The Myth of Fingerprints
Every individual fingerprint, like every individual snowflake and leaf, is thought to be unique.
While under the influence at the funeral of Livia Soprano, Tony Soprano’s nephew and protégé, Christopher Moltisanti, took issue with that assumption, at least in regard to fingerprints. He suggested there’s no way to know definitively whether each fingerprint is unique because, in order to determine that, scientists would have to get everyone in the world together in the same place, including everyone who had ever lived. Absent that scenario, he concluded, “They got nothin’.”
In 1986, Paul Simon released Graceland, the album that included the song All Around the World or The Myth of Fingerprints, in which a narrator tells of “a former talk show host” who claims “he’s seen them all and man they’re all the same.”
It’s not that Christopher Moltisanti or a nameless former talk show host are experts on the subject, but I watched The Sopranos and loved Graceland, so those are the associations that came to mind as I read How Emotions Are Made by Lisa Feldman Barrett.
Current research, as well as examination of previous research, has led Barrett and others away from what she calls the classical view of emotions, which includes the belief that each emotion we experience has a defining underlying pattern—a unique fingerprint—in the brain and body. As a result of that fingerprint, the classical view says, we all experience the same basic emotions, which are automatically triggered reactions, and we can “read” others’ emotions from their facial expressions and body language or from physiological changes.
Emotions have been perceived and studied through this lens going back to the time of Plato. Despite the fact that science hasn’t actually produced evidence for a “consistent, physical fingerprint” for a single emotion, it’s still the popular view today.
Fight, Flee, or Freeze?
Fear is an emotion that scientists believed they had “located” in the brain—specifically in the amygdala. This idea was based on studies involving a group of rhesus monkeys in the 1930s whose amygdalae were removed; subjects were then expanded to include humans whose amygdalae were damaged. At first the evidence that the amygdala was the brain center for fear seemed conclusive. But a pair of identical twins with equivalent damage to their amygdalae began to undermine that conclusion.
Both twins had the same education and environment as children and adults, yet one has definite fear-related deficits, while the other experiences normal fear responses. In the latter case, different networks compensate for the missing amygdala. According to Barrett:
The brain must have multiple ways of creating fear, and therefore the emotion category “Fear” cannot be necessarily localized to a specific region. Scientists have studied other emotion categories in lesion patients besides fear, and the results have been similarly variable. Brain regions like the amygdala are routinely important to emotion, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient for emotion.
Different Routes to the Same Destination
So instead of having one unique fingerprint or circuit for each emotion, the brain appears to be more flexible and adaptable in constructing all emotions.
Many to One: Many combinations of different neurons can combine to produce the same outcome—in this case a conscious experience of fear. Think of these neurons as ingredients in your kitchen. You can combine flour and eggs to create many different recipes.
One to Many: On the other hand, a single core system in the brain can contribute to several different mental states, such as thinking, remembering, hearing, and experiencing emotions like fear.
Because it is not the result of a single brain pattern, fear looks and feels different from person to person and sometimes within the same person, depending on the situation. That means bodily responses may differ, too. For example, your heart rate might increase in one instance of fear but not in another.
The fact that your brain constructs your emotions doesn’t mean they’re not real, but neither does it mean you can choose them moment-to-moment. They’re constructed—just like the rest of your experience is constructed—based on past experience, memories, what’s important to you, and the current situation (both internally and externally).
As for Christopher Moltisanti’s pronouncement, he wasn’t talking about the classical view of emotion, but his words might still be applicable. Time and more research will determine whether those who espouse it “got nothin’.” At the very least, they appear not to have what they think they do.