Blog on mind and brain research and advice

Why Did You Do That?

December 31, 2018 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

I’ve been railing against the futility of trying to figure out why we behave as we do for several decades. Now I’ve come across the clearest explanation yet of why why (or why backward, as I refer to it) is a gigantic can-of-worms question that’s just not useful to ask in regard to behavior change.

This is a long quote from Robert Sapolsky’s book Behave, which, at 717 pages, is also a long book. But so far I find that it’s definitely worth reading.

A behavior just occurred. Why did it happen? Your first category of explanation is going to be a neurobiological one. What went on in that person’s brain a second before the behavior happened? Now pull out to a slightly larger field of vision, your next category of explanation, a little earlier in time. What sight, sound, or smell in the previous seconds to minutes triggered the nervous system to produce that behavior? On to the next explanatory category. What hormones acted hours to days earlier to change how responsive that individual was to the sensory stimuli that trigger the nervous system to produce the behavior? And by now you’ve increased your field of vision to be thinking about neurobiology and the sensory world of our environment and short-term endocrinology in trying to explain what happened.

And you just keep expanding. What features of the environment in the prior weeks to years changed the structure and function of that person’s brain and thus changed how it responded to those hormones and environmental stimuli? Then you go further back to the childhood of the individual, their fetal environment, then their genetic makeup. And then you increase the view to encompass factors larger than that one individual—how has culture shaped the behavior of people living in that individual’s group?—what ecological factors helped shape that culture—expanding and expanding until considering events umpteen millennia ago and the evolution of that behavior.

…

Any given type of explanation is the end product of the influences that preceded it. … If you say, “the behavior occurred because of the release of neurochemical Y in the brain,” you are also saying, “The behavior occurred because the heavy secretion of hormone X this morning increased the levels of neurochemical Y.” You’re also saying, “The behavior occurred because the environment in which that person was raised made her brain more likely to release neurochemical Y in response to certain types of stimuli.” And you’re also saying, “…because of the gene that codes for the particular version of neurochemical Y.” And if you’ve so much as whispered the word “gene,” you’re also saying, “…and because of the millennia of factors that shaped the evolution of that particular gene.” And so on.

It is impossible to conclude that a behavior is caused by a gene, a hormone, a childhood trauma, because the second you invoke one type of explanation, you are de facto invoking them all.

Don’t Ask Me Why I declared in a post on this topic published more than five and a half years ago, in which I commented that it isn’t just that our answers are incomplete and often erroneous…

…once we get an answer that seems satisfying, we close the door on that particular line of inquiry. Once we get a good-enough answer, the cause-and-effect link is cemented into place. Occasionally someone might say, “Well, that’s as good an explanation as any,” but that probably applies to the vast majority of our explanations: one is probably just as good (or bad) as another. Yet we believe in whatever answers we’ve arrived at, and we proceed as if they are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It isn’t that I believe there are no answers or explanations to be determined. But as Sapolsky puts it, explanation for any behavior involves a “whole multifactorial arc.” Any given type of explanation is the end product of the influences that preceded it. It’s unlikely you or I are going to have access to all those influences.

So I aim to focus my attention on what questions—and on asking why forward instead of backward.

Emotional Intelligence 2.0

November 2, 2018 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

Emotion is a natural part of intelligence, so the term emotional intelligence might be somewhat misleading, especially considering the popular view of it. Emotional intelligence 1.0 is based on two beliefs. First, that we can detect emotions accurately in other people based on their facial and bodily expressions. And second, that emotions are automatically triggered by events, but we can learn how to control them. Neither belief has held up to rigorous testing.

Emotional intelligence 2.0 is based on the brain being predictive—which means it is always assessing the situation to determine what action we should take—as well as the concept of emotional granularity: putting feelings into words with a high degree of complexity. So the more precisely we can identify and recognize our emotions, the faster and more accurate our brain will be in assessing the situation to determine the most appropriate response.

For the brain, the payoff of higher emotional granularity is efficiency. For us, the payoffs include a greater ability to identify our desired outcomes, enhanced experience, and improved critical thinking and decision-making. Developing an appreciation for a variety of nuanced emotional states is preferable to trying to maintain any particular emotional state.

Nuance and Experience

Artists tend to have a more nuanced perception of colors than non-artists, as do musicians in regard to music, architects in regard to buildings, botanists in regard to plants, and sailors in regard to the sea. Their training alters their experience and with it their sense of who they are.

We can similarly train ourselves to distinguish, appreciate, and detect more nuanced emotions than we habitually identify, which can, in turn, alter what is possible for us to experience and, therefore, who we are, who we can be, and what we can do.

Your personal experience is actively constructed by your actions. You tweak the world, and the world tweaks you back. You are, in a very real sense, an architect of your environment as well as your experience. —Lisa Feldman Barrett, How Emotions Are Made

Our emotional vocabulary reflects the concepts we have for emotions, and those concepts influence our experience because they help our brain “construct” our emotional states.

