The satisfying section of the Managing Your Opportunities workbook includes two pages on neuroscience. The first, titled “why we make decisions”, shows a drawing of a head and brain beside three empty boxes. The second, “neuroscience in practice”, pairs an image of the brain with an image of a heart, each with a box to fill in.
The pages point to a popular idea in sales training: that people decide with emotion and justify with logic, and that understanding the brain can help you sell. There is truth in that idea, but it is often wrapped in oversimplified or outdated science. This article explains what the research actually supports, where popular claims go wrong, and what it means for honest selling.
The popular version
A common sales-training explanation of decision-making goes something like this:
- The brain has three layers: a primitive “reptilian” brain concerned with survival, an emotional “limbic” brain and a rational “neocortex”.
- Decisions are made by the primitive and emotional parts, quickly and unconsciously.
- The rational brain then constructs a logical justification afterwards.
- Therefore, sell to the emotions, and give the logic as a supporting argument.
The three empty boxes on the workbook’s brain page would fit this model neatly. It is memorable and contains a kernel of truth. But the “three brains” part, in particular, is not how modern neuroscience describes the brain.
The problem with the “three brains” model
The idea of a layered brain with separate reptilian, emotional and rational parts comes from the “triune brain” model proposed by the neuroscientist Paul MacLean in the mid-twentieth century. It was influential and remains popular in business books, but it has been largely abandoned by neuroscientists.
The main problems are that brain regions did not evolve as neat layers added on top of each other, and that emotion and reasoning are not housed in separate, competing units. Emotional and cognitive processes are deeply intertwined and involve networks spread across many regions. The model is a metaphor, not an anatomy.
Using it as a loose metaphor (“people respond to safety, feeling and reason”) does little harm. Presenting it as science, especially to technically minded customers, can undermine your credibility.
What the research does support
Strip away the outdated anatomy, and several well-supported findings remain. They are arguably more useful than the popular version.
Emotion is essential to decision-making
Some of the most influential work on this comes from the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, described in his book Descartes’ Error (1994). He studied patients with damage to parts of the brain involved in processing emotion. Their intelligence and logical reasoning remained largely intact, yet they struggled badly to make everyday decisions, sometimes deliberating endlessly over trivial choices or making poor personal and financial decisions.
Damasio’s interpretation, known as the somatic marker hypothesis, is that emotional signals help us evaluate options quickly by marking them as good or bad based on past experience. Without those signals, reasoning alone struggles to settle on a choice. The details of the hypothesis are debated, but the broader conclusion that emotion and reason work together, rather than in opposition, is widely accepted.
The practical point is not that buyers are irrational. It is that feelings are part of how rational people decide.
We use mental shortcuts
Research in psychology and behavioural economics, associated with Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky and many others, shows that people use mental shortcuts (heuristics) to make decisions efficiently. Kahneman popularised a distinction between fast, intuitive thinking and slower, deliberate thinking. Both play a role in most decisions.
Shortcuts are usually helpful, but they create predictable patterns. A few that matter in buying decisions:
- Loss aversion: losses tend to feel larger than equivalent gains. A buyer may be more motivated by avoiding a costly failure than by an equivalent improvement.
- Status quo bias: people tend to stick with what they have, even when alternatives are better, partly because change feels risky.
- Anchoring: the first number someone hears tends to influence their judgement of later numbers.
- Social proof: people are reassured by evidence that others like them have made the same choice.
Some findings in this field have not replicated as strongly as first reported, so it is wise to treat specific effects as tendencies rather than laws. The broad picture, that human decisions are shaped by more than a calculation of costs and benefits, is well established.
Trust and risk dominate business purchases
In business-to-business buying, the decision-maker is often not choosing only for themselves. They are risking their reputation within their organisation. A purchase that goes wrong can damage their standing; a safe choice that works protects it. That is why perceived risk, trust in the supplier and reassurance often weigh as heavily as features or price.
Head and heart: the workbook’s second page
The workbook’s “neuroscience in practice” page pairs the brain with the heart. A sensible way to fill it in, consistent with the research, is:
The head needs:
- clear evidence that the solution works
- a sound business case: costs, benefits, payback
- answers to technical and practical questions
- confidence that implementation is feasible
The heart needs:
- trust in the people and the organisation
- confidence that the risk is manageable
- a sense that the supplier understands their situation
- reassurance that they will not look foolish for choosing this
A proposal that satisfies the head but not the heart often stalls: the buyer agrees it makes sense but does not act. A proposal that satisfies the heart but not the head may win a first purchase but fails under scrutiny. Good proposals address both.
What this means for selling honestly
Understanding the role of emotion in decisions raises an ethical question. If feelings influence decisions, should you try to manipulate them?
The short answer is no, and not only for ethical reasons. Manipulation (creating false urgency, exaggerating fear, exploiting biases) may win an occasional sale, but it destroys trust when customers realise what happened, and in business markets they usually do. It also invites complaints, refunds and reputational damage.
The honest application is different. It means recognising that customers need both a sound case and genuine reassurance, and providing both truthfully:
- Address real risks openly. Explain how you will manage them, with guarantees, phased approaches or trials where appropriate.
- Show relevant evidence. Case studies and references from similar customers address both the head (it works) and the heart (people like me chose it).
