The new science of feelings
By Richard J. Davidson and Sharon Begley, Newsweek
If you believe most pop psychology, you probably assume that most of us react to life events in just about the same way—there is a grieving process, a sequence of events when we fall in love, a standard response to being jilted.
But these one-size-fits-all assumptions are not true. In decades of research into the neurobiology of emotion, I’ve seen thousands of people who share similar backgrounds respond in dramatically different ways to the same experience. Why does one person recover quickly from divorce while another remains mired in self-recrimination or despair? Why does one sibling bounce back from a job loss while another feels worthless for years? And why can one father shrug off the botched call of a Little League umpire who called his daughter out while another leaps out of his seat and screams at the ump until his face turns purple? The answer that has emerged from my research is that these differences reflect what I call Emotional Style—a constellation of reactions and coping responses that differ in kind, intensity, and duration. Just as each person has a unique fingerprint and a unique face, each of us has a unique emotional profile.
That may seem as obvious as stating that everyone has a unique personality. But personality is not grounded in identifiable neurological mechanisms; it has not been traced to specific patterns of neural activity in the brain. This is where the theory of Emotional Style breaks new ground: through neuroimaging and other methodologies, I have traced Emotional Style—and, specifically, the six components that make it up—to patterns of activity throughout the brain.
In making those discoveries, I have found that, in contrast to the longstanding scientific orthodoxy, Emotional Style arises partly from activity in regions involved in cognition, reason, and logic—functions that textbooks tell us are as unrelated to emotions as apples are to squid. That has come as a shock to defenders of the view that cognition—which many psychologists and neuroscientists consider the most exalted human capacity—and emotion (viewed as a lesser, almost animalistic trait) run on separate, mutually independent brain circuitry: the former in the “highly evolved” frontal cortex and the latter in the limbic system, which in humans is not much different from that of other animals. In showing that cognition and emotion are not so separate after all, these discoveries have rehabilitated emotion. From a behavior that was, as recently as the 1970s, studied for the most part only in rats and other lab animals, human emotion has now assumed as important a place in neuroscience as thinking.
To further extrapolate the above article would be to say how some people try to defend their viewpoints to those that disagree, while others just call those they disagree with names, belittle them, and try and marginalize them and their views (Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingram, along with a few posters on this sight!).
Funny, Bigger. I observe that most of the name calling comes from those posters of the Leftist persuasion. Their views tend to be all about feeling, not fact or logic.
Big pic,
you have got to be kidding me. You are one of the most offensive name calling people on the site. In fact I think are multiple people on this site, including Blubird.
The other name calling retch.
For you to call others the name caller is
Psycho.
Dog, your post backs up my point by inferring ALL of those of us on the left are sans fact or logic (generalizing seems to be your stock and trade). What names have I used to call those I disagree with, and when have I used them? Please enlighten us with some of YOUR facts and logic as it pertains to your statement.
Joe, please be specific as to me calling anyone names. Good Luck.
P.S. Didn’t see your reply to me answering your question yesterday.
Well, there ya go, Bigs. I said “their” views, not “your” views. Touchy touchy.
Dog, I think some might call your last post “splitting hairs” And I never mentioned you in my original post, so who really is touchy touchy?
No, YOU. No, I said you first. No, you. Well you are too. . .
Wait, we both forgot “I know you are, what am I”. LOL
what am I?
We can’t post the words,they are not allowed. but it starts with F. ENDS WITH HEAD.
Big Pic.
Yesterday I digressed.
My goal is to stick to issues. This is the last time I waist on responding to you.
You should stick to issues too.
Make your points instead of picking fights.
Joe, three words:
Pot
Kettle
Black
Really? I have been biting my keyboard… Get over yourselves, exchange phone numbers, and work it out, or agree to disagree. Over and out! I feel like I’m in the middle of a dying soap opera.
Are they any “posters” that can understand the implications of what we’re actually learning from today’s neurological thought ? So far, I think not.
For example, our culture is way overly-punitive in sending so many to prison (way beyond any other country), at least partially because the legal system does not know any of what is implied here.
The one example to use for now is the Robin Williams/Robert DeNiro movie,”Awakenings”, based on the work of Dr. Oliver Sacks – about a guy who comes out of his “void” long enough to experience and enjoy life for a while, only to go right back in that ‘black hole’ again.
This subject is way more important than even those who have no cognitive ability at all – or refuse to acknowledge needing any.
Reading the above, I rest my case . . .