Dialogue's Impact on the Body, Brain and Culture

Here’s a synopsis of this article, COACH-CREATED©: The Neuroscience of Conversations by Nicklas Balboa & Richard D. Glaser, Ph.D - World Business & Executive Coach Summit (wbecs.com)
Dialogue interactions of thinking together, sharing, and exploring are co-creating dynamics that trigger physical and emotional changes in the brain. Asking questions for which there are no answers, listening to the collective and sharing insights can lead to deeper connections, if unencumbered. We are designed to detect trust and distrust in our conversations. This either opens us up to having innovative, perceptive dialogues or shuts us down so that we speak from caution, fear, or anxiety. Dialogues change the brain by boosting the production of hormones and neurotransmitters that stimulate body systems and neural pathways. The neurochemicals released during dialogue include dopamine, oxytocin, endorphins and others that give us a sense of well-being. On the other hand, distrust in dialogues can trigger stress hormones like cortisol, adrenaline and norepinephrine. As we activate trust networks with our ability to empathize and show compassion, dialogue offers the capacity to synchronize brains, share perspectives, navigate and grow together as a culture.

But we’re conditioned to be self-centered, which means we distrust until/if we feel the other is trustworthy.

Distrust is mediated by the amydalae in the brain, the body’s alarm system. The prefrontal cortex, the reasoning part of the brain, issues clearance for trust. Once it does, we can enjoy the cocktail of neurochemicals as we transform conversation into dialogue. But one does need to use moderation, otherwise dialogue can become an addiction (noting the reward pathways of some neurotransmitters).

Yes. Trust is earned, granted, can be withdrawn, reinstated.

dialogue can become an addiction (noting the reward pathways of some neurotransmitters).

When addicted to psychological thought (as we are), everything we do is addiction/aversion.

I am still struggling understanding the “psychological thought” definition. K referred to practical thought and psychological thought. Can you explain the differences?

1 Like

Is wasn’t too long ago that I felt there was no significant difference - that thought was thought - no matter what it referred to, but I see now how there is a critical difference between practical and psychological thought. This difference is what makes thought incoherent.

Practical thought is necessary to function; all animals use it to some degree. But psychological thought is uniquely human. It refers only to oneself (as one imagines oneself), and ones beliefs about ones best interests.

If I had no image of myself to defend, assert, prove, avenge, vindicate, etc., I would have no thoughts about an imagined self. For all intents and purposes, I would be nothing more than a participant in what is happening right now, regardless of my past.


This sounds very good - better than a lot of attempts here at defining the concept - how did you come to this conclusion regarding psychological thought? Is there any K quote you know of that indicates something along these lines?

There may be many but I came to this understanding with more clues from Bohm than K.

1 Like

I just did a search for “psychological thought” in jkrishnamurti.org and it seems there nothing on their site with those two words together, nor “practical thought”. These terms I’ve heard discussed only in dialogue. K did use "psychological time". Maybe someone knows where “psychological thought” might have been used by K??

Good sleuthing.

If I’m not mistaken, K used the term “technical thought” for what I call “practical thought”.

What did K mean by “psychological time”.

Public Talk 3 in Ojai, California, 19 April 1975

K: “We are caught in psychological time as the memory of the past and the hope for the future. We don’t know what it is to live totally now. Now is life, not behind or ahead.”

Why can’t we consciously abide in the eternal present?

Could it be that we can’t discern the difference between necessary thinking and incoherent thinking?