"I don't mind debating issues because I am usually always right!": How neuroscience can help us make better decisions.

Psychologists have been interested for decades in two modes of thinking that have been termed System 1 and System 2.  Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and 2002 Nobel Prize winner, describes the significance of System 1 and System 2 thinking in his best-selling book Thinking, Fast and Slow.  This blog will rely on the research shared by Kahneman to help identify the brain processes taking place "under the hood" so to speak that have relevance in our decision-making.  I am most interested in how System 1 and System 2 operate in tandem in the ways we develop, maintain, and communicate our beliefs.  It may be surprising to know that some of our strongest held beliefs (theology) may in fact be a result of a dominant, territorial System 1 and a “lazy” System 2. 

 

We are learning from the neuroscience community that our brains are much more than a

2.2lb lump of tissue that serves as our command center for our bodies.  Parenthetically, the weight of the brains of a Sperm whale is about 15lbs and an elephant is 8.8lbs.  What separate the human brain from other species are the complexities of our brain and the benefits of having a networked “upper” and “lower” brain organ.  The upper brain is typically associated with executive function located in our highly developed frontal lobes.  Lower function is typically associated with automatic, instinctive action like fight or flight reaction and other basic survival actions.  In contrast, higher brain function allows humans to exercise abstract thinking, reasoning, and complex analysis that transcend basic animal instinct to hunt and survive. 

Here is a short list providing a simple explanation to illustrate the types of function in each System. 

Automatic activities attributed to System 1:

·      Detect that one object is more distant than another.

·      Orient to the source of a sudden sound.

·      Complete the phrase “bread and ……”

·      Make a “disgust face” when shown a horrible picture.

·      Detect hostility in a voice.

·      Answer to 2+2=?

·      Read words on large billboards.

·      Drive a car on an empty road.

·      Find a strong move in chess (if you are a chess master).

·      Understand simple sentences.

·      Recognize that a “meek and tidy soul with a passion for detail” resembles an occupational stereotype.

Highly diverse operations of System 2:

·      Brace for the starter gun in a race.

·      Focus attention on the clowns in the circus.

·      Focus on the voice of a particular person in a crowded and noisy room.

·      Look for a woman with white hair.

·      Search memory to identify a surprising sound.

·      Maintain a faster walking speed than is natural for you.

·      Monitor the appropriateness of your behavior in a social situation.

·      Count the occurrences of the letter “a” in a page of text.

·      Tell someone your phone number.

·      Park in a narrow space (for most people except garage attendants).

·      Fill out a tax form.

·      Check the validity of a complex logical argument.

There are a few particular rules as it relates to the function and relationship of Systems 1 and Systems 2 that help explain why we do what we do sometimes.

First, System 1 remains in the “on” position taking the bulk of the work as long as System 2 permits.  Second, System 2 is considered to be “lazy” that is to say it prefers to let System 1 do the work since the operation of System 2 takes more energy and uses more of the brain’s network.  Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions, sometimes our brain would rather defer to System 1 with an easier answer rather than deploy System 2. 

As you can see from the list of System 1 and 2 functions, System 1 is our intuitive command center.  Imagine going to the Apple store for the specific purpose of buying the latest iphone because your old phone is broke.  In dealing with the sales staff, you realize the phone you really want is out of stock and needs to be ordered and will take a few weeks; however, if you would settle for a lesser model you could purchase a phone that is on the shelf.  This is similar to the way our brains make intuitive decisions as well as form opinions.  System 1 has a limited “stock” of options (i.e. well established beliefs, opinions, and intuitive feelings) along with limited brain function (i.e. does not enlist the help of specific brain networks that would allow for deeper thinking or even thinking that would overturn the System 1's “stock” of answers.) Remember, System 1 remains in the “on” position because it is the most efficient way for our brains to function. 

