We all know the positive benefits motivated employees can bring to any organisation and team, but do we understand what really motivates people and how to account for individual differences?
Discovering how the brain works and leveraging it’s potential can make a critical impact on the success of motivation, recognition and reward programs.
The Neuroscience of Motivation explores the dynamics of the human brain and provides new insights into what really motivates our thinking and behaviour and how we can recognise and reward performance to get the best out of people.
Drawing on neuroscience and positive psychology principles, expert Sue Langley converts research into real world techniques and examples you and others can immediately grasp and put into action.
• What motivates people—cultural similarities, individual differences
• Giving and receiving feedback—how to ensure the brain receives and acts on feedback
• Social or financial recognition—what works best?
• Increasing positivity ratios in teams—the key to high performance
• Creating positive culture—the impact on organizational performance
Sue Langley is a sought-after speaker, facilitator and master trainer in emotional intelligence, positive psychology and the neuroscience of motivation and leadership.
CEO of Emotional Intelligence Worldwide, Sue is considered one of the leaders in Australia in the practical workplace application of these fields. Sue has studied positive psychology at Harvard and is the first person in Australia to undertake the Masters of Neuroscience of Leadership. Sue is also the published author of “Positive Relationships at Work” in Positive Relationships (Springer 2012).
A lively and inspiring facilitator, Sue delights in sharing her passion, knowledge and real world understanding of leveraging the brain's potential.# vimeo.com/59024887 Uploaded 76 Plays 0 Likes 0 Comments
Lillianna Albertazzi: "Why Perception Is Not Reducible to Physics?"
The concept of ‘perception’ in contemporary science is not univocal. Its equivocalness depends on theoretical aspects (assuming or otherwise that the whole of mesoscopic reality can be adequately described by classical physics), methodological aspects (classic psychophysical techniques or brain imaging vs. qualitative descriptive techniques), and formal ones (what type of syntax to select for simulation models and their implementation in machines). The problems underlying the equivocalness are of diverse. The first is the co-presence in a perception of different psychophysical, neurophysiologic, and qualitative aspects. Put briefly: psychophysics studies the relations between distal stimuli, for example, luminous radiations of varying frequency and intensity; psychophysiology studies the relations among proximal stimuli, i.e. between stimuli and the sense organs; qualitative analyses (descriptive psychology, Brentano 1995a; Albertazzi 2004) and its experimental developments in Gestalt psychology (Koffka 1935; Köhler 1969; Kanizsa 1979), in its turn, study the aspects and the global structures that emerge, for example, in the actual event of ‘seeing a colour’ (Brentano 1995b; Albertazzi 2005, chapters 3, 4).
The various psychological schools don’t always draw clear boundaries between these different aspects. In particular, phenomenal aspects are usually analysed in terms of psychophysical or neuronal correlates, even though no bijective mapping exists between a perceptive event and a psychophysical stimulus, but rather a more complex structure of relationships (Da Pos 1997; Gemerek et al 2002. See Albertazzi 2007).
Nor is the difference between a metric-free descriptive analysis of phenomena and a quantitative metric analysis at issue. The phenomenal aspects of perception can also be analysed using a metric: for example, when the distance of an object is analysed in relation to its size in the visual field, or when phenomena of colour recognition or discrimination are studied by referring to psychological or subjective dimensions mapped on NCS or Munsell systems (Da Pos, Albertazzi, sumitted). A phenomenology of perception does not in principle exclude the ‘measurement’ quantification and parameterization of data and experimental investigation. What it does exclude is reduction of the phenomenal aspect to the psychophysical or neuronal ones.
A second problem concerns the intrinsic dynamism of perception, which does not consist in a ‘mental state’ except by abstraction. As a complex whole, perception in its actual unfolding (i) cannot be analysed in terms of independent features, (ii) nor is it a mere ‘representation’ of a stimulus, or (iii) the product of a probabilistic inference. Rather, it is the presentation of a unitary event of which the perceiver’s subjective structure is a non-independent part (Albertazzi 2006a, 2006b).
To support the thesis of the irreducibility of perception to physics, I shall present some experimental studies on phenomena of light and colour, which do not have any correspondent physical stimuli. These studies show that our perceived world is largely a construction of our mind (Gilchrist 2002, 2006; Koenderink et al. 2007; Hoffman 2003; Michotte 1991).
15 July 2010# vimeo.com/10584073 Uploaded 136 Plays 0 Likes 0 Comments
As part of a panel on Reframing the Brain: Indentification and the Rhetoric of Neuroscience, I will be giving a talk titled "Reframing Deception: Rhetorical, Psychology, and Agency." It's a version of a paper I have recently co-authored with a colleague in psychology, Maarten Derksen. The talk will be given at the 2012 Rhetoric Society of America Conference in Philadelphia, PA. The panel (H.12) is on Saturday, May 26, 2012 at 11:00am.
Abstract: Speaker #3 frames deception through the combined lenses of rhetorical theory and experimental psychology, thus performing an important interdisciplinary gesture: to study the human experience culturally and scientifically. It introduces a specific strain of rhetorical theory to experimental psychology in order to make claims for the emergence of human agency, and to rethink and recast a term common to both rhetoric and psychology, namely deception. Speaker #3 argues that agency is emergent in experimental conditions as it likewise is in moments of rhetorical encounter. It reads this understanding of agency through psychological experiments in priming, which attempt to demonstrate how subtle context cues unconsciously shape human behavior and in so doing reveal the bare mechanisms of the human mind. Examining work on rhetorical ecologies (Edbauer), identification (Burke), and ambience (Rickert) on the one hand, and experimental social psychology on the other, this presentation argues that deception cannot simply be identified as something that one person does to another, but rather is an emergent phenomenon within and across moments of encounter, whether they be complex rhetorical interactions or tightly controlled psychological experiments.# vimeo.com/41734540 Uploaded 161 Plays 0 Likes 0 Comments
Robert DeRubeis, Samuel H. Preston Term Chair in the Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, on "Emotional Brains: Treating Depression Through Chemistry and Talk”# vimeo.com/47330935 Uploaded 13 Plays 0 Likes 0 Comments
Adrian Raine, Chair, Department of Criminology and Richard Perry University Professor, Departments of Criminology, Psychiatry and Psychology, on "Criminal Brains: What Causes Violent and Criminal Behavior?”# vimeo.com/47330938 Uploaded 22 Plays 0 Likes 0 Comments
psychology brain mind
Browse This Channel
More stuff from “psychology brain mind”
Heads up: the shoutbox will be retiring soon. It’s tired of working, and can’t wait to relax. You can still send a message to the channel owner, though!