a one-to-one correspondence. in fact, circuitry where is it is and all neuroscientists know this and i mean again a lot of the problem here is how this -- how popular neuroscience has been -- has come to the media. there's wonderful science

journalists who know their background and are very careful and others a little less so. and then there's a whole crop of people called neuro -- neuroentrepreneurs, who are trying to make -- frankly, trying to make a buck off selling things that have to do with education in neuroscience and a lot of fads that one has to be very careful about. so really, circuitry is where it is, and that's where neuroscientists are focusing most of their energy. how the various regions interact with each oomph it's enormously complicated. so fmri is basically a research tool. we're probably one foot into a ten-mile long journey on understanding the brain. but nonetheless, these brain images have migrated into the public sphere, where the implied promise of decoding the brain, one can see what's politicians are so interested. in fact there are some public

relations groups that offer neuroimaging, and in an attempt to advise their clients about how to make their candidates more appealings. this was actually from an op-ed in the "new york times" from 2007, where candidates were shown to swing voters, and the reactions of those voters' brains were supposedly indicative of what the candidate would have to do to appeal to them more. ...

>> and i would offer a book to anyone who knows tuesday's

two guys are. i think someone said leopold. i owed you a book. [laughter] we devote a chapter to the lie detection and we try to pull apart from what seems promising or these obstacles to achieve the ultimate goal something about the mind from the brain and the barriers from doing that. so would that as the background a want to focus in to speak for my co-author because this is one of the most interesting things that

culturally significant implications to explain their logical behavior the better we get to drive human behavior through biology and we will only get better how will that affect the way we think about human freedom? to choose our actions? howell explore this through addiction. i am and addiction psychiatrist that is my area of specialty. so i can say with complete honesty for least 20 years i have been very interested in the way addiction is conceptualized and portrayed to the public.

with the media and educational campaigns. is there water over there? this is your brain literally on cocaine. and actually this represents a legitimate an interesting experiment. but the fact we can visualize the result is pretty darn amazing. and expose them in the brain scanner this uses metabolic brain scan but with

increased activity in the brain but then an apparatus to of people using cocaine into have a subjective desire to use cocaine in their parade will reflect the reward area of special activation you don't illicit the same kind of metabolic activity the other version is you have a cocaine user

than not the you get this reaction those who have a cocaine history as you might expect but the way it is described is that this is the brain being hijacked by cocaine specifically with the olympic system but it contains regions of the hippocampus and amygdala end memory and emotion but it

hijacks the brain. and of course, that implication that they're out of control and can no longer have any control over their actions they and the drug use is involuntary. the existence of these changes because there are brave and changes in the context of addiction but still the label deserves a lot of scrutiny. but learning italian changes the brain.

but it is not like learning italian europe language does not take on like the crack habit or is it like alzheimer's with that natural progression that is completely beyond the control of us suffer. the brain changes with alzheimer's renders a patient completely resistant to any reward if he said bram i will give you $1 million if your memory does not deteriorate or i will shoot you if it does, it won't matter. but the brain changes of addiction thank goodness do not impair the capacity to be deterred. for those who have sound -- to have known addicts that may sound strange but and to

make them more or less vulnerable but to going into the lab but say do modify the course of behavior that is the essence to be modified by the consequences. but that is too theoretical these are vietnam vets. president nixon became panicked that there is a flood of veterans from southeast asia to further inflate the heroin epidemic that is under way. it is true that half of all

gis have tried heroin and 20 percent may have actually been addicted. he was very concerned. they instituted a program called operation in golden globe everybody had to pee in a pickup if it was positive you're not leaving vietnam. to make a long story short almost everybody past everybody was using interdicted passed and if you who'd digit were given an extra week then they came back to the united states. then a researcher at the university of washington follow these people for three years and was expecting to see higher

rates of real addiction. but only 12 percent had used in the three years that they had come back. that was very surprising but very encouraging and what lies at the heart of recovery is the intelligent use of sanctions and rewards which we can make very good use of. but to take that system as we find it to divert people from incarceration because of non-violent drug crimes? we have been doing that for years based on the principles of behavior that