This helps to explain Malcolm Gladwell’s “Blink” factor.  Our brains, via System 1, have developed a quick acting, ready response to many of the decisions we make throughout our day.  Some refer to this as their gut feeling or their intuition.  It is important to know that I am not necessarily saying that some of the decisions we make are not accurate or even good when using only System 1.  I am saying that if not careful, our brains may settle for the “easier” less “critical” route in making discerning, analytical decisions.  Remember the number one rule of neuron relationship in our brains.  The more they fire together; the more they wire together.  Over time, this creates a super highway in our brain.  Using the metaphor of a super highway, our brains have a well-established road system that carries our thoughts through well-established mapping or network.  Put simply, a person that has always believed that a button down dress shirt should never be worn with jeans when prompted by the option of wearing a dress shirt this way, their System 1 will default to its “stock” answer which is “dress shirts never go with jeans.”  This becomes a “no brainer” because the information super highway carries the dress shirt/jeans decision very quickly through the mental map using deeply entrenched road systems to conclude the answer.  It may be said that since System 2 is never engaged on this decision, the chance of a different outcome let alone an honest debate with a fashion savvy expert is rendered useless.

Second, System 2 is “lazy” not wishing to be in the “on” position as long as System 1 is engaged.  There has to be a conscious decision to turn System 1 “off” and engage or switch to the “on” position System 2.  There is a built in weakness with System 2 that has to be mentioned.  Kahneman defines the term “Heuristic” as the simple procedure that helps find adequate, though often imperfect, answers to difficult questions.  He points out that this term comes from the same root as “Eureka.”  The implication of this relationship is that we may prefer making big life decisions never really engaging the brain System best equipped to arrive at the best decision.  The term “lazy” in this context is a preloaded term that explains that the human brain prefers efficiency instead of hard work. 

Put differently, “thinking hurts” because it takes more of the brain’s energy.  With survival being the brain’s primary goal, consuming energy and carefully budgeting the brain’s resources are vital. To understand this rule, think about the number of times a person would rather read a Cliff Note of a book instead of working through the actual book itself.  Think about the number of times a person would rather revert to “stock” positions on their political views instead of considering the argument that seem to challenge their ideology.  Think about the number of times people make purchase decisions based on very little relevant information about the product being purchased.  You get the idea?  Kahneman points out a very important characteristic of System 2, “System 2 is ultimately in charge with slowing down System 1 and impose logical analysis.”  Self-criticism is one of the functions of System 2; however, when it comes to our attitude and emotions System 2 makes for a better defense attorney than a prosecutor; an endorser rather than an enforcer.

This rule has implications in church work and the study of and use of Scripture that will be discussed later in this essay.

Third, when faced with difficult or complex questions our brains would rather revert to an easier answer even at the expense of not answering the initial question presented.  This rule is an illustration of what has been previously explained in the relationships between System 1 and System 2.  Kahneman supports this position, “System 2 often follows the path of least effort and endorses a heuristic answer without much scrutiny of whether it is truly appropriate.  You will not be stumped, you will not have to work very hard, and you may not even notice that you did not answer the question you were asked.  Furthermore, you may not realize that the target question was difficult, because an intuitive answer to it came readily to mind.”  The practice of substituting an easier question for a difficult question is common strategy implemented by System 2.  Remember, thinking hurts and takes energy and resources that may be used for survival.  

The practice of substitution occurs all the time in churches and formation of doctrines.  I remember growing up thinking that the Bible was one big book of individual verses that may be lifted at will to prove a point. The use of chapters and verse designations added later in the translation process add to this practice.  The technical term for this type of biblical use is “proof-texting.”  In other words, if a person was inclined to hold the position that baptism is not an important part of the faith formation process, they may like to cite Luke 23:32-43 the thief on the cross narrative.  After all, Jesus chose to save at least one person without the use of baptism.  Therefore, it must be the case that baptism is not necessary.  Notice the substitution of a singular event in Scripture, that is not even a salvation text, for the much more difficult question of analyzing the broader scope of Scripture regarding the occurrences and frequency of baptism. 