Research shows that increased emotional granularity doesn’t just add words to our vocabulary; it also leads to a greater ability to experience emotions without getting swamped or tossed around by them. Remarkably, high emotional granularity also leads to better health.

We don’t perceive reality so much as we interact with what’s “out there” in a particular way that creates our conscious perceptions of the world. Although they are internal, we do the same thing with emotions. There are no circuits for fear or anger or happiness or anticipation that are automatically triggered by events, forcing us to experience the resulting feeling. Emotions don’t simply happen to us. They’re conscious reflections of our engagement in and with the world—signs of life, so to speak.

Yes, things happen to us. But more importantly, they happen to us.

Note: For those who want to understand these concepts as they might relate to trauma, including PTSD, here’s a link to an article written by Michael K. Suvak and Lisa Feldman Barrett and published in 2011 in the Journal of Traumatic Stress: Considering PTSD from the Perspective of Brain Processes: a Psychological Construction Approach.

Good Stress vs. Bad Stress

October 16, 2018 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

Although stress is widely viewed as something to be avoided as much as possible, not all stress is harmful. Intermittent stress can motive you and focus your attention, improve your memory and mental and physical performance, and help you adapt. It can also nudge you to change your behavior for the better.

The “father of stress” himself, Hans Selye, said that the opposite of stress is death, so even he didn’t see all stress as bad.

Negative stress is referred to as distress in order to distinguish it from positive stress or eustress. Distress isn’t motivating, and it decreases performance instead of improving it. It can lead to anxiety, feelings of powerlessness, and even depression.

Situations that generate eustress:

feel exciting rather than anxiety-producing
seem to be within our coping abilities (we have a sense of agency or control)
tend to be short-term

Situations that generate distress:

feel unpleasant rather than exciting
seem to be outside our coping abilities (we don’t have a sense of agency or control)
can be either short- or long-term

Some situations, such as illness or the death of a close friend or family member, are likely to create some distress for nearly anyone. But not everyone reacts the same way to the same situations or events. That’s why stress scales that assign a value to potential stressors miss the mark.

Eustress = Excitement

In the 1980s I volunteered to take on a responsibility for a group I belonged to that, on the face of it, was an impossible task. I didn’t know what I was getting myself into initially, and I could have just walked away when I found out. Instead I saw it as a challenge and ended up doing the “impossible” for two full years. Most people I knew then thought I was crazy for subjecting myself to the pressure.

But I didn’t experience the pressure as distress; I experienced it as eustress. I spent many entire weekends, from Friday evening until after midnight on Sunday, doing the impossible and loved every minute of it. I always went back to my regular job on Monday morning extremely short of sleep but much more refreshed, energized, and ready to go than my co-workers who had relaxed all weekend.

Going back to “regular life” was one of the things that contributed to my experience of the weekend stress as positive: it was short-term. I didn’t live every day of my life like that. Another contributing fact was my belief—at least after the first instance—that I could succeed in producing the desired outcome. (So dopamine also played a role in pushing me to all those finish lines.)

Chronic or excessive stress can have harmful effects on the body, the brain, and interpersonal relationships. But not only do we respond differently to life events and situations than others might respond, we don’t always respond the same way every time. So we can’t just compile a list of things to avoid, and avoiding things isn’t the best life strategy, anyway.

Immunity Against Stress

It’s better to increase the ability to handle challenges than to hide out in the hope of never having to face them. Developing a reliable sense of personal agency—the feeling that you can take action to influence your well-being and the outcome of events—is one of the best defenses against distress. And you can’t develop a reliable sense of personal agency unless you are active and engaged in the world—intentionally and purposefully, that is.

In order to be intentional and purposeful, you have to know what you want. When you don’t know what you want, life often amounts to a lot of busywork, reactivity, and fending off the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Knowing what you want focuses your attention and your efforts on what’s important, so you’re less likely to get caught up in the everyday stressors that can add up to a big mess of distress.

There are various things you can do to protect against or cope with stressors, such as eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep and exercise, and taking time to relax. But being clear about what you want (having direction) and developing a reliable sense of personal agency (knowing how much control you have or don’t have in a given situation) can actually help you develop immunity against the harmful, derailing effects of stress. It can even turn potential distress into eustress!

Stressed? Try to Avoid Future Life Crises*

October 3, 2018 by Joycelyn Campbell Leave a Comment

Stress is not a useful term for scientists because it is such a highly subjective phenomenon that it defies definition. —American Institute of Stress

In 1936, Hans Selye, the so-called “father of stress,” defined it as the non-specific response of the body to any demand for change.

It didn’t take long before Selye’s definition expanded to include any unpleasant situation a person was exposed to, their physiological reaction to the unpleasant situation, and the long-term consequences of these reactions (such as an ulcer or a heart attack).

