Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News


The Brain Advantage: Train your Autopilot…and how to turn it off

(Edi­tor’s Note: as part of our Author Speaks Series, you can enjoy below a stim­u­lat­ing excerpt from the new book The Brain Advan­tage: Become a More Effec­tive Busi­ness Leader Using the Lat­est Brain Research).brain_cv

Brain-imag­ing tech­niques allow researchers to wit­ness the brain’s activ­i­ty reflect­ed in a rain­bow of col­ors on a com­put­er screen. When brain cells are high­ly active ”work­ing hard­er” the result shows up as brighter col­ors on the com­put­er screen. Bril­liant reds and yel­lows indi­cate brain areas that are most active. In con­trast, the blues and greens on a scan show a qui­eter, less active brain.

What would we expect to find if we exam­ined the brain scans of peo­ple with high ver­sus aver­age IQ scores? We might pic­ture the active brain of an Ein­stein as a hotbed of smol­der­ing col­ors ”but we’d be wrong. Neu­rol­o­gist Richard Restak sum­ma­rized a UCLA study that com­pared indi­vid­u­als with high IQs to those with aver­age IQs. Restak wrote, The researchers start­ed off with the seem­ing­ly rea­son­able idea that ‘smarter brains work hard­er, gen­er­ate more ener­gy, and con­sume more glu­cose. Like light bulbs, the brains of bright peo­ple were expect­ed to illu­mi­nate more intense­ly than those of dimwits with a reduced wattage.  What they dis­cov­ered instead was exact­ly the oppo­site. High­er IQ peo­ple had cool­er, more sub­dued brain scans “while their less intel­lec­tu­al­ly gift­ed coun­ter­parts lit up like minia­ture Christ­mas trees..

Why would smarter brains work less hard? One strong bet is that when we are inex­pe­ri­enced ”when we still have a lot to learn”we have to make a con­scious effort to think about what we’re doing. But lat­er, after we’ve become more adept, much of what ini­tial­ly took effort becomes auto­mat­ic.

The good news is that func­tion­ing on autopi­lot allows us to expend less brain ener­gy on the rou­tine aspects of the work. Our exper­tise allows us to direct our ener­gy else­where. For exam­ple, novices use dif­fer­ent parts of their brains than experts do. This hap­pens in areas as dif­fer­ent as play­ing chess and swing­ing a golf club.These stud­ies show that less-expe­ri­enced peo­ple think more about car­ry­ing out the mechan­ics of the task and encod­ing information.Experts, on the oth­er hand, func­tion on auto­mat­ic pilot in these areas. In fact, experts some­times fal­ter “flub­bing a bas­ket­ball free throw or a golf put” when their focus shifts back to the mechan­ics.

So func­tion­ing on autopi­lot can be a great advan­tage. But it can also work against us. As men­tioned in chap­ter 1, inter­na­tion­al rock climber Lynn Hill was prepar­ing to climb a wall in Buoux, France in 1989. She thread­ed her rope through her har­ness but then, instead of tying the knot, she stopped to put on her shoes. While tying her shoes, she talked to anoth­er woman. The thought occurred to me that there was some­thing I need­ed to do before climb­ing, she lat­er recalled.29 But Hill dis­missed the thought and climbed the wall. When she leaned back to rap­pel to the ground, she fell sev­en­ty-two feet. For­tu­nate­ly, tree branch­es broke her fall and Hill sur­vived.

Lawrence Gon­za­les, who tells this sto­ry in his book Every­day Sur­vival, points out that more train­ing would not have helped Lynn Hill. “In fact,” as Gon­za­les writes, “expe­ri­ence con­tributed to her acci­dent.” She could tie her rope to her har­ness on autopi­lot but the sim­i­lar­i­ty between tying shoes and tying the rope “tricked” her brain into think­ing she had done what she need­ed to do.

So there are two sides to our abil­i­ty to func­tion on autopi­lot. Doing so can lead to major mis­takes, as Lynn Hill’s sto­ry illus­trates. On the oth­er hand, there are dis­tinct ben­e­fits as well. When we are try­ing to become more expert, in many cas­es our goal is to get good enough so that we can be on autopi­lot!

Inter­est­ing, but so what?

How can I use this infor­ma­tion as a busi­ness leader?