Another favorite proof-texting error occurs with the use of 1 Corinthians 14:40, “But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” This is the “stock” answer to anything in a church that may be different or a deviation from custom and heritage.  It is funny to think in my lifetime, to be more precise within the last twenty-years, there were church splits over the use of over-head projectors in lieu of using hymnals for church singing.  Did you notice I used “over-head projector” in that sentence.  My own kids have no concept of what that is since all they know are laptop projectors and Apple TV devices.  The point is that 1 Corinthians 14:40 was somehow used to suggest that using technology over hymnals would somehow be an infraction of 1 Corinthians 14:40 because technology is not decent or orderly. 

My favorite proof-text that was actually used against me on the discussion of whether or not

it is sinful for a Christian to consume alcohol is found in Habakkuk 2:15, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk.” This passage was cited to me as a scriptural command against drinking.  The person deploying this passage failed to cite the entire verse, "Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies!” This is humorous because not only did the individual substitute a host of scriptural references that condone alcohol and some that even present wine as a blessing from God for the quick win in an argument by citing part of one verse out of context, but he even reduced the proof-text even smaller or simpler to make his point.  There is no question to me what was actually taking place in this particular discussion.  My counterpart held to a very strong personal view about alcohol, which I respect.  It was much easier to lean on System 1 because at least his personal convictions could remain in tact at the end of the discussion. Plus, it would take a lot of critical analysis to work through the entire scope of scripture along with challenging self-views which is often more painful than doing the expository work.

In conclusion, knowing about System 1 and System 2 provides a framework to better understand some of the reasons why we make our decisions.  It is important to reiterate that just because our brains would prefer to take the path of least resistance does not necessarily mean we end up with wrong or even bad decisions.  It may be that this information is helpful in our own interpersonal communication.  There are reasons few major paradigm shifts or theological shifts occur at the proverbial office water-cooler.  More often than not, to engage in both personal and religious matters takes a lot of patience, time, and a lot of critical self-reflection.  Unfortunately, pastors and church bureaucracy have little built in time to give individuals the time needed to unlearn their long held beliefs in order to potentially relearn new ones.  It just may be that our ways of doing faith formation and discipleship in our churches fail to take into consideration one of the most important variables in the equation.  Our brains.  

This essay is not suggesting that we are to jettison our strongly held beliefs. Instead, take time to question and do the analysis needed to periodically run your own belief systems through the filter of objectivity.  This is best done by surrounding yourself with people you trust that hold a different view than you and are willing to give you their best reasons for disagreeing with you.  In turn, be willing to receive the best arguments that are contrary to your view and resist the temptation of substituting the simple answer for the complex answer.  Finally, take into consideration that the media specializes in targeting our System 1 functions, and they are winning in shaping our ideologues, our purchases, and our belief systems.   

  

The Blockbuster vs. Netflix Battle that every Church Leader Needs toRead

I have vivid memories of going to my local Blockbuster video store on Friday nights as a young teenager to find the next Ninja movie on the row of Ninja genre b-rated movies.  There was a time when individuals flocked to their local Blockbuster to take the walk of decision making around the periphery of the store often times making several laps starting with the newest releases all the way to the past greats located on the internal rows of the store.  Do you remember the VCR days when you were penalized for not rewinding the tape prior to returning?  The expression, “Be kind and Rewind” was the ubiquitous greatest commandment of the video rental industry.  After all, how terrible it would be to open your videotape and have to spend 30 second waiting for it to rewind.  By the way, I don’t think my kids even have the term “rewind” in their vocabulary. 

How did the movie rental giant collapse in a seemingly short period of time?  I think the story of Blockbuster is very relevant for church workers today.  In a word, Blockbuster’s demise was Netflix. But according to Dain Dunston’s blog story, there is much more to the Blockbuster/Netflix battle than meets the eye.  In short, Netflix leveraged the emerging Internet/streaming technology and created a model of getting movies to customers that did not involve driving to a facility, hoping said movie was in stock, waiting in line, and then dealing with late fees if not returned to said facility. 