In a 1951 issue of the British Medical Journal, one physician commented that “stress in addition to being itself was also the cause of itself and the result of itself.” Selye himself said that “everyone knows what stress is, but nobody really knows.” And that is pretty much where things are at today.

What Is Stress?

The Global Organization for Stress provides six different definitions of it:

Worry and Anxiety: the worry experienced by a person in particular circumstances or the state of anxiety caused by this. (the Kernerman English learner’s Dictionary)

Bodily or Mental Tension: a physical, chemical or emotional factor that causes bodily or mental tension and may be a factor in disease causation…and a state resulting from a stress is one of bodily or mental tension resulting from factors that tend to alter an existent equilibrium. (the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

Strain and Overwork: strain felt by somebody: mental, emotional, or physical strain caused, e.g. by anxiety or overwork. It may cause such symptoms as raised blood pressure or depression. (the Encarta World English Dictionary)

Mental or Emotional Disruption: a mentally or emotionally disruptive or upsetting condition occurring in response to adverse external influences and capable of affecting physical health, usually characterized by increased heart rate, a rise in blood pressure, muscular tension, irritability and depression. (the American heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

Threat to Well-Being: stress is a term that refers to the sum of the physical, mental and emotional strains or tensions on a person. Feelings of stress in humans result from interactions between persons and their environment that are perceived as straining or exceeding their adaptive capacities and threatening their well-being. The element of perception indicates that human stress responses reflect differences in personality as well as differences in physical strength or health. (the Gale Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders)

Emotional or Physical Threats: stress is a biological term which refers to the consequences of the failure of a human or animal to respond appropriately to emotional or physical threats to the organism, whether actual or imagined; the autonomic response to environmental stimulus [that] includes a state of alarm and adrenaline production, short-term resistance as a coping mechanism, and exhaustion. (Wikipedia)

Getting Closer…

And a seventh definition from Robert Sapolsky, Professor of Biological Sciences and Neurology at Stanford University and author of Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers:

If you are a normal mammal, a stressor is a challenge to homeostatic balance—a real physical challenge in the world—and the stress-response is the adaptation your body mobilizes to reestablish homeostasis.

Only Sapolsky’s definition of stress connects back to Selye’s: the stress response is your body’s reaction to change and its attempt to return to or preserve homeostasis—the physiological equivalent of the psychological status quo.

Although “everybody knows what stress is, but nobody really knows,” we think we know enough to be able to measure it.

The most commonly used measure of stress (the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale) doesn’t distinguish between negative stress (distress) or positive stress (eustress). It lumps all stressors together, assigns them a value, and provides you with a numerical score that is supposed to indicate how likely you are to become ill. As I am finding myself saying more and more these days, yikes!

More on stress next time, specifically the difference between negative and positive stress, how we experience stressors, stress and change, and how knowing what you want and developing a reliable sense of personal agency may be your two best defenses against the potential ravages (which are very real) of your body’s stress response.

As you consider all the different definitions of stress, think about how you would define it.

*Non-ironic advice from a stress-reduction website.

Persevering Is a Habit

September 13, 2018 by Joycelyn Campbell 2 Comments

So Is Not Persevering

Persevering means steadily moving toward your desired outcome regardless of setbacks or obstacles, adjusting course as you go.

Perseverance is the P in IAP. If you don’t create a plan for getting back on track when you (inevitably) can’t or don’t follow through with your intention, one misstep can easily do you in. Your brain essentially reads it as an “end process” command, so that’s exactly what it directs you to do.

Until your brain learns to read missteps differently, you have to refocus and redirect it to get back on track. That requires System 2 attention.

Here are some steps you can take.

Pause. Acknowledge what happened. Check to see if you got some new information from the experience. Maybe you did; maybe you didn’t. If you did, how can you incorporate the new information into your intention or action?
.
Consider your desired outcome. Use the Desired Outcome worksheet if you find that helpful. Is this something you really want? If not, go ahead and “end process.” If it is something you want:
.
Make a new commitment to your intention. Communicate your intention to yourself by more than just thinking about it. Fill out a new IAP Card (adjusted based on the new information, if applicable). Read your intention out loud or communicate it to another person.
.
Focus on your new intention, not on the previous one. In fact, tear up the old IAP card and toss it into the trash. Move forward instead of thinking backward.
.
Train your brain to “pause and refresh” by rewarding yourself each time you do it. It’s a habit like any other habit. If your existing habit is to “end process,” you need to reward yourself for changing it to “pause and refresh.”

Setbacks and obstacles are part of life. There’s no point chastising yourself over them, making excuses, or allowing them more power and control than they deserve. Just take a moment to assess your situation, decide what to do next, and take that step.

Perseverance is key to reprogramming your brain’s autopilot. And the key to perseverance is pausing.