Among their many chal­lenges, lead­ers have two key respon­si­bil­i­ties: devel­op­ing their peo­ple and increas­ing effi­cien­cy. Increas­ing effi­cien­cy often involves stan­dard­iz­ing, automat­ing or sim­pli­fy­ing process­es. How­ev­er, car­ry­ing out rou­tines more auto­mat­i­cal­ly also has one major draw­back. It increas­es the risk that, like Lynn Hill fail­ing to knot her rope, peo­ple will at times imple­ment these pro­ce­dures mind­less­ly.

In an ide­al world, for effi­cien­cy’s sake, employ­ees would con­duct much of their work on autopi­lot. Then they would shift off autopi­lot when the sit­u­a­tion required more con­scious thought. The key ques­tion for busi­ness lead­ers is how to ensure that peo­ple stick to autopi­lot when it’s work­ing well, yet make the shift to more con­scious delib­er­a­tion when it’s need­ed.

What if

1. What if busi­ness lead­ers use auto­mat­ed sys­tems to remind them to peri­od­i­cal­ly go off autopi­lot?

Pro­fes­sion­als often step back from recent­ly-com­plet­ed projects and debrief. They assess how things went and con­sid­er what they might do dif­fer­ent­ly next time. Why not extend this prac­tice to well-estab­lished rou­tines? Team mem­bers could, for exam­ple, look at the plans they are cre­at­ing for car­ry­ing out a project. Then they could take some time to dis­cuss ques­tions like Is this the most effi­cient pos­si­ble way to do this? and Is there some­one else whose per­spec­tive we should get on this before we start?

Sim­i­lar­ly, indi­vid­u­als can take a few min­utes before they jump into their own work to ask Is there a bet­ter way to do this? Would it be bet­ter to have some­one else do this? One busi­ness leader exper­i­ment­ed with send­ing her­self ques­tions like these as instant mes­sages that appeared through­out the day. When one of these prompts appeared, it did­n’t usu­al­ly change her behav­ior imme­di­ate­ly because it did­n’t apply direct­ly to what she was doing. But over time, she inter­nal­ized the ques­tions and they start­ed pop­ping into her head at times when they did apply.

In many orga­ni­za­tions, qual­i­ty or con­tin­u­ous improve­ment reviews are intend­ed to serve a sim­i­lar pur­pose. But all too often, the reviews them­selves become scripts that are exe­cut­ed with lit­tle thought or con­sid­er­a­tion. Lead­ers should shift their mind­set from think­ing of qual­i­ty or oth­er reviews as admin­is­tra­tive tasks and instead approach them as oppor­tu­ni­ties to turn off autopi­lot.

mvh2.thumbnail Madeleine Van Hecke, Ph.D., is obrain_cvne of the authors of The Brain Advan­tage: Become a More Effec­tive Busi­ness Leader Using the Lat­est Brain Research, with Lisa P. Calla­han, Brad Kol­lar and Ken A. Paller, Ph.D. Ms. Van Hecke is a licensed clin­i­cal psy­chol­o­gist, speak­er, con­sul­tant, and author.

Relat­ed Arti­cles:

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

9 Responses

  1. Jon Peltier says:

    Very inter­est­ing arti­cle.

    One way peo­ple in man­u­fac­tur­ing use to turn off autopi­lot is by track­ing var­i­ous mea­sures using sta­tis­ti­cal process con­trol. This allows you to tell when a process is run­ning in con­trol, and when it goes out of con­trol. When the process strays, there are well estab­lished tools to help find caus­es for devi­a­tion.

    Look­ing for and fix­ing caus­es for non­con­for­mance is the part of man­u­fac­tur­ing that requires us to turn off our autopi­lot. Dur­ing rou­tine oper­a­tions, as long as the data shows the process is in con­trol, we want to be on autopi­lot.

  2. A very well thought out and inter­est­ing arti­cle.

    The last state­ment is prob­a­bly the most pow­er­ful. It is exact­ly that sce­nario of “oh it’s time for the three month review” which is as you say is treat­ed as a chore or some­thing that has to be done because the sys­tem demands it, rather than an oppor­tu­ni­ty to check that what we are doing or have done is being car­ried out in an opti­mal way.

