4/6/08
Mikal Shapiro
According to Ochsner and Gross, one of the ways researchers have investigated emotion control is through “behavior regulation,” such as the restriction of physical expression; a method that ultimately excites SNS activity, hinders memory and, in the end, doesn’t really change how happy or crappy one feels (p. 243). This makes sense given our LeDoux readings: If emotions are, in large part, interoceptive, suppression of expression may only mask external systems without addressing the internal ones. Because this masking further activates the nervous systems, behavior regulation may cause more aggravation in the long run and may even promote dysfunctional personality traits such as passive-aggressiveness (I haven’t researched this. It’s just my own folk theory based on personal bad experience). Research also validates that feelings can occur even if the ability to express them behaviorally is limited by lesions, locked-in syndrome, paralysis, etc. (Tsuchiya and Adolphs, p. 163).
Cognitive models suggest more beneficial emotion regulation through “attentional control” and “cognitive change.” By reconditioning the subjects’ expectations of natural and conditioned pain stimuli, research shows the mind can more globally control emotion states than a body-mind-emotion approach. This mind-over-matter method stems from a conscious “reappraisal” of negative memories--the ability to redefine how we feel about provocative personal experience. Through a cognitive approach, we can “neutralize” bad memories without eradicating them: In a sense, forgive them but not forget them (Oschner and Gross, pp. 243-245).
I believe this kind of hindsight is an extremely important intellectual function. It offers us keener options with future decision-making by giving us vital information about the formation and also the internal negotiation of negative experiences. Research shows emotion affects our decisions (Dolan, p. 1194). More emotional-processing options means better decision making and more conscious creation of our lives. We could learn to harness our emotional flow. I’d like to think LeDoux is right when he concludes, “wouldn’t it be wonderful if we did understand where our emotions were taking us from moment to moment, day to day, and year to year, and why?” (p. 303). I’d like to know. Wouldn’t you? Or do you think life would lose some of its remarkable mystery if we understood our emotional ticks? Would the choice of whether or not to relinquish ourselves to the push-pull of moods create a flat line of emotional experience or would the choice result in, as LeDoux writes, “a more harmonious integration of reason and passion.” I don’t know but harmony sounds good. I’ll vote for that.
Although we don’t need to be conscious of our emotions to experience them, the fact that we can be is made possible through the overlapping of emotion and consciousness-generating brain systems (Tsuchiya and Adolphs, p. 160). Though this “clarity” is not very conducive to quick-and-dirty survival conditions (LeDoux), it is necessary for long-term planning. LeDoux writes about the growing reciprocity of amygdala-cortex connections in higher primates and I ponder (with a nod to Tsuchiya and Adolphs’ recommendation for the collaboration of “neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers” [my italics] p. 158) whether the scientific investigation of emotions could strengthen the amygdala-cortex reciprocity by helping us become more aware of our interoceptive natures. Are we planning our own emotional evolution?
4 comments:
I was also particularly interested in the article by Ochsner and Gross on the cognitive control of emotion. He discusses current work regarding hoow individuals are able to influence their own emotions, and he states that one scheme suggests that, "Behavioral regulation of negative emotions might limit expressive action but does not dampen unpleasant experiences, worsens memory, and increases sympathetic nervous system activity. By contrast, cognitive regulation neutralizes negative experience without impairing memory and might decrease physiological arousal." I found this interesting because I wondered not only what exactly behavioral and cognitive regulation imply but also how they measure they effectiveness of these skills in people.
Oshsner and Gross's ideas on reappraisal are something that I have been reading about for conference and something that I also am particularly interested in because of their implications for the future of therapy. There are obvious benefits to the active regulation and reappraisal of emotional stimuli. When we are able to redefine and re-contextualize emotional events we are able to move beyond rumination or suppression of emotion by re-evaluating what it means to us. I think the Dolan article makes a good point about this in terms of the fractionation of feelings and emotion. The immediate stereotyped emotional responses are different from the long term influences of feeling states. So, the initial reaction doesn't necessarily have to reflect the long-term feeling associated with an event. This leaves something to be said for the conscious ability to adjust our perception of an emotional event in order to influence our long-term feelings about.
I like your question - "are we planning our own emotional evolution?" While I clearly don't have an answer to that, I did find it really interesting that LeDoux chooses to end his book by discussing what might lie ahead for human beings in regards to the connections between emotion and thought. He writes, "This suggests the possibility that as these connections continue to expand, the cortex might gain more and more control over the amygdala, possibly allowing future humans to be better able to control their emotions." Interestingly, for my conference project I am reading Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman, in which the argument is made that part of why our modern society is plagued with so many horrific instances of violence and destruction is because our human evolution has not yet fully caught up with the available technology. So, for example, the fact that a gun is so instantaneous in its ability to cause massive damage has not yet been accounted for by our emotional response system, which might signal someone to shoot before knowing what they are shooting at. Goleman thus sees emotional intelligence as one way in which people can and do adapt by learning to gain control over their emotions (which he pretty much paints as having the potential to rage out of control at any given moment), which seems akin to what LeDoux is suggesting may happen on the brain level eventually.
Tessa Noonan - 4/9/08
The intricate symbiosis between consciousness, bodily response and emotional experience is of particular interest to me this week, especially LeDoux's addition of working memory into the equation. Of course, working memory does seem to be a main component of consciousness, as LeDoux argues, and thus has a prime role in the experience and evaluation of emotion. LeDoux, as well as several of the articles, also refer to James's belief that emotions cannot exist as disembodied entities, that in fact the feedback creates the emotional experience. Certainly we saw this in the Valins experiment, and we encounter this in the phrase a "visceral reaction" as LeDoux addresses. Clearly the intertwining components of conscious and unconscious reactions produce some account of an emotion, as both cognitive and physical reactions play a necessary role in emotion production and processing.
Post a Comment