… there is a key, a “Rosetta Stone” that can unite the R-complex, the limbic system and the neo-cortex. And that’s story. The reason, in fact, that stories can elevate to the level of myth is because they can crack and satiate all three brains. You must tell a story when presenting a case to keep all brains attention.”

Thanks for the comment. Science and philosophy aren’t really topics I generally cover on my blog- but this idea really resonated with me. I have always loved great stories, and I think this physiological answer helps me better understand why. Communication can never be “complete” without stories. What I mean by that is that in one sense we can understand things on a rational level- but it takes the story to connect the dots for our other brain to really accept the concept.

Now I have one more reason to make sure I craft good stories.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by adriandayton: Now post: Influencing the Reptilian Brain http://bit.ly/9d5yQI #attorneys #lawyers…

As a philosophy major, when I hear someone “explain” something by re-describing it in purely physiological terms (or chemical, or physics terms), it annoys me–because they they have explained nothing. They have merely translated from one ‘language’ to another. What we want as an explanation is something that shows causality; or that aggregates parts into a whole; or that explains the function that a part plays in a broader system; or that puts something into a context, like history. Translating kids’ behaviors into physiological descriptions doesn’t add anything.

But then you moved into stories, and I really sat up. I know about the power of stories, from several perspectives, and from personal observation and experience. I know that story-telling makes people accept ideas that they would normally reject if not their own.

But–I had never thought of stories as connecting two kinds of thinking (or two parts of the brain, if that’s the language you prefer). Suddenly, I see a whole where I previously saw no connections. Suddenly, I’m buying the “explanation,” because it did a lot more than translate. It contexted.

Fascinating! Thank you Adrian!