    Autopi­lot allows to feel as if we are work­ing hard with­out tak­ing own­er­ship of “could we do bet­ter?” or “is there an alter­na­tive way that would work bet­ter here”. It allows us to be a bit lazy.

  3. David Dickinson says:

    Inter­est­ing, indeed. I won­der what is the con­nec­tion between the dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed func­tions of the two cere­bral hemi­spheres and the abil­i­ty to sense dan­ger? My hypoth­e­sis would be that we should fos­ter right-brain train­ing in the work­place to increase the facil­i­ty of the right brain to sense some­thing is out of the ordi­nary and wrong. Instead, we put all our ener­gy into sup­port­ing left-brain effi­cien­cies — how to be more orga­nized, how to do more work, how to work faster, etc. Left brain Autopi­lot is great 90 per cent of the time. But to be pre­pared for any con­tin­gency, our right brains need to be trained and nur­tured, too, so they can spring into action when need­ed.

  4. Keith says:

    I’m sor­ry, but this book seems like so many oth­er cliche brain books that I’ve encoun­tered. The idea of being on autopi­lot seems like such a small foun­da­tion upon which to build a book. The exam­ples pro­vid­ed seem very weak to me.

    That rock climber was not duped by her train­ing; she was dis­tract­ed from it by a shoelace and a con­ver­sa­tion. That is cer­tain­ly not a good exam­ple of autopi­lot lead­ing some­one astray, and while I am sure that there are bet­ter ones I doubt a litany of such exam­ples would make for good read­ing. I would feel like a child sit­ting in Sun­day school again.

    I do not under­stand how an entire book based upon this sin­gle idea of autopi­lot would be of more than pass­ing inter­est. It is such a banal con­cept that near­ly every­one knows. It is just so obvi­ous.

  5. Sto­ries of atten­tion­al mishaps abound. I am remind­ed of the 1980’s tragedy when mid per­for­mance, a mem­ber of the Butoh troupe Sankai Juku, fell to his death. The news report at the time: Seems the per­former failed to tie his rope in a prop­er man­ner before the per­for­mance One won­ders now what took his atten­tion from the pre per­for­mance prep?

    That said, Dr. Van Hecke rais­es an impor­tant issue that goes to the heart of encour­ag­ing a fresh­ness in think­ing, be it in busi­ness, edu­ca­tion, or per­for­mance train­ing (art, sport, or oth­er­wise). Curi­ous­ly enough, Van Hecke res­ur­rects ques­tions raised by vision­ar­ies in the human poten­tial move­ment who banked on a mix of Zen and sen­so­ry aware­ness train­ing to ush­er peo­ple out of the cog­ni­tive fog of “autopi­lot.” At that time, and as shown today in cog­ni­tive neu­ro­science stud­ies of Zen and Mind­ful­ness prac­tice, teach­ers were fond of point­ing out that “atten­tion” and where we place it, is pow­er­ful­ly impli­cat­ed in “how and when the world appears to us,” as Alva Noe might say.

    As one who is intel­lec­tu­al­ly and pro­fes­sion­al­ly invest­ed in the dis­cus­sion of atten­tion, my ques­tion here: Can we agree on a rig­or­ous sci­en­tif­ic def­i­n­i­tion of atten­tion­al autopi­lot, e.g., our heart beat is reg­u­lat­ed by the “auto-pilot” oper­a­tion of our auto­nom­ic ner­vous sys­tem.

  6. Glad to see Madeleine’s book is trig­ger­ing such an inter­est­ing dis­cus­sion! I enjoyed the thought-pro­vok­ing “What if” ques­tions the most, to help us iden­ti­fy and chal­lenge hid­den premis­es and assump­tions. Let me try and repli­cate the mod­el to con­tin­ue the dia­logue 🙂

    Jon: what if our metacog­ni­tion was indeed based on prob­a­bilis­tic think­ing (also called pat­tern recog­ni­tion) and enabled self-mon­i­tor­ing of “deviance” (which is how our atten­tion works)? the ques­tion then becomes how we can accelerate/ build and refine that metacog­ni­tion while retain­ing flex­i­bil­i­ty.

    Jen­ny: what if what you dis­cuss is the dif­fer­ence between being “thought­ful” and “mind­ful”?

