Oliver Edwards
1/3/08
I wonder if I’m the only one who felt that Ledoux was a bit harsh with James’ theory of emotion. I was actually confused about how he seemingly refutes James in the previous chapter, claiming that James was wrong in assuming that emotional responses take place before any conscious awareness. It seems Ledoux has constantly courted the notion that the majority of emotional life is unconscious, yet he shoots James’ theory down on the basis of the very opposite claim. In the fourth chapter, Ledoux says flat out that James was wrong in claiming that the cerebral cortex was needed to produce an emotional response. First of all, I’m not sure if that was part of James’ theory. He may have claimed that the production of ‘feeling’ required the cortex, but it seems that James never got as far as localization of emotion. He was more interested in the nature of how it functioned.
I was very interested in the difference in style and approach between Ledoux and Damasio. Damasio’s writing is much more centered around the telling of a good story. He spends two chapters discussing Phineas Gage, a subject that Ledoux maybe would have crammed into two paragraphs. But I don’t think his ventures into storytelling are a waste of time, mainly because they bring us towards an intimacy with the process of neuroscience. Understanding how Gage’s injury affected his personality, how it made him suffer, really brought home the notion that certain very specific parts of the brain (the prefrontal cortex and others) are extremely important for the subtle interplay that we call our emotional life. Damasio unravels his theory of the emotional brain very carefully, revealing only with extreme tact his own position on the subject of emotional neuroscience.
It is interesting to note that Damasio does not spend much time enumerating the many theories of emotion that he judges to be wrong. Whereas Ledoux gives us a kind of history of failures, leading perhaps towards a constructive process of understanding, Damasio seems to stick to cases and findings that will support a theory that he seems to be pretty confident about. Although he also discusses phrenology, and has the same sense of humor about it, Damasio brings it up only to demonstrate that Gall was in fact correct about the notion of brain localization. The merit of Damasio’s writing is not the encyclopedic quality with which Ledoux constructs his book, but in the richness of his stories.
I was very interested in the case of Elliott, and would be interested to know how much more has been gleaned about emotional neuroscience through studying people like him. The damage caused to his prefrontal cortex seemed to create quite a distinct psychological phenomenon, that of completely sound judgment and understanding of emotion without the ability to decide on an issue involving emotional preference. Did he remind anyone else of the women in James’ What is an Emotion? It seems that with the advent of PET and MRI, more precise evaluations of brain anatomy and function could be executed in the study of people like Elliott Would it be effective to examine the brains of healthy but affectively varied subjects? To what extent could MRI studies evaluate the abnormal emotional behavior of people with diseases like Aspergers and schizophrenia?
4 comments:
Tessa Noonan
Feb. 6, 2008
Yes, Oliver, I did also see a connection between Elliot and the woman mentioned in James's piece. This distinct psychological phenomenon, as well as the story of Phineas Gage, seem to open up very interesting prospects for studying emotions.
Another example of potential study in emotional variety was briefly mentioned by Damasio in the first two chapter. When describing Phineas Gage, he cites his propensity for collecting things, which Damasio relates to individuals he has observed with autism. His assertion that navigation of a complex social environment could be dependent on specific brain functions also seems in line with descriptions of people on the autistic spectrum, especially with the characteristic lack of emotion. Damasio's later description of Elliot's lack of attachment of emotion to his memory exactly parallels statements by Temple Grandin, who writes extensively about her life with autism. Although this does not have a direct connection with the readings for this week, I think it makes a really neat parallel to the study of emotion and potential emotional dysfunction.
Reading about Elliot knowing he used to feel a certain way about things and no longer did definitely strongly reminded me of the woman mentioned in James's piece as well. To me that is a phenomenon that conjures up more questions than I even know how to ask. How strange that one can remember a feeling but no longer feel it.
I, too, found the difference in style and approach between LeDoux and Damasio not only interesting but quite influential on the way I received the information they were handing me. With LeDoux, I constantly feel like I’m striving to discover something but in the end am disappointed to find out that what I just learned about is, indeed, incorrect. It’s an interesting way to present the ideas, but for me personally I’m not sure the “history of failures” (as Oliver calls it) is as conducive to my learning as a building up of successes.
Damasio’s first four chapters are written in a delightful mixture of storytelling and objective information. I found myself thinking about Phineas Gage all week, and ended up in quite a few heated conversations with peers about whether one’s “personality” is just made up of connections and pathways in the brain, or if there is “something more.” I’d never heard of this freak miracle/accident/whatever you want to call it, and it is absolutely mind-boggling and obviously hugely scientifically influential.
I enjoyed the diagrams in Chapter II and the explanation of what is going on in the brain in a less conceptual matter and on the nerve level. I think the questions Damasio raises are well posed and open up a whole new can of worms, so to speak. I’m excited to hear what kinds of ideas will be brought up in discussion tomorrow regarding “personality change.”
I agree with you, Kaila. I think that is the hardest question to answer: if there are personality pathways or if personality is just made up of "something" more, like you have stated. I can't help but take all these readings and say it is both. I am struggling as I write this because there doesn't seem to be a solution.
Damasio writes Elliot as 'emotionally contained'. Are 'normal' people unemotionally contained? Do we use facial expressions to determine the 'containment' of emotions?
Oliver has great points regarding the writing styles of both Damasio and LeDoux. Like Kaila has said, Damasio has a story-like way of writing. I think this helps because he is allowing himself to be involved in his theories and incorporated with his subjects. He makes himself emotionally known by spending the time he does on Phineas Gage. In previous stories I have read of Gage, he is made to be just another case study, something that is interesting, yes, but not human.
Post a Comment