Mohonk’s Book

Neuroscience will have a greater impact on child development and education than information technology (IT), artificial intelligence (AI), the wheel, and fire have all had and will increasingly continue to have combined. That is why my book, No Such Thing as a Bad Kid: The Neuroscience of Raising Children was written.
I am also worried.
Ultimately, the explanation for this startling statement is simple.
IT, AI, fire, and the wheel can and have each been used for the benefit of children as easily as towards their detriment.
The future of a child’s brain is that our current and advancing knowledge of the brain will enable us to mold and shape a child’s brain to accept the behavioral standards and values of any society, culture, or political persuasion it is exposed to. The brain doesn’t care. It does not discriminate starting the first day after birth. As children grow and are surrounded by the world they are raised in, love and understanding can become as acceptable as hate and prejudice. Terrorism can become as acceptable as pacifism.
Our knowledge and scientific understanding of the human brain has been due to our ability to begin untangling the labyrinth of our one-hundred billion brain cells, called neurons and the, once thought, incomprehensible number of interconnections they have with each other.1
The technologies that have brought that to bare include brain scanning equipment, EEG recordings of a human brain among many others.2 In addition, the ability to engineer hormones and psychopharmaceutical drugs adds to our understanding and ability to change a child’s behavior and influence a child’s emerging beliefs. That still is only the beginning. The ability to alter the genetic profile of a child has begun to lift its head in the twenty-first century.3 We have begun to identify the genetic basis of many behaviors, both aberrant and simply preferred.4 This will cover the spectrum from autism spectrum disorders to varieties of geniuses.
Since these technologies have the capacity to impact a child’s development, we are left with an uncompromising question. For whom and in what ways will we choose to use this knowledge to change a child’s behavior and beliefs? That question leads directly to legal, cultural, and ethical considerations, not just psychological and psychiatric recommendations.
My book is neither a lecture nor a presentation of the intricacies of the human brain. Rather, it is an invitation, an explanation of the science immersed within the lives of thousands of children as told through their stories and their time with us. This science brings us to a new frame of reference that offers new methods to raise, educate, and help children in need. Some of these methods may sound familiar, but others may seem unusual, perhaps surprising, and even controversial. Taken as a whole, their application gives rise to significant differences with current theories of child development and many of the behavioral and therapeutic methods that grew from them. That is because our evidence is based upon the dynamics of how the brain works. Using neuroscience for the better is the intention of this book, and also why it was written.
Our efforts to incorporate neuroscience into how we raise and educate children started in 1981 with the opening of Mohonk House. We began as a very large twenty-two room residential home for children who had been abused, neglected, simply thrown out of their homes, or who ran away in the very wealthy town of Westport, Connecticut. Most were between the ages of eleven and seventeen. Before long numerous programs were introduced to children in underprivileged cities and in schools, treatment facilities, and families in the United States and then overseas. This included children with traumatic backgrounds but expanded to include children from typical familial and educational lives who had no predisposing issues. This also included children with learning disabilities as well as young geniuses. Although the name of our organization was changed to the Mohonk Educational and Neuropsychological Foundation, Inc. fifteen years later as word of our impact spread, our mission has remained the same.
My book is not an academic compendium for neuroscientists although I hope many might be moved by the life stories of the children whose lives changed by incorporating the neuroscience they know so well. More than that, teachers, child-care professionals, and especially parents will recognize that the methods described in this book include many insights and new information than have rarely been seen before.
The hope is that this book engenders both an understanding and appreciation of the immense impact our knowledge of the human brain has now begun to have and will increasingly have on the lives of children while touching the heartstrings of the reader.

A PERSONAL NOTE
For me, my concern and motivation about the extent humans can be influenced and transformed by what their brains are exposed to emerged in my own brain over years starting as a child. I saw photographs and descriptions of the torture and horror that the Nazis committed on women and children, the elderly, the sick, Jews and gentiles as well as anyone whose ideas and behavior they did not like, essentially humanity in general. How could an intelligent and civilized people do such things? I was told they were brainwashed. The word brain became implanted in my own brain. I was so moved by what I saw and read that I could not look at any more photos or even listen to any more stories my father told me about his experiences in WWII. He was a spy. On the heels of those very disturbing impressions, I read Brave New World and 1984. Why could those horrors not also be possible? On the other hand, I was pacified believing the opposite could be equally possible. Words such as peace and cooperation could also resound as a mainstay as a new century approached, especially in the minds of children. Essentially, what this means is that the brain, any human, can learn to adopt whatever values, beliefs, and acceptable behaviors it has learned and been exposed to.
My motivation and concern resulted in studying at MIT, engaging in neuroscientific research, and obtaining a doctorate in education at Boston University with the involvement of my colleagues at MIT and the introduction of neuroscience into the fields of child development and education. My career then entered the clinical field, and I was employed, continued research, and taught at numerous psychiatric hospitals, schools, and universities. After Mohonk opened, I was invited back to MIT as a visiting scholar because of my penchant to emphasize the importance of clinical applications of the rapid advancement we were making in the field of neuroscience.

IS NEUROSCIENCE CREDIBLE?
Yes. Neuroscience carries more weight because it is grounded in the so-called hard sciences such as physiology, anatomy, and biochemistry, which are primarily based upon quantitative and objective scientific research. On the other hand, child-care professionals, teachers, and parents have relied upon the research and recommendations of what are called the softer sciences of child psychology, and social, educational, and behavioral research. Such research has advanced us remarkably but has also been much more dependent upon qualitative and subjective interpretations of their research resulting in a diverse accumulation of theories and methods. The result is that often new ideas and theories are given an opportunity to shine as new stars but then are usually replaced by even newer theories on bookshelves before a spattering of years have passed for most.5 This extends from the most authoritative and structured theories of child development to the most permissive and child-centered theories. We are once again left with a question. Which is better and for whom? Neuroscience opens the door and finds answers to those questions.
Neuroscience brings us to new methods which advances us much closer to what is better and for whom. That is because neuroscience and brain-based methods require evidence that is backed by hard science first and foremost. We have been able to identify neural circuits, their function which have been scientifically shown to activate specific behaviors that essentially seem universal to all human beings and guide child development. For instance, we can differentiate at least two types of learning that reflect two distinct regions of the central nervous system that are described below. One is learning through text and symbols and the other through sensory experiences such as vision. Each benefit very different ways to learn new information (Figure 1), and different children and adolescents can have dramatically different strengths with each.