- Make the status quo’s costs visible. Help the customer see what staying the same really costs, using their own figures where possible.
- Reduce the cost of a wrong decision. Smaller first steps, clear exit options and good support make a decision feel safer.
- Be someone they can trust. Reliability, honesty and genuine understanding are the most powerful reassurances of all.
Applying this to proposals and conversations
In conversation
- Ask about consequences and feelings as well as facts: “What would it mean for you personally if this went wrong?” or “How is the team feeling about the current situation?”
- Listen for worries and address them directly.
- Notice when a customer agrees logically but hesitates. That gap is usually emotional (concern about risk, change or reputation) and worth exploring gently.
In proposals
- Open with the customer’s situation and goals in their words. It shows understanding, which builds trust.
- Present the business case clearly, with honest assumptions.
- Include evidence from similar customers.
- Address risks and how they will be managed.
- Make the next step small and clear.
When groups decide
Many business purchases are made by groups rather than individuals: a manager and a finance director, a committee, a board. Group decisions add their own dynamics.
- Different people weigh different things. An operations manager may care most about reliability, a finance director about cost and payback, an end user about ease of use. Each person’s head and heart need different reassurance.
- The safest option often wins. In groups, no one wants to be the person who championed a failure. Options that feel low-risk tend to gain support more easily than options that are better but less familiar.
- Champions matter. A person inside the customer’s organisation who genuinely believes in the solution, and can explain it in meetings you do not attend, often makes the difference.
- Information gets filtered. Your proposal may be summarised by someone else before the group sees it. Clear, concise materials that can be passed on intact help.
Understanding who is involved and what each person needs is part of good qualification, and it shapes how you present the case.
Questions that reveal how a customer decides
A few questions help you understand both the rational and emotional sides of a customer’s decision:
- “What would a successful outcome look like for you, and for the business?”
- “What worries you most about making a change?”
- “Have you made a decision like this before? How did it go?”
- “Who else needs to feel comfortable with this?”
- “What would make this an easy decision?”
The answers usually reveal which concerns matter most, and therefore where honest reassurance or evidence will help.
A worked example
A small business proposes a new inventory system to a family-owned wholesaler. This is an illustration.
The owner agrees that the numbers make sense: the system would reduce stock-outs and save staff time. Yet he keeps postponing the decision. The salesperson asks what is holding him back. After a pause, he admits that a previous software project years ago went badly, cost a lot of money and embarrassed him in front of his staff.
The salesperson does not push harder on the financial case. Instead, she proposes a phased approach: start with one product category, with a clear review point after six weeks and the option to stop. She arranges a call with another family business that made the same transition.
The owner agrees. The logic had been satisfied for weeks; what was missing was reassurance about the risk of repeating a painful experience.
Decisions about doing nothing
One option is present in almost every buying decision, and it is easy to forget: doing nothing. In many markets, a supplier’s biggest competitor is not another supplier but the customer’s decision to keep things as they are.
The research on status quo bias and loss aversion helps explain why. Change involves effort, uncertainty and the possibility of a visible mistake. Staying the same feels safe, even when it is quietly costly. Customers often agree that a problem is real and a solution sensible, and still do nothing.
Honest ways to help a customer weigh this option fairly:
- Make the cost of inaction concrete, using their own figures: hours lost, orders delayed, risks carried.
- Lower the cost of change: trials, phased starts and strong support reduce the effort and uncertainty.
- Respect a genuine decision to wait. Sometimes doing nothing is the right choice, and saying so builds trust for the future.
Common misunderstandings
“People are irrational.” Mostly not. They use emotion and shortcuts as part of reasoning, often sensibly.
“Sell to the reptilian brain.” The anatomy is outdated, and the advice tends to encourage manipulation.
“Logic doesn’t matter.” It does, especially in business purchases that must be justified to others.
“Create urgency.” Real urgency (a genuine deadline or cost of delay) is legitimate information. Manufactured urgency erodes trust.
“Neuroscience proves…”. Be cautious with any sales claim that cites neuroscience as proof. The research is real; many popular claims about it are not.
Using research claims responsibly
Because the topic is popular, it attracts confident claims that are hard to verify, such as precise percentages of decisions made subconsciously. A sensible approach:
- prefer broad, well-established findings over precise, surprising statistics
- look for the original source before repeating a claim
- describe findings as tendencies, not laws
- be ready to say “the evidence on that is mixed”
Customers who know the research will respect that caution. Customers who do not will still benefit from honest information.
Bringing it together
The workbook’s pages on neuroscience point to something real: people do not decide by calculation alone. Emotion is part of how we evaluate options, mental shortcuts shape our choices, and in business purchases, trust and risk weigh heavily.
The outdated “three brains” model is not needed to make that point, and the most effective application is not manipulation but honest attention to both head and heart. Give customers a sound case and genuine reassurance, and the decision usually takes care of itself.
Topics and structure drawn from the Managing Your Opportunities sales workshop workbook (Charlie Pidcock); the explanations and examples are GoCore’s own. Research referred to includes Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error (1994); work by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky on judgement and decision-making; and critiques of Paul MacLean’s triune brain model. Examples are illustrations, not real cases. This article is general information, not professional advice.