But, Netflix was greatly outmatched by Blockbuster’s capital.  The story is told that both CEOs engaged in confidential talks about a merger.  Netflix was more than willing to sell to Blockbuster.  In one particular conference call, Netflix CEO admitted 22 times by mentioning Blockbuster that it had no real plan to stop Blockbuster from stealing its 1 million customers.  Because of boardroom fighting, the deal was never signed. 

Simultaneous to Netflix’s willingness to sellout to Blockbuster, the video giant made probably one of the worst CEO transitions in history.  The new CEO of Blockbuster forgot about their business model and ignored the previous strategies to leverage the Internet.   Out of a strong commitment to remain fixed to a dying model of managing brick and mortar (all the thousands of Blockbuster stores across the nation) and requiring their customers to drive to them multiple times a week proved to be the death nail of the video giant.  Of course, you know the rest of the story.  Neflix is now the primary delivery method for most movies.  What was one time the only concept of getting a video (epistemology) is now so archaic that when I talk to my seven year old about going to a movie rental store to get a video there is literally a blank stare on her face.  In fact, not only have I used terms that are not even in her vocabulary, but I also referenced a concept (epistemology) that is not even in her way of thinking or knowing. 

The moral of the story of the collapse of Blockbuster is not only a model of failed leadership, but more than that, it is a story of becoming so big and invested in brick and mortar capital that any notion of pivoting into a more nimble (technology laden) approach was so strange that it never occurred as a viable option.  To put in philosophical terms, Blockbuster had a particular epistemology (it believed that people only rent videos through a consumer model that required the use of a middleman or retailer.  Since people drive to grocery stores and clothing stores and engage in an exchange, then this must be the only way to deliver movies. 

Epistemology: How do we know
what we know?

All through history, we see examples of epistemology change.  In particular, church history is full of 500-year intervals of major epistemology changes (Tickle 2012).   Put differently, human history is full of fundamental changes that transcend merely technology and methodology.  Higher-level change that actually rewires the human brain that leads to new neural networks where old neuron constellations not only fail to fire they don’t even talk to each other.  For example, my seven and eleven year old trying to imagine the idea of a phone that only connected two individuals in audible ways for communication is not just weird; it isn’t even a knowledge construct accessible to them.  This is a simple way to illustrate a much bigger shift underway.

The Church in the United States is no longer the “Blockbuster” it used to be.  There are major shifts taking place in Western Christiandom as it relates to spirituality.  Charles Taylor, considered by many and me to be our C.S. Lewis of Western philosophy, tells the story of the secular age over the span of 500 years.  His opening premise in his book A Secular Age, “Why is it that 500 years ago it was virtually impossible NOT to believe in God and, yet, today’s faith, even for the staunchest believers, is only one human possibility among others.”  In other words, Christians today tolerate God language and even God relationship, but the idea that their success or flourishing is exclusively based on a God that blesses is no longer the case.  For a lot of reasons, Taylor’s observations need to be relevant for those in church work.  If the 800 plus pages of his work is too much, consider James K.A. Smith’s companion to Taylor’s A Secular Age that is only a few hundred pages. 

This essay is not intended to summarize Taylor’s primary viewpoints; however, I would like to focus on one major theme that seems to resonate in his explanation of secularity.  For many, the term “secular” means absent of God or spirituality.  Taylor redefines this term to reference a version of spirituality that is flat lacking the same level of enchantment that seemed to be obviously evident a few centuries ago.  Side note, divorce yourself from connecting the term “enchantment” with Disney.  Instead, “enchantment” is a reference to a particular worldview that had plenty of room to entertain notions of divine and spiritual movement among individuals and the church in a way that was haunted.  In other words, a few centuries ago it was common language to refer to God’s movement and interaction with humanity through spiritual means (the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost).  To use Taylor’s language, believers were more “porous” when it came to being “open” to the idea of a spiritual realm at work in their lives.  The Spirit moved in-and-out because of their pourousness.  This is contrasted with the “buffered” or no longer porous individual that is skeptical to any type of haunted or spiritual language.  Further, the intellectual and enlightenment distance separating a few centuries ago from today is too great to overcome. 