At Mohonk, we did not do brain scans of the children although on several occasions we asked our gathering with a bit of whim if they would be interested in doing that. Fascinating, almost all the children wanted to do it including those who had a diagnosis of an attention deficit disorder or learning disabilities. Children with what has been described as intellectually handicapped (in the past, “retarded) tended to be resistant. Nevertheless, our brain-based methods were created based upon understanding,, but even more, appreciating, and then taking into account which areas of the brain were activated when a behavior we wished to influence, improve, or change occurred. For example, anger and rage stood out. There is a tipping point when physical restraint might be necessary. A region of the brain that includes an area called the amygdala takes hold. (Figure 2) At the tipping point words have little or no influence, even with threats. However, before that tipping point is reached, the child’s cognitive regions of the brain still can overtake and suppress emerging rage and gain a foot hold.. (Figure 3) We used that to our advantage in highly unusual ways as described below.
There is one more concern that separates neuroscience from the softer sciences. Virtually all theories in behavior-based psychological and educational research conclude with a persistent disregard. It is represented by the distribution curves as shown in Figure 4. One classical graph represents the so-called normal curve. A normal curve is a perfect distribution. That is, there are as many individuals equally distant from the average who are below the average as there are above the average. Distribution curves show that most children settle into the average range whether it is any type of intelligence we wish to delineate or any behavior that piques our interest. The same holds true for a child’s height and weight, effectiveness of medications, etc. The more a child deviates from the average, the less he or she may fit in with established standards, criteria, or expectations. A typical middle-school classroom may last forty-five minutes. That is because it is assumed that the average student will do well in a forty-five-minute class, while others may learn less, fall apart, or misbehave sooner than that, some even after a very few minutes. Others benefit from having more time to go over what is being said or to write more notes, and some get bored because they know the material so well. They would get an A with their eyes closed. Within families, some parents discover they have success with strictly enforced rules. Their children are well behaved, keep their rooms clean, teeth brushed, and do not eat with their fingers. Other families are successful with much more permissive and child-centered approaches despite pajamas on the bedroom floor and occasional greasy fingers.

NOTE: I WILL PROBABLY USE A DIFFERENT GRAPH AND ADD A DESCRITION LATER
Most teaching methods, methods to raise children, or therapeutic interventions are usually effective for a significant number of children, but also extremely helpful to others and even harmful to some. That is based upon how much any child deviates from the average of any method that is applied. Montessori methods, permissive “free-range methods and strict disciplinary methods such as in military schools and Tiger Mom theories of educating and raising children follow that same rubric. Each has their range of successes and failures.
The overall impact is that whatever rewards or punishments, rules and regulations that are put into place are essentially orientated to trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number. Fair enough, but neuroscience points us to much greater possibilities. It allows us to establish a unique prescription to raise and educate every unique child? In that way, No Child Left Behind is not limited to a pleasant-sounding aspiration.
At Mohonk, we incorporated this concept by putting into practice our brain-based methods.
BRAIN-BASED METHODS
At Mohonk we incorporated what came to be called brain-based methods. These are methods based upon the physiology and anatomy of the human brain and eight have been identified that have a far-reaching impact on raising and educating children.
Brain-based methods reflect what can be called neural networks of the brain that serve specific behaviors, sometimes a number of specific behaviors. Neural networks are essentially groups of neurons that interconnect to form what have been called centers or areas of the brain that describe observed behaviors such as evetyhnig from te movmenr of the eyes oards an moving object to anger. `However, it is essential to understand that such networks cannot accurately be described as functioning independently of all others. For instance, when a child turns his head at the sight of his mother returning home, his visual cortex ignites along with his motor cortex that enables him to turn his head (Figure 5). If she calls Jamie for help with the groceries, his emotional center, that is identified as what is called the Limbic System, comes into play. (Figure 6 ) He misses her and is especially excited by the ice cream that she said she would bring with her. Figure 6 shows the excited anticipation ice cream can have on the brain of a child.
Another example brings this to light in education. Learning relates to much more than sitting in a classroom and listening to what a teacher says or shows on his whiteboard. In order for a child to learn, he must, for one, pay attention otherwise little, or no learning can occur.
Learning and paying attention reflect functions of different neural networks of the brain.(Figure 7).
The important point to make is that all brain-based methods must be taken into account and incorporated into raising and educating children. This has rarely been done, but at Mohonk it was our undeviating objective.
With regard to the efficacy and value of brain-based methods, one only has to realize that virtually every theory in child development, therapeutic methods, and education primarily reflect a presumed and usually unstated assumption that they have a basis in how the human brain functions. However, not enough has been known to be able to support their theories and methods. This includes everything from behavioral management techniques, cognitive behavior theories, psychoanalytical approaches or even Montessori methods.6 Sigmund Freud and Maria Montessori would whole-heartedly agree.7 They said so. B. F. Skinner would have concurred except that he believed that behavioral management did not need to be know the neurophysiology although it would be an advantage if we knew more.8
The name for our first brain-based method is called How the Brain Experiences Its Environment and reflects the overall effect of the seven more specific brain-based methods described below. This basically describes how children feel about the home, the school, and activities they become involved in. Such an environment can be pleasant, enjoyable, or challenging. It can also be fearful, hateful, disagreeable, or just unpleasant. Let us call them adverse emotions. Certainly, every child experiences all these feelings, but, by the end of adolescents, a framework, a disposition if you will, influences a child’s attitude and behavior as adulthood approaches. A child brought up For us brain-based methods created an atmosphere that brought the positive qualities to light even in adverse situations. Anger, disappointment even depression and all adverse situations were dealt with as opportunities. emotions were conveyed as opportunities for solving any issues. That was the first practical application of how the children experienced the environment at Mohonk.
Such an atmosphere can also be seen in the children’s brains. Scans of the human brain reveal that there are clear changes in the brain of a child in an environment where there is trust, where a child feels valued and can be heard and accepted for whatever self-perception he has about himself including his gifts or disabilities, background, how he behaves and not fearful of reprimands, punishments, assaults, or even simple insults, enduring changes happen (Figure 8) Ripples of hate, fear, or fomenting anger can subside and take a hike which also can be seen in scans of a child’s brain (Figure 8). Opportunities for constructive investments in solutions then begin to bud.
These scans show that in such an environment the so-called reward system of the human brain becomes lit.9 The specific neuroscience is still being researched, but the common denominator of all descriptions is that the existence of a reward system is accepted, and associated with neurotransmitters that can include dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphins. However, how this brain function ties into behavior has sometimes been awkward because of such subjective terms as “happy,” “pleasant,” “not fearful,” etc. What might make one child happy might not be for another. How does one quantify pleasantness except with subjective ”open for interpretation” psychological assessment tests. Bullies may offer a paradox of sorts. Do they get pleasure from picking on others and instilling fear in them? Answers to such questions is based upon unique applications of learning theory which are described and shown in many chapters of this book.
