#209 IN PRACTICE May/June 2023

Page 1

Healthy Land. Healthy Food. Healthy Lives.

®

M AY / J U N E 2 0 2 3

Food for Thought & Decision-Making BY ANN ADAMS

W

hen I talk to people about what I have found helpful about the Holistic Management DecisionMaking process, I focus a lot on how it really helps with group decisionmaking because it moves the conversation from the typical dynamic of conflict to a more collaborative conversation. Usually, two or three people in a group will have different ideas about some decision and they try to convince the rest of the group about which one’s idea is the best. But, if there is no holistic goal to test a decision toward, how can the group make an informed decision? Likewise, if the conversation is focused on one person having the best idea, the conversation will

Holistic Innovations INSIDE THIS ISSUE Holistic Management encourages innovations at all different levels. People have thought of new ways of marketing their products and services, like the Zinnikers on page 4. Likewise, producers are exploring how animals can be used to improve land health whether on mine reclamation sites like the story on page 7 or scaling high stock density on page 12.

In Practice a publication of Holistic Management International

NUMBER 209

lend itself to someone “winning” and someone “losing”. Rather, if the conversation can be about how do we take the best thinking of all these ideas and run them through the testing questions toward our holistic goal, how might we have an even better final outcome then the original ideas presented? It is this kind of positive group dynamic that focuses on what is best for the group rather than protecting individual territory or ego that made me particularly interested in a study done by Dr. Soyoung Park from the Department of Decision Neuroscience and Nutrition at the German Institute of Human Nutrition in Berlin in 2017. You can see the study at: https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5488927/ . I read about this study in a book titled Eat and Flourish: How Food Supports Emotional WellBeing by Mary Beth Albright published in 2023 by Countryman Press. In the study, they had 87 volunteers who ate either a protein-laden breakfast or carbohydrateladen breakfast. Researchers drew blood from the participants before and after they ate. Then, three hours after they ate, they had to play a game where they were given cash and told they were playing against another person in another room. The “person” was on the research team, but the research subject didn’t know that was the case. The rules of the game were that the “proposer” in the other room could decide how much cash the proposer got and how much the “subject” got as well. If the subject accepted the offer, they both got cash. If the subject rejected the offer, no one got cash. The focus of the study was on the following questions: • How do we respond when we are being treated unfairly but still being arbitrarily enriched? • How do we view our random, unearned fortune in relation to other? • How do we view acceptable sharing of resources? • What guides humans when choosing between options, when we see ourselves

W W W. H O L I S T I C M A N A G E M E N T. O R G

being treated unfairly in favor of another person? Dr. Park also wanted to know how someone’s diet might affect their decisionmaking. But, she was surprised by the results. On the days where subjects ate more protein, they were more likely to accept the offer (even if the amount they got was less than what the proposer was getting). “Their self-interest and logical thinking outweighed their sense of injustice or anger,” says Dr. Park. On the day where they had more carbohydrates, the outcome was reversed with the subjects’ sense of injustice and anger outweighing their willingness to take the smaller amount of cash offered. One big reason for this difference is that eating protein means that you have more of the amino acid tyrosine which is a precursor to dopamine, a “feel good” neurotransmitter that may make someone more likely to be agreeable. The difference in diet responses also caused some anthropologists to hypothesize that when we were hunter/gatherers, we ate more protein. Since we couldn’t store large quantities of food, we shared what we got when we got it (it was hard to hoard). This focus on sharing increased group survival, because it increased the ability to have greater protection and power for survival. If someone got a few extra bites that was okay because there wasn’t that much inequity. Thus, our bodies adapted to producing dopamine when we gorged on the big kill, which affected thoughts about equity and survival. But, when we shifted to agriculture, we were able to store these carbohydrates, which then became “private property.” With private property came new cultural norms around what was fair (inequity was more acceptable now). In this way, carbohydrates became tied to a sense of possession and acceptance of greater inequity in a society. With decreased protein, there was less tyrosine and dopamine being produced that also affected thoughts about scarcity, private CONTINUED ON PAGE 16


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.