As a result, there are plenty of Blockbusters still hanging on to their models of capital and potentially missing the underground movement that is taking place in our Western culture, specifically, Christianity.  It would be too easy to point fingers at specific churches or denominations as it relates to their Blockbuster-like resistance to reframe their approach of doing Christianity.  This essay is not intended to call out any one particular church or movement, but instead, is intended to provide a thought-provoking dialogue regarding the capital we allow to drive our models of being church and even the ways we exclusively frame Jesus and the narrative of scripture.

I grew up in a church movement that grew from its earliest stages of only desiring to be mobile and staunchly evangelistic for the purpose of post-millennially ushering in the kingdom of God and bringing about the second return of Jesus.  This popular 19^th century eschatology was the driving force to ignite urgency.  There was no time to stop and conduct capital campaigns or invest resources for the sake of constructing a global organization.  As theologies shifted over time, churches, not just the one I referenced, took on a more permanent posture putting down deep stakes in contemporary culture.  This coupled with gaining capital: social, physical, fiscal, market, and even cognitive capital developed a particular way of imagining what and how the community of faith (the Church) was to be and how it was to function.  It is interesting to point out that First-Century Christians had next to no capital.  Something happens when faith and doing church is filtered through a capitalist ideology.  There is more at stake that can be lost.  Therefore, theology, decisions, church governance, and a host of other aspects are driven by capital. 

Unfortunately, human capital has become the biggest distraction from the original call of Jesus to discipleship.  I often wonder if Western churches are even able to discern this is taking place, but individuals are no longer viewed as being infinitely valuable because they are made in the image of God.  Instead, they are viewed as a hybrid being.  Someone who has a soul to win (notice even that expression reeks of gaining capital) along with someone that is capable of bringing their capital to the table.  Empty seats, because pews are no longer kosher for church growth experts, are tantamount to low rev airline seats.  If they are empty they are costing the organization/church.  Therefore, each seat has a potential capital associated with it that translates into keeping the Blockbuster operational.  If you have not picked up as of yet I am probably being way too critical in my commentary.  The truth is somewhere along this hyperbolic spectrum. 

This generation lacks the equipment
to connect with some of the vestiges
that so many churches remain loyal too.

All the while, there has been an epistemic shift that is growing up generations of children soon to be adults that will not even have the cognitive/spiritual equipment by which to play the videotapes/DVD’s Blockbuster has to offer.  Put differently, the brand loyalty that one time kept me going back to stalk the aisles for B-rated ninja movies was quickly replaced with a more efficient, less robust and capital heavy model to get my movie fix.  It just so happens economically it became cheaper because the cost to keep the behemoth alive was no longer the primary strategy.  I wonder how many churches are stuck in Blockbuster mode.  The Netflix generation is not any less spiritual or interested in Jesus.  In fact, they are less encumbered to live out their faith because they are not “card-carrying” you fill in the blank.  They may actually have a clearer understanding of “this world is not my home” hermeneutic; they are not interested in fixing their capital to something that is temporary.  Further, they are equally disinterested in fixing their allegiances with an entity that calls itself church when in actuality it is an entity that continues to fight for market dominance in a capital system that lacks kingdom currency.  While this generation lacks the business savvy of previous generations, they do not lack a passion to love and serve.  

Side note, along with the construction of denominational/sectarian organizations and allegiances comes a particular language and set of terms that serve to bolster the movements.  If Taylor is correct, the church may have to not only retool away from irrelevant practices, customs, and power structures, it will also need to re-think their very language games because it just may be that this generation and younger are not even equipped to play the videotapes they are attempting to put in their heads. 

"You have heard it said do not worry about tomorrow." Jesus was giving more than practical wisdom. He may have been referencing neuroscience in this text.

Matthew 6:34New American Standard Bible (NASB)

34 “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will [a]care for itself. [b]Each day has enough trouble of its own.”