In an additional way, hate and anger circuits of the human brain have also been described with the same concern about the subjectivity of whatever terms are used by researchers that convey hate or anger. Contempt? Jealousy? Annoyance? Perhaps each term has a specific neural script. However, the common denominator of such terms is that given the choice what would a human, a child, prefer? Readers only have to ask themselves which they would prefer, given the choice.
In such an environment receptiveness to others increases, and that is described through the stories and tales of the children over a forty-three-year period. In effect, cooperation, and open-mindedness predominated in every corner and most every child even among the commotion and disagreements of their daily lives. That included everything from sharing apple pie, deciding who should get which bunk bed, talking about one’s personal problems, or the purpose of life. Fistfights, insults, and hate became distinctly unusual events and never an expectation among our throng. However, we were not even disparaging of such experiences. They were an opportunity to help children learn how to deal with unpleasant situations which certainly would pockmark their lives as they grew into adulthood. Among the chapters, fascinating, emotional, graphic, and even very humorous stories are described that bring that to light.
Such an environment resonated untethered and was ever-present among both staff and children. A second practical strategy we had was that we made no judgements. All children were equal whether they were “well-behaved” or not, thoughtful, or impulsive, handsome, or not so good looking, fat or skinny, smart, or not so smart, shy, or outgoing, athletic, or clumsy, weird or conventional. Differences in race or religion, of course, meant nothing, and there was no such thing as a bad kid. They were all the same. That, in fact, became our motto. There is no Such Thing as a Bad Kid. The brain said so, and, for us, it never became a cliché.
My first son, Brooks, learned that. At two years of age, he was genuinely confused whenever he saw a new member of our house get angry or critical of another child. It made no sense to him. Everyone gave him a pony back ride. They were all good souls. At dinner up to fifteen very different varieties of youth held hands and each night one said something he was grateful for in his life. Some said a prayer. A non-religious child might say he was grateful for a great dinner for the first time in a long time or feeling safe at Mohonk. Billy was very grateful that Wendy wanted to go out with him! Then we all ate voraciously. The sense that our environment of brain-based methods created was that we were truly so much more the same than different. That, in fact, became our second mission statement, We Are All So Much More The Same Than Different. We were all valued and respected no matter who we were, and getting along was a much more pleasant way to live our lives. That is how their growing brains experienced the environment at Mohonk.
I have always loved numbers and statistics. We kept records: less than six fights among up to fifteen youth at any one time over a period of four decades. Insults rarely happened. All staff kept notes. So did the kids! They called them “negatives.” Most of all, when one was heard by anyone it was more akin to the unexpected attention-grabbing clamor of curiosity and someone needing help or support, not derision or rejection. Addressing negatives with curiosity and concern not smirks or was a third practical application we used.
Negatives did not result in reprimands or punishments by staff or children. That led to a fourth practice: obliterate reprimands or punishments as a prime goal as often as possible and that means often! On its face, that seems like a difficult strategy to succeed. It wasn’t, and we did not resemble a permissive do-as-you-like approach to raising and educating children. For instance, when a negative was heard by staff or children it was simply addressed such as “Are you okay? What’s up?” Negatives stopped, and, even better, it opened a window into what might have been bothering a child. Those types of experiences, as insignificant as they might seem, reflected the atmosphere of Mohonk. And that atmosphere was based upon how the brain works best, that is to say, what the brain prefers and is inherently drawn towards, given the choice.
That atmosphere and the effect our brain-based methods had on children led to an interesting question. Would children in general, and most anywhere, choose animosity, derision, and hate if the opportunity to solve problems, cooperation, and peace were in their sight and what they were exposed to even if in their earlier years argumentative, divisive, or hateful experiences had begun to be planted in their brains? We believed children would choose solving problems, cooperation, peace, and other such values we cherish. If so, the impact brain-based knowledge can have on how we raise, educate, and help children with clinical needs would become indispensably important. Children certainly are our future, and that is a good place to begin. Perhaps the only place to begin.

HOW THE BRAIN LEARNS BEST
Scans of the human brain have brought forth three new ways to incorporate learning methods for children. This is in addition to the inclusion of classical and operational behavioral conditioning which is still sacrosanct to this day. We have assimilated these two forms of behavioral conditioning into our methods. Both can also be distinguished from our third district form of learning which we call thinking. Each of these three types of learning points us to additional and improved ways to raise, educate and help children in need.
The first type of learning is through language, as reflected by using words, mathematics, and symbols such as in musical notation. They reflect distinct and well-known areas of the human brain as seen in Figure 2. Without these areas we cannot understand and make use of language. However, learning from stimulating our senses involves distinctly different and well-known areas of the human brain. Each sense is represented by separate areas and neural circuits and includes sight, audition, touch, smell, taste, proprioception – awareness of body position in space, and balance. Please refer to Figure 2 below.
FIGURE 2
In society, language is used foremost by listening or reading about rules, laws, instructions, history, mathematics symbols, or instructions on how to bake brownies. Let us call it language learning. The second type is through direct non-language based sensory experiences such as watching the way an artist paints, the way a parent’s face expresses her concern and calms an irate sibling. The tone of her voice and body language both communicate as much or more than the words spoken. A young child learns without words as he stares with interest and intensity as a colony of ants scurry around his left-over blueberry muffin that fell to the floor around his chair. Let us call that sensory learning.
Language and sensory learning coexist with classical and operational behavioral conditioning. This comparison needs to be explained briefly because it brings to light new practices to be considered in child development and is incorporated in our brain-mased methods.
Classical Conditioning is defined as behavior that is learned due to unintentional experiences. A child accidentally puts her hand on a hot stove burner. She didn’t intend to, but she learned quickly that stove burners can be very hot and burn, especially if they are red. A child learns unintentionally that when he raised his voice in anger at his father, he lost use of the family car for a week. Operant conditioning, on the other hand, is defined as behavior that is learned due to intentional experiences. A child does not touch a stove burner because she was warned in the past that it can burn her hand. It was her intention to hot touch the stove burner because she was told not to. An adolescent has learned to not raise his voice in anger if he hopes to get permission to use the family car. He will intentionally plead instead or promise to cut the grass and even include the hedges before he goes out on a Saturday night date with Linda. Classical and operational learning involved either or both language learning and sensory learning. The children learned through the words that were spoken (language learning) and/or the emotions conveyed with words or actions taken (sensory learning). The mother excitedly yells for her child to not touch the burner and then caresses her child in gratitude that she did not burn her hands and screamed in agony. Th father looks angry or speaks in unequivocal terms and tone or even just turns his back on his child and walks away. That means “no.”