were swift and certain to shape behavior. it was quite successful that is just one example there are many others. the point is if you focus at the level of the of brain to talk about the nucleus of the hippocampus. i apologize. cough cough he would not think about shaping behavior. he thinks something is the brain disease that is involuntary how to work with my patients? so we come up with strategies to allow them that is self finding ways to basically you have heard that, and one stay away from people places and things to

deposit your paycheck don't have money available. i had a patient who use touche to it up and every time he looked at his arm of the tracks it would stimulate craving so he had to wear long sleeve shirts. avoid boredom. the point is if it involves motivation and conscious engagement. this was a phenomenon corporations -- where patients have barriers to their use to recognize situations of vulnerability

to restrain yourself in some way. okay. so addiction is a good example of order arose centralism this is one of the problems the way science is popularized the idea that human behavior can be best explained by looking solely or prayer rarely at the brain that that level of analysis issued the most authentic and reliable and understanding of behavior's. that is probably true if you have alzheimer's disease. posttraumatic stress, depression, and no. the thought is you will

emphasize medication too much but to think that methadone is the answer itself is clearly not true you will downplay the importance of psychology behavior if you cannot afford to lose the up mind in the age of brain science. ryan talking about feelings and thoughts and desires and memories provide what you to think we're falling into a trap the mind is wholly dependent on the brain all subjective experience is needed through the brain but it is very important to realize the physical rule

from one level of analysis the basically i am breaking them down it could end up quantum physics but we cannot yet to rule eight -- use that physical rule out the psychological level. if you want to understand and you are reading of books to understand with the text means you don't subject the ink to a chemical analysis user just different levels and the important thing is the time are answered better others are answered best at others they're not right or wrong does addiction affects

the brain? of course, but if we step that level we will miss a lot. so it is not just addiction but that biological explanation can mislead in the court room as well and trial lawyers love that in the count on the jurors to be seduced as well. there are certainly cases where people's brains are defective they cannot be held legally accountable is just that there ought helpful to distinguish you they are flooded could be highly misleading and that biological explanation in in general shows responsibility over actions there have been studies explaining behavior

in biological terms compared to psychological terms but it to describe like the behavior or a genetic explanation and people are much more likely much less blame to the person if they committed a crime and this is the explanation given in the impulse to punish is less severe when people understand it as a behavior caused by a of brain problem as opposed to a childhood problem but can also backfire with people except that the desire in the dances in they have less space or believe that their people working in believe individuals are more dangerous.

so this is important to know the implications of how we describe behavior i am not telling you how to describe the behavior you don't want to manipulate the explanations to illicit specific clients of reactions of the problem is in the brain you have to be truthful to talk about that this is interesting how they do affect fundamental intuition of human agency my point is simply they can be manipulated. i have 15 minutes go will deeper to leave time for discussion but when lawyers

use brain scans in capital cases they make the point that they're client could not form the intent or could not reason properly that they have for control but the implication is a default circumstances most people do know what they're doing and can be deterred but not my client. but some narrow scientist of philosophers are going one step further and arguing no one has capacity for choice than none of us could act other than we did and all of us, not just criminals are not in control of our actions at any point.

now you will recognize this of course, as the ancient debate about free will. which we will not resolve here. just so you know, . [laughter] many klay we don't have free will this debate has been going on for centuries but they do argue that neuroscience will make this clear it will finally resolve the free will debate that it will finally clear up the free will debate but this brings us to another very interesting aspect for rurality more generally is whether the individual cutters cannot control themselves but whether the concept of responsibility at all is coherent and this

gets us back. in 1824 in hyde park chicago these two brilliant kids wanted to commit the perfect crime so they found a 14 year-old boy and killed him and drove him to indiana to put the body in the drain pipe one home and played cards called the family of the child and said they needed the ransom they're very pleased with themselves and they thought they had gotten away with it but three days later someone dropped their glasses in they traced them in the family's hired famous attorneys who the next year when on literally 90 years

ago today and at the end there was the 12 hour summation that he was basically arguing for life in prison and he did succeed but the judge said it was his view not the argument and it was right out of that determinist playbook why did they kill him? of germany or spite or hate they killed him because they were made in that way they were natures victim's. i'm sure you remember this from philosophy that the notion of terminus and that he jacked we perform criminal or otherwise