This short pithy statement by Jesus is much easier read than done.  I would like to suggest that not only was Jesus providing tremendous practical wisdom that leads to better health and happiness, he may also have been referencing the way our brains function.

fMRI scans

These are exciting times in the area of brain research and neuroscience.  We are living in a time where technology and initiative have converged to provide amazing insight into brain architecture, function, and network.  The Bush Administration declared the 90s as the decade of the brain.  Over the last three decades, brain imaging (fMRI) has provided pictures for the first time of the human brain in action.  For the first time in human history, we are able to see brain function.  As a result, we are experiencing a paradigm shift as it relates to brain function that reverses centuries of established science.  One of the most significant paradigm shifts as it relates to human intellect and brain growth is the idea that the human brain changes.  It was only over the past three decades that we have discovered that our brains are constantly in the process of establishing new neural networks (changing).  Put differently, our brains consist of 80 to100 billion neurons.  Many of them are talking to each other in a network with about half a quadrillion connections, called synapses.  This fast paced network is constantly changing and expanding.  There is one expression in the field of neuroscience that succinctly describes the way our brains change, “Neurons that fire together wire together.”  

This factual statement provides greater insight into the learning process.  While high tech imaging has provided empirical data to verify this science, as educators, parents, and coaches we have known this to be the case long before fMRI imaging.                                

Neuron

When we teach a new concept to our children, we are essentially getting neurons in their brain that have not talked to each other to establish at first a handshake.  The biological explanation of this handshake is called a synapse.  Each neuron has about 100,000 branch-like dendrites that are pre-programed to receive and establish approximately 200,000 connections with other neuron dendrites.  When these dendrites connect, there is a sharing of information through a chemical process.  They have a great deal of help from glial cells that support these connections.  Over time with greater frequency, this neuronal handshake becomes a connected conversation with a fiber optic like sheath that surrounds the neuron connections called myelin.  The more myelin that insulates that connection the faster information is able to travel through the neuron network and path.  Put in layman’s terms, the more a person practices the piano the more they are creating stronger neuron connections that are likely to survive the periodic neuron pruning that takes place over the course of a

person’s life. Neuron pruning is the brain's way of "emptying the garbage" so to speak.  It prunes back to promote greater brain growth. Tip to parents, the first neuron pruning stage occurs after about age 2 and then again around age 10 or 11.  

Use this time frame to your advantage and start helping your children make those connections from ages 2-11 whether it is swinging a golf club, bat, learning a second language, or playing the piano.  Give them time to practice and the likelihood of that particular knowledge or sill surviving the second neuron pruning stage is good.  You may wonder why the brain undergoes these pruning episodes?  The neurologists tell us it is because our brains are extremely efficient.  There is no need to maintain a network that is not well established.  This would take away from brainpower in other brain networks that are already well grooved in our brains.   

I suspect I should stop and provide the following disclaimer: “I barely passed Biology, Chemistry, and Physics in high school.”  

There are always holes in the way
our brains weave memories.

Back to the main topic of this essay, “Don’t worry about tomorrow because tomorrow has enough worries of its own.” I would like to filter Jesus’ practical advice through the lens of neuroscience.  Harvard professor Daniel Gilbert and author of the best selling book Stumbling on Happiness, reveals that our brains are not a high-powered computer with a super fast processor.  In fact, the metaphor of a computer in describing our brain and brain function leads to a lot of misinformation.  While there are some terms that are cross functional i.e. “network,” our brain is unable to capture or record life events like your family’s DVR hard drive.  It would be great if our minds were able to record every single bit of information, especially, when I am having a disagreement with my wife on how we both remember a particular conversation.  If only I could hit the play button and have my brain recall every single piece of information.  However, as I mentioned, our brains are very efficient and only store threads of information not the entire file so to speak.  We just don’t have that much storage if that were the case.  When it is time to retrieve or recall a memory or previous conversation our brains retrieve threads of that event and weaves it into a mosaic that is our memory.  Keep in mind, there are holes in our memory because our brains are doing the best it can to re-create that memory.  This is where mis-remembering comes into play and is the cause of marriage spats since the beginning of time.  We all tend to remember differently. 