The difference between language learning and sensory learning is distinct in another fundamental way that is based upon how the human brain works. Language learning can be viewed as primarily based upon an initial external source of stimulation to the brain. A parent speaks, a book that is read lists what must be done to construct a bird house, and another book describes the historic wars and tensions between the Palestinians and Israelites. That is a dramatic difference from sensory learning, as I am describing it here, where children learn essentially from an initial internal source of stimulation from the brain that comes from their own self-initiative or through direct sensory experiences that cross their paths along the journeys of their lives.
Both language and sensory learning are essential and part of a child’s growing mind, or brain if you will. In life, both types of learning occur together to different degrees. However, in education and raising a child sensory learning, more often than not, becomes a second-class citizen, an appropriate add-on. As a child grows, language increasingly becomes the dominant way a child learns to behave with his family, school, and society. It is much more often viewed as the easiest, most efficient, and clearest means of communication and learning, but much is left out. The sensory impact of a picture, it is said, is worth a thousand words. Sensory learning adds another dimension.
At Mohonk we incorporated sensory learning in two ways. The first was asking children to take the initiative, observe, and come up with solutions to any problem. Of course, that is dependent on the age of a child. Three-year-olds cannot be asked to consider the pros and cons of running across a busy street at the first sight of Disneyland. Our youngest was eleven and considering choices or solving problems was well within their realm. For us, a child needed to take the first step whenever possible. They needed to watch and see what happened from their own initiative or watch and see how others tried to solve problems by what they did. The advantage could extend to learning about how to change a vacuum cleaner bag to how to deal with their own parents after watching how other children dealt with theirs.
“Ben,” we asked, “Can you try and figure out how emptying the vacuum cleaner bag works,” Ben watched how George emptied a vacuum cleaner bag. He didn’t ask questions. He wanted to try to do it himself. He just watched. The result was that Ben could coordinate the switches and levers without having dust stream over his face, and he was proud of his own successful efforts. Ben’s efforts also increased his awareness of cookie crumbs and pizza morsels left abandoned on carpets when it was his turn to use the vacuum cleaner. He requested that we should all try to keep such scraps off the floors. Such situations as Ben’s were reflected in many situations at Mohonk, both at the cookie crumb level to observing the body language and emotions of words spoken.
In a similar way, taking initiative and solving problems expanded to very personal issues.
We often did role-playing. By using role-playing, we incorporated both language learning and sensory learning. Telling a child he should control himself when his parents get annoyed is very different than playing the part of a parent and then himself and watching his peers do the same, especially in the safe living room at Mohonk. Such learning sticks to the bones. The result could be monumental.
Finally, Jimmy came up with solutions that grew from role-playing and then being asked about solutions he thought of. He was surprised by his own good ideas and spoke to his parents about practical plans he had as well as his own personal hopes of being able to be part of his family again. They were surprised, even shocked, and also impressed. When Jimmy was at his home, he and his parents had gone to therapy and read how-to books for sixteen months to no avail. The ideas presented were good ones, but they remained abstractions, just words. Saying Jimmy’s brain changed from the act of role-playing reads much too mechanical, even callous, but the fact is that was what happened After two overnight try-outs and two weeks, Jimmy was greeted at our front door by his parents. He immediately dropped his duffle bag and what was left of his Oreo cookies, and hugs abounded.
Learning about vacuum cleaners and learning how to help contribute to a stable home are the same from the point of view of the brain. Children learn from sensory learning but balanced together with language learning the benefits proved outstanding.
Another practical application we used was to give all the children the opportunity to be involved in as many diverse experiences as possible. Our imaginations were the only limits we had. By doing this, their senses were engaged, and they were motivated to listen or read about the experiences they had at Mohonk. They learned much more about themselves, their interests and abilities than verbal information alone could provide.
Richie listened intently and watched carefully as he was shown how to tie a bowline knot. He watched as it was tested, and then belayed off a fifty-foot cliff. Perfect. His relief setting his feet on the ground was only surpassed by his pride in doing it. Learning about other knots could be learned the next time. Richie pleaded for the next time.
Ken brought up the idea of flying in a helicopter to Wall Street to meet rich people and see what they were like. To the amazement of most of the eight young adolescents who chose to go, helicopters were not as scary as they had thought. They also learned that some rich well-dressed Wall Street people had not done so well in school, and all offered they had to keep on their toes to be successful. Of course, several of our aspiring young adults then decided that becoming Wall Street millionaires was now on their table.
Among the stream of children and cascade of programs that were part of Mohonk, Jose was one of the children who reflected the entrepreneurial spirit. He suggested we open a consignment and donation store. Certainly, their senses would be immersed with how their brains learn best. Everyone had seen the endless donations the public offered to us, and we had become infamous for our annual tag sales. Opening a retail store seemed like a stretch to some, but the excited anticipation carried the day. The children would run it as much as possible. Three of them decided to go to Goodwill and several local consignment shops to absorb the experience and get ideas as well as asking questions. Discovering how to get donations and consignments, how to interact with customers, what hours to be open, etc. was valuable but only got them to first base. The experience of organizing donated baseball cards, side tables, toasters, difficult to describe antiques, a plethora of jewelry and a dictionary full of wares got them to second. Dealing with credit cards, cash, and banks got them to third, but getting home required dealing with an enormous variety of people from three-year-olds to octogenarians, generous kind people and thieves, essentially a universe of humans. Reading how-to books and listening to volunteer consignment experts provided meaningful input, but the personal excitement, adventure, confusion, and the overall sum of sensory experiences was irreplaceable knowledge and brought everyone to home plate. Much more than selling donations was learned.
Among some of the most touching experiences described within the chapters of my (or “the”?) book, was traveling to a host of countries so our flock could meet children from different cultures, religions, and backgrounds. Most children carried preconceived ideas about the children they would meet, and biases were not uncommon. However, meeting these children in person and having the opportunity to discover children anywhere, whether rich or impoverished, Muslim, Christian, Jewish or any other religion, any color or background have much more in common with them than their differences. That was our hope.
This was not difficult to accomplish. Such shared experiences as ice cream and basketball balls brought comradery, smiles, and high fives as their mutual reward. Differences they may have had, including biases and beliefs, carried little weight when they played together with players intermixed from different countries or when the collection toasted each other after being offered seconds on chocolate-chip ice cream. Such an experience was ripe with sensory information, and, as a result, much sensory learning occurred without the need to depend upon only talks about the countries we were visiting and respecting the children they would meet.
The sum of our experiences was that when we incorporate language and sensory learning together, learning is enhanced remarkably and deeply. That is how the brain learns best, and that is how our second brain-based method got its name. How the Brain Learns Best.
THINKING
The learning experiences brought to bear by How the Brain Learns Best tip-toed into a third brain-based method. It encompassed thinking.
Thinking is not an abstract term or an educational or psychological concept, and it is different than learning as has been described. In psychology, at least six different types of thinking have been noted. From the perspective of the brain, they have a common foundation primarily in the regions of the brain that include the pre-frontal cortex (Figure 3). That is where the brain processes and makes sense of what they have learned through language and sensory based learning.