    David: what if we stop talk­ing about “right brain” and “left brain” as if they were sep­a­rate enti­ties, and instead dis­cussed the role of the pre­frontal cor­text as the“conductor of the orches­tra”? (includ­ing iden­ti­fy­ing threats and how to deal with them pro­duc­tive­ly?)

    Kei­th: what if the book is not based on the idea of the autopi­lot? (and what if your reac­tion is based on your own autopi­lot)?

    M.A.: what if autopi­lot was every­thing except “cog­ni­tive”? and what if mea­sur­ing “autopi­lot” requires brain-based mea­sures beyond heart rate vari­abil­i­ty or sim­i­lar tra­di­tion­al ANS-based ones?

    Final­ly, what if I just say, Hap­py Thanks­giv­ing! have a great long week­end, and talk to you soon.

  7. Keith says:


    It seems to me, based upon the arti­cle and prod­uct descrip­tion of the book on Ama­zon, that the book is based large­ly upon the idea of autopi­lot. I haven’t read the book, and so I could very well be wrong, I admit this read­i­ly.

    Although, the idea that I was mis­lead by my own autopi­lot to think­ing that the book was based pri­mar­i­ly on the idea of being on autopi­lot is hum­bling and hilar­i­ous! The pos­si­bil­i­ty had­n’t occurred to me in that form and I thank you for it!

    It does seem to me that the book is based upon the idea of autopi­lot with a thrust toward tak­ing advan­tage of the men­tal state. I would­n’t have tak­en issue with this book in par­tic­u­lar if not for the con­stant parade of mind books that address only the most obvi­ous of men­tal phe­nom­e­na in the most mun­dane ways, and at length. It’s a per­son­al frus­tra­tion with all of the books that I have ever spent time read­ing that have dis­ap­point­ed me in this fash­ion.

  8. Alvaro great ques­tions! I’ve yet to read Van Heck­e’s book so I’ll refrain from
    crit­i­cal com­ment. How­ev­er the idea of set­ting up test­ing pro­to­cols sounds like an excit­ing propo­si­tion. And yes, the ANS mod­el is a point of depar­ture but not nec­es­sar­i­ly the mod­el. From the short arti­cle I gath­er future study points to look­ing at the relat­ed net­works of habit which involve “mus­cle mem­o­ry” as dancers are prone to say. I sus­pect stud­ies that address atten­tion cou­pled with action, from iso­lat­ed to flow states might prove use­ful.

    Grate­ful for the dia­logue!

    M A

  9. One of the rea­sons that this whole dis­cus­sion of autopi­lot is inter­est­ing to me is that autopi­lot turns out to be a more com­plex phe­nom­e­non than peo­ple real­ized. For exam­ple, peo­ple would some­times talk about being on autopi­lot as if it were always a bad thing, label­ing it “mindless” behav­ior. Oth­ers would talk about how think­ing more delib­er­a­tive­ly can some­times lead to poor­er deci­sions than fol­low­ing one’s gut instincts – in this case, our intu­itive non-think­ing “mindless” respons­es are seen as some­thing supe­ri­or. In a dif­fer­ent exam­ple, artists often appear to func­tion in a state of “flow” which could be thought of as “mindless” in the sense in this state the artist is not con­scious­ly mak­ing deci­sions about what brush stroke to make next, or what musi­cal phrase to cre­ate next. In The Brain Advan­tage we have tried to tease apart some of the dif­fer­ences between being on auto­mat­ic pilot, car­ry­ing out habit­u­al actions and some of these oth­er states of mind, and to explore how we can take advan­tage of the pos­i­tive aspects of both autopi­lot, and con­scious delib­er­a­tion, as well as of intu­itive and more ana­lyt­ic think­ing.

    As Alvaro’s com­ment sug­gest­ed, this is only one of many issues that recent brain research sheds light on and that we treat in The Brain Advan­tage. Some of the most intrigu­ing research has to do with issues such as how we decide whom to trust, and how we under­stand the emo­tions and inten­tions of oth­ers – issues that are very rel­e­vant to lead­er­ship. If you’d like to get more of a sense of some of the oth­ers, we have a cou­ple of addi­tion­al excerpts from the book on our web site – –
    It’s been a real treat to read people’s response to the Sharp Brains excerpt.

Leave a Reply

Categories: Author Speaks Series, Education & Lifelong Learning, Peak Performance

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)