follows the cause and from the same conditions as a result will flow every time. again talking of all the causes the genes the history the environment said genetic history with the adn that all of this hinges on individuals of the moment of making a decision derek is one choice there is no real choice whether you choose this soup over salad there is no choice to be made because up until that point you could not have chosen otherwise based on the whole history or the whole causal parade now again assuming that sounds familiar

remember in this view there is no praise or blame because you could not have done otherwise you acted base and all the forces impinging on you that is not intuitive on how we act but on the other hand, it is true much behavior is caused in unconscious ways and that is true. but how is neuroscience the bottom one says we are victims ever on circumstances the top is clarence the bottom is a narrow scientist that we're all victims but if that is true and what happens? will this goes away and there is no blame it means to have to change the criminal-justice system radically to turn it into

highly utilitarian where we might put people in jail to deter them from acting and how we punish them to contain dangerous people and rehabilitate them but no punishment. these debates are going on for a long time. now with the addition of the neuroscience daily dip to this question is their way to preserve moral responsibility in of world leading up to the moment of choice? and when we understand those pathways can see the process this is what happens to me. is tough and end in tears.

but neurosciences not resolving it either. but to think about the kinds of freedom necessary to make a choice. it is the freedom necessary completely un caused were people operate in a vacuum and that is hard to imagine

to be considered to have free will. to deliberate or respond maybe you as an individual had your freedom compromised and should be excused. but sas a species we do have free will. i don't know how you come down on that. but this will live help you resolve it. i should end their. i have more to say that i only have five more minutes but the book is a culture book more than a science book. it is inevitable the biological manifestations pechora understood they will have benefits.

and i assume they will talk about that as well. and that is the final scientific frontier that is all very true but we should the not be seduced into thinking to mechanically or seductively about human nature about how we function. thank you so much. [applause] there is time for questions. >> does a a work?

to make the short answer is it works for who it works. it has saved some people's lives. i do not mean to be flip. most treatments don't have the greatest rates. a does not either. it can be lifesaving but the average person will not stop drinking right away with aa. but the treatments that work the best are ones we don't use like the contingency rewards and sanctions which is a shame that you lose your license u.s.-built been contingencies you will lose it unless you shape up because there is so much to lose and people with skills

as well but dealing with a different population they do much better in terms of recovery with contingencies attached to that as well. >> can you talk about food addiction? >> it is of marriage of survey that is poised to impact legislation. >> that picture comes from an article a research study that got an amount of attention but it compared the rats there's so much they can extrapolate to the

humans but that oreos were as addictive as cocaine in the radio was because they concluded because you see the same narrow signatures and it is the same with humans as well the reward pathway is solicited by food or anything pleasurable and cocaine in it is fashionable to say food addiction like cocaine that people have the desire and they register anticipation in more than actual desire and the same principles apply as to addiction to any behavior

that we are more or less foldable with motivation to overcome them with those mechanisms to be engaged but what i would argue against they are rendered helpless and there was a lot of product liability to sue big food and potentially this is ed dream to make it analogous to addiction as possible that would be real abuse of neuroscience. >> and i am addicted to ice-cream. so where is that located?

>> that is the first thing we say. exactly it is almost true to say it is in the brain if you recall the of awful crime of entry gates the post part of psychosis woman there was no brain scan in her trial but even if they attempted it would not reveal much we cannot even make the most significant psychiatric diagnosis with great certainty based on their brains and we will one day i am sure obviously genetic information is difficult to was 100 genes

involved it is very complicated and we will get there but we're not there yet. it is a limited technology and responsible under scientists know that we will cringe when they see it is applied to sloppily but we wrote the book. [laughter] >> do you believe there is the genetic disposition people are born to have benediction the new be addicted to something else? >> no question there are genetic predispositions that can be anything from how pleasurable we find alcohol

varies a lot some people cannot even metabolized alcohol very well there will not be a lot of alcoholism there simply because they cannot but remember if your parents are alcoholics some people say don't even try it why put yourself? it is not like you have that gene is now that simple genetic transition that we talk probability and in this case just don't go near it or pace yourself they're all kinds of strategies and they feel things are getting out of control they can pull back and most