NOTE: I will place Figure 3 here but for now I am getting so sick of editing my Intro, I just want to get it over with!!!!
I called this How the Brain Thinks, and we gave life to this second brain-based method by using several practical applications. We asked questions ad infinitum rather than giving direct orders or ideas as often as possible. That was the catalyst to make children think rather than always being dependent upon others to solve problems, rushing to judgment, or blindly accepting what is seen, heard, or read. Socrates would approve.
“Jeremy, should we keep the kitchen open all the time, twenty-four hours per day.” Jeremy said “no,” as ninety-five percent of the other children also answered.
“Okay,” why not?
A typical response was that others would steal food or not share apple pie.
“Okay, who would do that,” we asked.
Most everyone said they would not. As a result, we set a challenge and put the pedal to the metal. Everyone wanted to see if we could leave the kitchen open and if anyone would steal food or not share. The result was that we almost never kept the kitchen locked, and asked constantly if the plan was working. It was, and, as a stroke of humor, we kept several apple pies in the refrigerators. Chuck was big. He played football and had a thirty-eight-inch waist tied to his six-foot three-inch frame. He asked if he could have a second piece “cut kind of large.” He was given a question. “What do you think you should do to see if it’s okay?” Chuck asked the members of our crowd if it was okay. They were fine, and Chuck was at peace in less than two minutes. The end result was that the kitchen was virtually never locked. Now and then unannounced state inspectors would come by and were always surprised. They didn’t like that rule. They did not believe that adolescents could show such self-control and restraint. Abe gave them the best concise answer when asked. “It’s not a rule. We just do it.”
One of the most interesting results of asking about setting rules and regulations was that virtually every child believed there needed to be many rules. That reflected the way their world worked before coming to Mohonk. However, we challenged every child to think about what rules they needed for each of them individually to follow because they could not do it themselves and be accountable to others. The result was startling. Among the variety decided upon was that they did not want the house to be a mess and divided the jobs up among themselves. They came up with a “lights out” standard because some wanted to get to sleep earlier than others. In effect, they created most rules that they all could live with including the staff, often with our guidance by asking questions about their ideas.
The result was that there were few rules compared to any child caring facility we could find.
If a rule was not followed, it was always pointed out individually, but again, only with a question. “What do you think you could do to prevent that happening again?” They had to think, and they came up with ideas. What is important to emphasize here is that such questions were not presented as an implied warning at all. Questions were offered as interesting, curious, and even exciting questions in keeping with our first brain-based method, How the Brain Experiences Its Environment. Children could tell just by our enthusiasm and especially our respect towards them. They also knew that punishments and reprimands were something that we really did not like. The staff cringed, I cringed, as much as the children. However, that did not mean that we were a permissive and open-ended playground. Everyone was held accountable consistently. Each child quickly learned that they had to think and solve problems and they were capable of doing that.
Our approach did not sit well with the State license regulators. They were mentally immersed in the need to provide rules and structure and not leave it to children to think and at least begin to take ownership of what they said and did. We were becoming a bit controversial, but when they talked to the children, they could not help but be impressed.
“What happens,” they asked, “when you break a rule?” Richard gave the most concise answer. “We don’t really, because, if I forget, I have to come up with an idea, so it doesn’t happen again. That’s my job.” Still, for the State this was unknown territory and there was understandable skepticism.
Asking questions was almost like a mantra. It was a way of life. That was good because it could extend to the far reaches of the mazes and landscapes of their lives. They would be inclined to think about the choices they made rather than only nodding their heads. Given the choices and experience we saw first-hand that children prefer to get along even when there is intense disagreements over stepping outside the foul line. It seemed as simple as that. The brain says so, and, over the years, we placed a small three-by-three-inch attention-grabbing display in the center of a very large full-page for major newspapers in our state:
NO SUCH THING AS A BAD KID
What child feeling there is hope; and
and what child beginning to believe
in himself or herself would choose hate and anger?
GIVE OF YOURSELF THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
NOTE: The ad needs to be centered with even sides as it was in the ad. I couldn’t figure out how to do that here.
Such a statement was not offered as a pronouncement or assertion of what we believed was an insurmountable truth or how the brain learns best. It was offered as a question. It was offered to encourage those who read it to think, just as we did with the children we helped.
The effect of incorporating our first three brain-based methods, How the Brain Experiences its Environment, How the Brain Learns Best, and How the Brain Thinks led to remarkable and unexpectedly moving stories of the children whose lives we had changed. We also learned that we still had left much of the brain out, and that set the stage for the inclusion of five additional brain-based methods.
One of those five is How the Brain Pays Attention.
Paying attention is a dynamic indispensable brain-based phenomenon. A human cannot function without the brain being able to block extraneous stimulation that is ever present and constantly bombards our senses and our memories. At this moment, the reader might want to stop and listen to the sounds that are in the background or the sight that comes into view even when you turn your head a few degrees. The attention centers of the brain block them out until you are asked to notice them. Your brain enables you to pay attention to the words you are reading now. Many forms of attention deficit disorders (ADD) point to this disability. The areas of the brain that are involved in the process of paying attention include areas of the parietal, frontal, and temporal lobes. (Figure 4) Intertwined within these lobes are neural circuits that enable any human to pay attention, and as a result enables a child to learn, and even pay attention to what he may be thinking about.
Efforts to gain a child’s meaningful and undivided attention has been studied and guessed at forever. Rewards, smiles, humor, threats or punishments and behavioral reinforcement methods incorporated the main stays. Most approaches had at least some success in guiding a child’s behavior as often as failing to do so. There was no guiding star that fit every child in every situation. The results have varied as widely as the types of children we wish to describe. However, neuroscience has given us direction in this labyrinth, and, at Mohonk, there was one mainstay that seemed to cross all boundaries.
For starters, we did whatever it took to get the attention of a child baring the use of threats or punishments.
Jake was ready to rip his mathematics textbook apart and toss it across the kitchen. “I hate this,” he yelled as he edged closer to total uncontrol. We could have restrained him or at least yelled or threatened Jake with consequences. We could have pleaded with him and bribed him with promises if he would only calm down and put his textbook down. We did neither. We wanted Jake to begin to think, but first we needed to get his attention and take it from there. Robert, one of our staff standing six feet from him, responded. “Great! I hate this too! Let’s go to school and paint the principal’s office black!” Jake paused abruptly. What an odd thing to say! “What!” he said in an expressive look of total confusion. Jake was now paying attention, and his anger was being subdued by cognitive control. His pre-frontal cortex was at least temporarily trying to make sense of what he just heard. That is how the brain begins to think.
