The Executive Brains
For most of the 20th century, executive functioning was thought to be a specific set of high-level cognitive abilities, which included working memory, problem-solving, and abstract reasoning. It was also believed that they were completely conscious processes primarily organized by (and housed within) the prefrontal cortex. This was certainly the “go-to” answer for exam questions when I was in school. The proof offered for this view was that damage to the prefrontal cortex resulted in a range of dysfunctions that undermined the victim’s ability to think clearly and navigate the world. This view of executive functioning emerged primarily from the metaphor of the homunculus, a little person (or “mini-me”) in our heads, who thinks and controls our behavior from a control panel located behind our eyes. It was believed that IQ was, more or less, a direct measure of both the intelligence and executive capabilities of our little person.
Thinking of intelligence through the keyhole of cognition, is deeply grounded in Western culture and the prefrontal cortex has traditionally been posited by comparative anatomist as the brain structure which separated us from other primates. These beliefs were more tied to our Judeo-Christian heritage than to any scientific evidence. This is why most executive function experts used computer analogies and flowcharts to explain how the brain works, completely disregarding the inputs from the body, emotions, and relationships. They are, in essence, stuck in the medieval notion that we are spirits inhabiting the material world.
Despite the power of this cultural and neurological bias, there were many problems with the top-down, prefrontal cortex view of intelligence. One was that significant prefrontal damage also resulted in deficits of emotional regulation, relational abilities, and social functioning. There are also plenty of examples that demonstrate IQ doesn’t map onto the quality of everyday functioning, relationship abilities, or worldly success. Educational systems, driven by the cognitive model of intelligence, left many students being told by their teachers that they would never amount to anything. Yet many of these individuals, who were miserable students in traditional settings, went on to make revolutionary discoveries and pioneer new industries. Despite this, teachers continued to judge new generations of students on old models of intelligence. Because the traditional model of executive functioning was held so strongly, the examples that contradicted its validity were treated as trivial exceptions rather than indications of its inadequacies.
Over the past few decades, findings in neuroscience and neurology have undermined some of these simpler assumptions about executive functioning. Increasing awareness of key issues related to culture and gender diversity have further shaken confidence in abstract, patriarchal, and imperialistic model of human intelligence. For these and other reasons, neurocognitive and intelligence testing are falling out of favor in education because of their diminishing validity. The fact that the world is now changing so quickly is making educators pause and reconsider their confidence in old methods of thinking and notions of intelligence. By the end of the 20th century, the notion of emotional intelligence (EQ) captured the attention of scientists and the general public, while the popularity of mindfulness and other forms of meditation added to a growing appreciation of the importance of self-awareness and self-reflective capacity as important components of executive functioning.
As old dogmas about intelligence and executive functioning were crumbling, a devastating blow was dealt by Antonio Damasio when he demonstrated that judgement and decision-making rely on input from regions of the brain that process somatic and emotional information. It turns out that, contrary to Descartes’ belief “I think, therefore I am,” somatic awareness and emotions serve as equal evidence of our existence. Dr. Damasio provided us with both a robust neurological model and the empirical evidence to prove it. This has led to an explosive expansion of sensory-motor based educational interventions, somatic and emotion centered forms of psychotherapies, and a general rethinking of both intelligence and executive functioning.
At this point in the development of our thinking, we have to take a fresh look at the scientific and clinical data that has been neglected for so long. We have to ask ourselves many questions; What is the role of emotion in intelligence? How might sensory-motor experience contribute to problem-solving abilities? How do implicit memories in the form of attachment schema and affect regulation contribute to executive functioning? How does working in a group influence our abstract abilities, imagination, and innovation? These and hundreds of other questions await exploration and empirical research in the coming years.
The Components of Executive Functioning
As we open our thinking to expanded notions of executive functioning, it seems safe to say that we should include the categories of emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and social intelligence to the discussion. Emotional intelligence would include such areas as one’s ability to successfully navigate stress and exhibit emotional control when under stress in challenging situations. Self-awareness would be expressed in the ability to engage in self-reflection, strike a balance between self-care and caring for others, and being able to take responsibility for one’s actions. Social intelligence would include understanding things from the perspective of others, and the ability to experience sympathy, empathy, and compassion. It is clear that these social and emotional abilities are not independent of one another, just as the components of cognitive intelligence such as attention, concentration, language, and memory are interdependent.
This is an excerpt from Dr. Cozolino’s book The Pocket Guide to Neuroscience for Clinicians