 

Summarizing Gilbert’s book, he provides three axioms to keep in mind (no pun intended) when thinking about how our minds function.  1.  We almost always mis-remember the past.  2.  We almost always mis-interpret the present. 3.  We almost always mis-imagine the future.  Just by keeping these three axioms in mind, you may have less relationship stress and drama, especially, if we are able to admit that these three axioms occur in both the sender and the receiver in a conversation. 

This should help illustrate the veracity of these three axioms.  How many times on Thanksgiving Day have you eaten yourself into glutton stage?  Then you find yourself in a recliner watching the Cowboys lose again.  As you are dozing off, the thought crosses your mind, “I have eaten myself sick.  I think I may not eat again until tomorrow!” After the game at around dinnertime, where do you find yourself? Yep, loading up another plate.  This illustrates the ways we often mis-imagine the future. Since our body was telling us that we are full any imagination of eating again was not reasonable. Gilbert explains that our brains have limited resources to pull from when it comes to imagining the future.  In fact, our brains have the “stuff” of now to try and weave together or imagine a picture of the future.  In essence, our brains are limited with the “stuff” of today in attempting to imagine what decades down the road would be like.  If you don’t believe me just visit Disney’s Tomorrow Land.  This was Walt’s brainchild in the 1950s of giving his guests a picture of what the future would look like and, yet, what you see is the 1950s with a twist.  Notice there are no personal computers, satellite technology, cell phones that are capable of taking pictures, human cloning, etc…  The reason Walt was unable to depict the 21^st Century is because as creative as he was, his brain only had the “stuff” of the 1950s by which to draw from to weave a picture of Tomorrow Land. 

In a more practical way, the principle of, “We often mis-imagine the future” is a good reason married couples should not make decisions to divorce while going through relationship crises.  We see this all the time.  The unhappy spouse begins reflecting over the past 10 years of marriage that were mediocre at best.  And then when trying to imagine another 10 years in the same relationship, the brain only has the “stuff” of here and now, and the spouse imagines another 10 years of mediocrity.  The moral of this story is that the future we imagine today rarely turns out the way we think good or bad.  In fact, more often than not it is completely different and mind baffling since our brains lack the stuff to weave an accurate picture.  And best of all, it is almost always better than we initially imagined.

For the sake of time, I will only focus on the latter brain axiom of “mis-imagining the future.”  Could it be that Jesus was speaking neurologically when he tells us not to use the stuff of today to worry about tomorrow?  After all, our stuff today will only paint a more depressive picture of tomorrow causing greater stress for today.  The truth of this text is not that tomorrow’s worries are so great we are unable to handle them today. Instead, our current worries would weave an imagination that would create exponentially more worrisome events than what would actually occur.  Remember, the future is more often better than what we previously imagined.  To see this principle in action again, think back to the children of Israel that were led out of Egypt.  The scholars tell us that only about half of Israel followed Moses to freedom.  The other half chose to remain in bondage in Egypt.  The reasons were very much neurological.  They were trying to imagine the future away from Egypt, but they only had the “stuff” of their today to weave their imagination.  They determined that if their “stuff” of today was so awful, then the “stuff” of tomorrow must be even worse.  We read in the text, “At least in Egypt we had food and shelter.  If we leave with Moses, we may not have those things.” (My paraphrase)  In this same event, we see principle 1 at work as well, "We often times mis-remember our past."  

There were some in the exiting community that chose to return to bondage because they had quickly forgotten how bad their existence was while enslaved.  Side note, and I don't always do a great job remembering this principle in my own disagreements, before you are quick to be so certain that your version of the past event you are discussing is 100% accurate, remember your brain has holes in its recall of previous events.  It is always better to be willing to listen to the other person's version because between the two you may get a more accurate rendering of that past event.  

Here is the application and it is not brand new information, resist the temptation of making life changing decisions while you are currently going through a life crisis.  You may just be projecting your “stuff” of today into your future.  This could lead to a rash decision.  Disclaimer: I am not suggesting remaining in a toxic situation if God has provided a way out.  Just be aware of the brain’s tendencies.  I will focus on the other two brain axioms in another blog.