Robert went on excitedly with a tone of support for Jake’s anger. “Would that work? Would that make the problem end? What would? Jake, what would work? You want to win, don’t you? Now Jake was contemplative. He was thinking, and not just reacting to fear, any threat, or reward. His undivided attention turned to thinking. That is what we wanted him to do. He was being empowered to think of a solution. After fifteen minutes of both serious and some buoyant humor, Jake came up with a good idea. He decided he would go to the student counselor’s office and ask for extra help with mathematics.
The next day we asked Jake about his emotional upheaval. We did not imply or suggest that he had done anything wrong. In fact, his anger was his motivation to solve his problem. Jake thanked us anyway, but we were much more enthusiastic. “Why did you bother to control yourself? Did we control you? Did you control yourself?” Jake was thinking again, and he recognized that he did the work, not us.
The success of such a momentary incident typified the interactions and atmosphere at Mohonk. Paying attention started the ball rolling and the rest followed.
Such experiences also led to the recognition that learning and thinking always involves emotions in one way or another. The human brain has a complex anatomy and physiology related to emotions. Please refer to Figure 5. This has been well studied, and emotions impact our learning and thinking even if we do not see any outward expression of emotional behavior. A child’s emotions may be under control and subdued or explosive and overwhelming. Just as likely, they can be expressed in monotonic expressionless thoughts and words. “My home,” Ryan said, “I miss my home, my parents. I wish somehow, we could all be together again.”
Incorporating emotions into how we engaged children was essential, and it deserved to be a brain-based method. We called it How the Brain Feels.
In effect, we reacted to emotional outbursts or tears in the same way. We asked attention-getting questions. For us, rage was an opportunity to recruit thinking. So was depression. Most important was that every child knew that they were not judged by any emotional expression of their humanity. That is how children experienced their environment at Mohonk.
Children and every human first must pay attention to whatever they are exposed to, then learning followers in tandem with emotional input. Thinking occurs next. This chronology is reflected in research on the human brain and is the consequence of what a human is exposed to. This might include the sights, sounds, smells, touches, and tastes as well as the stimulation that comes from our own bodies as we balance ourselves (vestibular) and determine the position of our bodies (proprioception) (Figure 6). Then a response occurs.
This led to two brain-based methods that were fundamental to successfully incorporate neuroscience in child development and what makes us human.
This includes the sensory information that impacts a child as well as the responses that occur. They are fundamental because they both reflect separate regions of the human brain, and, as a result, impact learning and behavior in unique ways (Figure 3). Maria Montessori would nod her head in approval. However, we extended hands-on learning and behavior to personal matters and life changing events. I called sensory input How the Brain Uses Sensory Information, and the response How the Brain Responds to Sensory Information.
In order to bring that knowledge to practical application, we exposed every child to as many sensory experiences as possible and have them learn from the responses they made. In turn, they paid attention and learned or thought about the consequences of how they responded and what they might do again. This is a basic practice incorporated in many professions where internships are required or recommended. Lawyers do not just read about legal practices; they practice them. Doctors are required to do an internship and residency before they become licensed practitioners. Starting at sixteen years of age, adolescents are required to practice driving before they can get a license to drive, and pilots as young as sixteen are also required to practice flying before they can fly solo. All of these practices have a common brain base. They all involve learning how to respond to what their senses take in. .
Calvin was worried about crashing our glider.
A glider is a motorless airplane that is towed towards the clouds and then let loose to glide to Earth or stay afloat as rises in thermal updrafts under clouds. It is very serene but also terrifying for many first-time flyers. Calvin was the type who was only electrified and excited. He was a dare devil who always had trouble listening to others. I put Calvin in the front seat. I was behind him, and we both had control sticks. After several lessons, I let Calvin take control because he wanted to and it was safe. Soon he stalled the glider, and we went huddling down to Earth. Calvin screamed for help, and I recovered control easily.
“What happened? “ I asked. “How did you use the control stick?”
“ I pulled it up too much,” he said.
“Okay, do you want to try again?”
He did, and Calvin learned quickly. He was learning based upon both the sensory input of his hands, the sense of falling, the sight of the Earth as it began to hurdle towards him and especially the result of his responses so he could correct what he was doing. There was, in fact, no danger at all, and all pilots must go through such experiences.
The same brain-based methods of sensory input and response hold true for most everything a child initially learns through his senses and the results of the responses made. The memories formed then guide a child about what to do next.
For Ben, it was coming up with solutions to how he should change so he could get a chance to return home. Ben’s parents wanted him at Mohonk because he would never listen. He remembered those experiences but now wanted to come up with ideas about how he might be able to get his parents to let him return to his family. It involved speaking to them, listening to what they said and then coming up with behaviors his parents and Ben agreed to. It was worth a try, and within two weeks after two overnight visits, Ben was home for good.
This practice of evaluating and thinking and then responding coalesced with a popular cliché. “Actions are more important than words,” For Mohonk it meant thinking of ideas of how to solve any problem or desire a child had and trying it out because they could personally commit to what they believed they could succeed at doing. This practice encompassed everything from sharing apple pie to becoming a pilot, getting along with teachers and parents to discovering what might work to see if their dreams and hopes for their future could come true.

HOW EVERY BRAIN IS UNIQUE AND IDENTICAL.
The reader might have noticed that in effect the seven brain-based methods I have outlined and named could easily fit into one embrace. They all work together. The human brain works that way. Every behavior we wish to identify and describe is influenced by all the areas and neural circuits of the brain that have been described. Inclusion is the banner. Attention preempts learning and thinking. Emotional influences come into play almost immediately. Concurrently the input of senses and the responses made create the life we know about ourselves.
This knowledge brought us to our last brain-based method. We called it How Every Brain is Unique and Identical. This is an unusual brain-based method. It could almost read like a somewhat ordinary thread-bare cliche. However, it reflected how the brain-based methods we used helped children. In effect, each reflected how we interacted with them every day and with every step we took. Brain-based methods proved every child was unique. Brain-based methods also showed how every brain is the same. Every region, area and neural circuit reflected in each brain-based method is present in every child. As a result, our methods were adapted to each child.
Still, those are only words. They become alive and meaningful only if they are put into place every day and with every step each child takes. In such an atmosphere, children learned that all children are all so much more the same than different. They learned that most everyone had difficulties and insecurities, confusion, hopes, and dreams as they all did, and most of all that they had the ability to have hope and solve the problems they had. We had the opportunity to help each child by what they saw, heard, and listened to and discovered, sometimes to their amazement and sometimes subtly by the changes we saw in the way they dealt with each other, their parents, and teachers and especially with other children they met next door, in their schools and others from different backgrounds and cultures overseas.
In the same breath everyone was unique. We lived that belief by giving every child the opportunity to experiment with their lives and try anything they thought would be interesting. Learning how to scuba dive was just as available as learning how to do research to get an A on a semester report or learning how to deal with the stresses in their lives, meeting with Wall Street executives or learning how to dance. Each child learned that even as we are so much more the same than different, we are all still unique. That recognition did not separate any of us from each other. Rather, it made us value our differences and unite us in knowing that there is no such thing as a bad kid.
By exposing every child to as wide a variety of experiences as possible. They might discover hidden talents, interests or even beliefs they never believed they had. They could learn how to tune a car, scuba dive, fly gliders, and visit Wall Street and shelters for the homeless. We traveled to Europe, opened a consignment shop they ran. On it went. The children often came up with ideas, and they were only limited by their imaginations. Al went to Nepal because he learned about a contest to write a story that asked contestants to write about the meaning of life. Why not try? He did. He won. He wrote about his experiences at Mohonk. “Life is about having hope, and there always is because it is everywhere, always just waiting to be found.”

THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS
Mohonk took the first whole-hearted effort to align the brain with a child’s life. Still, the momentum to begin to apply neuroscience to the human condition had only begun with accelerating research and the dawning of professional recognition that we had to start taking its implications seriously. It was truly uncharted waters that seemed like it might go over the edge of a flat planet.
In 1984, the American Psychiatric Association recognized neuropsychiatry as its own diagnostic and clinical field. In 1986, MIT changed the name of their Department of Psychology to the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences to begin the interface with neuroscience and clinical applications. Well more than two hundred universities now offer degree programs related to neuroscience. In 2002 the Harvard Graduate School of Education even began a degree program called Mind, Brain and Education.
The public seems to be increasingly tuned in as well. The number of books related to the brain and neuroscience has increased twenty-fold since the 1990s, which President George H. W. Bush declared to be the Decade of the Brain. The number of articles in journals, magazines, and newspapers that are related to neuroscience has increased at least twenty-fold in the same amount of time. Presently, there are at least 100 annual conferences that relate to understanding how our brains work. Many have addressed the impact that neuroscience can have on society. For example, in 1999 the Learning and the Brain initiative was formed to connect educators to neuroscientists and researchers. They focused on discovering the impact of different teaching strategies on the brains of children. Another annual conference has stretched the relevance of neuroscience even further. The NeuroLeadership Institute started in 2008. The conference teaches leaders in businesses, education, and government how to incorporate neuroscience into their respective fields. The implication is that what we know about how the brain works can help guide society through the twenty-first century. This was preceded by the formation of the International Neuroethics Society in 2006. Leaders in the field were beginning to realize that their research covered a much larger domain. Ethics was an inherent attachment to what our research meant for our future.
The goal to unravel the finest details of the human brain is in sight. That sight seemed more like science fiction than a possibility less than twenty years ago. In 2009 the National Institute of Health launched the Human Connectome Project whose objective is to establish a complete detailed anatomical and functional connectivity of the human brain, and in 2013 President Obama supported the BRAIN Initiative with an initial $100,000,000 research effort to map the human brain in all its detail using new technologies. In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama said that “our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s,” and added, “Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race.” The time has come. However, the United States may not have the leading edge in discovering what makes us tick. We may be significantly further behind other countries in this endeavor. The European Union, for example, already has a similar initiative up and running called The Human Brain Project, funded with over $1,250,000,000. China may be farther along than Europe or the United States with older initiatives such as Brainnetome, whose goal is to completely map the human brain including its functional connectivity to behavioral research. Their first annual meeting was held in Beijing in 2012.
The accumulation of this knowledge will accelerate the application of brain-based methods to how we raise and educate children as well as help those in need. But there is more. This also relates to the benefits or harm how it is applied in society, personally, socially, legally, and ethically.
Such attempts to decipher and make meaningful and practical sense of the interactions of eighty billion neurons of our nervous system is in sight. That has been considered unlikely or “impossible” before, but it is not now. Our ability to make sense of what seems like an almost endless amount of data that is available through two current and rapidly advancing approaches. One is the current and evolving technologies that enable us to assess the genetic and neuroplastic of the human brain down to the molecular level. Neuroplasticity is a relatively new term and describes the effect that any sensory input, any experience has on neurons. That is to say, the physiological effect of the environment on the brain. The second is data science represented by AI and what is called Big Data analysis. The sum effect of these mathematical and computer-based sciences is that we are able evaluate many trillions of bytes of information. This will enable us to specify the genetic and environmental influences that shape who we are. Today we have been able to evaluate adults, children, even babies, those with developmental issues or not, those who have severe learning impairments of any variety or not, and geniuses of every strip. The neurophysiological research can distinguish anger, love, motivation, empathy, different abilities from car mechanics to neuroscientists, the effects of memories on behavior and any other behavior we wish to describe. We are now reaching a horizon we once thought could never be touched, but now we have a firm hold on the map, and we know where we are going.
Today, however, guiding light has lit different paths. Even as some psychologists and educators have begun to experiment with brain-based methods, they were more of an afterthought or just an “add-on” rather than a perspective that digs into influences and lives within every method they use and the way they personally interact with their charges every day. That does not carry the day. Applied neuroscience is still as meaningful and reachable as a distant star and usually little more than an abstract head nod on its relevance to child development as it is practiced. On the other side, neuroscience had been largely focused on neurotechnologies such as fMRI, PET and MEG brain scanning along with cranial implants, transcranial stimulation, fluorescent microscopy, and psychopharmaceuticals among a list of many other technologies. Brain-based behavioral research has historically been limited to assessing the brains of small rodents running mazes and Rhesus monkeys deciding which colored box held a raisin. Today, however, neurotechnologies have begun to find their place and have expanded to humans. Using such technologies as fMRIs, we can evaluate the neural circuits associated with the emotional or behavioral state of any human simply by showing the subject photographs, speaking words or even asking a subject to think of something that makes them cringe, smile, get angry, or feel at peace.
An added dimension to this labyrinth is the sudden accelerating field of what is called brain–computer interfaces (BCI). Prosthetics are used to enable a human to move an artificial limb. A human can think of moving his leg, and the steel and titanium leg can move how he wants it to. Now artificial intelligence has been used to read a human’s thoughts via the output of an individual’s brain waves to move a computer cursor on a monitor while the individual remains motionless. In addition, it has been shown that a small silicon-based chip attached to the skull of an individual can be used to interface with the internet. The chip can stimulate neurons and provide answers to most any problem or discover any fact. The information is then spoken or written. Amazing, but where will this go? How will it be used? The potential for good is as easy as the potential for misuse. Regardless of how quickly the future is reconstructing our world with the introduction of internet technology, artificial intelligence and BCI, the brain-based methods offered in this book leave an open door for every human and his independent brain to make choices. The brain-based methods described in this book show how technology can be served for our better good rather than its misuse.

NEUROSCIENCE IN THE LIFE OF A CHILD TODAY AND AROUND THE CORNER
How practical and scientifically relevant is neuroscience today? Just as important is how this research can be increasingly adapted to the lives of children today?
Here is a glimpse about what is possible, and what is beginning to sway science and the public as to why neuroscience will have a greater impact on humanity than information technology, artificial intelligence, the wheel, and fire have all had combined.
Let us start with the age-old controversy between the impact that the environment has on a growing child and its rival, genetics. Historically they have been at loggerheads as to which is more important in determining what makes us who we are. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, genetics was preordained as the primary basis for determining who we become. In the twentieth century the influence of the environment became predominant. Any child, it was said, is primarily a blank slate and could be conditioned to become whatever we want. Genetics took a beating, but now we know better. Our genetic foundation and the environment are both central to what makes us who we are.
Today we have essentially answered the controversy and discovered that, in fact, the brain is not a blank slate that is merely a reflection of the experiences a child is exposed to beginning prenatally and the moment a child is born. Genetics provides a framework, even a basis, for different abilities and temperaments that children have been born with. We know that now. Genetics is reflected in the color of our hair, our height, and other observable physical differences. It has not been a far step to question, consider and research genetic blueprints that may contribute to a child’s learning and behavioral abilities and disabilities, as well as psychiatric disorders. In fact, we have. This has now included Aspergers Spectrum Disorders, Schizophrenia and a growing list of human behaviors.
Still, we have now disclosed a new surprising and unforeseen twist.
Many of our genes cooperate with the influence of experiences on our brain and our experiences cooperate with our genes in life starting even prenatally. The impact of our genes can be diminished, enhanced, or altered through the influence of experiences. This has even been given a name, epigenetics. Current discoveries in the relatively recent field of epigenetics also give rise to many fascinating discussions and debates that impact how we deal with child development. The brain-based methods elucidated in this book bring that to the fore.
To add to that commotion, the latest rage in genetic engineering has been research related to CRISPR. CRISPR is a technology that has begun to enable us to identify specific genes associated with human maladies and replace them with healthy genes. So far, five genes have been identified that relate to Asperger’s Spectrum Disorder. The wide-eyed excitement of neuroscientists involved in such research cannot stop there. They, and now all of us, are pressed to think of where such research using CRISPR could take us legally, politically, and ethically as we have begun to unlock the genetic door of different types of intelligences, abilities, and temperaments. Super humans, Einstiens, and Tom Bradys could be commonplace. So could terrorists, sycophants and essentially mindless populations that simply blindly follow whatever their Big Brothers say. That being said, we are left with a momentous question that has begun to reach out to our conscience. How much and in what way would we use such knowledge to shape the environmental experiences in raising children and altering the genetic makeup so every child could be what we want them to be? Genetics, environmental influences, epigenetics and now CRISPR can be interwoven to create who we are. How do we want to weave the life of children? What abilities do we want to enhance? What temperaments do we want to diminish or even eradicate, if any at all, and on what basis? The fact is, such concerns cannot be dismissed in novels or science fiction any longer. They are knocking on our door, some have come in, and locking the doors won’t work.
All these ingredients for changing the brain of a child have a common core and a common thesis. Regardless of their cumulative efficacy, the accumulation of all of them still suggests that there may be very little or no limit to the extent to which a child can be shaped and influenced by whatever experiences, doctrines, dictates or values he is exposed to. Could a Nazi have become a saint, a saint an evil war monger? Such concerns reflect the real day-to-day world we will come to live in and certainly one of our children and our grandchildren will inherit. That horizon also raises concern, probably unease and almost certainly confusion. Is that horizon one where humanity could fall off the edge or discover inspiring terra firm and wonderful possibilities?
Neuroscience can show us how to get to our better angels.

THIS BOOK
I was advised by almost all publishers, agents, and editors to emphasize my book as one that has a central how-to format. “It would sell. It would make money.” After a rough and tumble period writing drafts and organizing well over 200,00 pages of notes, salutations, and difficulties within our history, I began to complete a draft with that format. It was quite easy, but then I realized that my book would probably end up on the shelves with hundreds of other wonderful how-to books that leave their mark, help a population of programs and children but then might recede to interesting non-brain-based theories that do blaze trails but then are too often become after thoughts for better or for worse until a new “how-to” fills the air. I don’t want that to happen.
The intention of my book is to enable the reader to understand and appreciate the science that underscores the best methods to raise, educate and help children in need. At the same time, in the same breath, I hope the reader will be engaged and touched by the stories and lives of the children who came through our front door from the streets and abandoned buildings or mansions in the towns of Fairfield County, Connecticut as well as those in many countries who were able to take part in the programs we offered. There are few if any books that embrace both science and the touching lives of children with equal emphasis and attention.
Related to those goals, I left an endowment to MIT. It is meant to bridge the gap of those whose brains are involved in academic and scientific neuroscientific research but at the same time can gain a broader and more personalized perceptive and relationship of other humans who might benefit from their research.
Up to fifty graduate students, postdocs, and faculty will have the opportunity to spend one day per month for an academic year directly involved with the lives of the humans that they hope will benefit from their scientific research. How could they not be impressed and influenced by the lives of those they meet, and not just by the neuroscience they investigate daily? Yes, very different brain-based systems are involved in such distinct and separate experiences.
At the end of Chapters 3-14, I do offer suggestions and methods to use with your children, students, or patients. Some of the brain-based methods will have a familiar ring, at least in part, to the methods the reader has read about or uses. However, others are unique, and when taken as whole, these brain-based methods have shown encouraging and everlasting possibilities for children in large measure based upon their use in the stories and lives of children over more than a forty year history.
Going forward, what is the future of a child’s brain? To repeat, for one, brain science will have a greater impact on humanity than information technology, artificial intelligence, the wheel, and fire have all had combined. The momentous concern that needs to be brought to our individual or collective conscience is how such knowledge will be used. It can grow on us subtly, even without realizing it or suddenly capture us, or guide us. As such, neuroscience can be poised to turn to our detriment or towards an inspiring future. An inspiring future means children are empowered as a matter of habit and lifestyle to make informed and conscientious choices. Information presented on the internet, through social media or by charismatic authorities are questioned. There are always two sides to most every event, idea, and story. Then decisions are made. A detrimental future means a child follows dictates that might not be correct or that might or might not be well intentioned. The brain-based methods described throughout my book points towards an inspiring way. I hope so. What is most important is that the practitioners, that is, parents, teachers and all those involved with childcare may also be inspired because they feel equally empowered. They own the methods. You do. Please read on.