First, I cannot stress enough how you are my people!
So many decision making models and frameworks are starting to converge on the idea that decisions are not data driven, but emotion driven. Is this a good move? Is this OK? Let me check to see how I feel RIGHT NOW - that will tell me. That's fast, cheap thinking that will have to do because brain power is pretty damn expensive from a metabolic standpoint, isn't it? In the end, we are simply far less rational and analytical than we hope we are.
Has more than just the ring of truth that all thought has an emotional ingredient - my experience is that they are intertwined...inseparable,with thought (even what superficially might be considered "neutral" thought) also causing a "flavour" of emotion/feeling to arise...if we look closely enough to notice it...
So emotion as both cause and effect - which sits nicely. 😂🈚️
Hey Stephen. I know I bang on about this myth a lot - but it fascinates me how it fascinates people. And I get into lots of trouble because of it - when I debunk it! Thank you for reading 🙏
Hmm... there's a Buddhist story about what constitutes a "thing" - the example used is a chariot, and the questioning breaks the chariot down into its constituent parts, asking at each stage whether that part gives the whole its nature...
We may well be unable to explain a "thing" by analysing its elements...doesn't necessarily mean that, when reconstructed, the "thing" isn't what it seems to be...
I enjoyed this read and intuitively ( maybe my insula ) is drawn to it but I do become uneasy when we reduce or create a causation chain back to a specific brain region. So I am going to go and do some more reading.
Hey Maud. Thank you for reading. I indeed agree with you - I do not want to appear to say that one area cases one behaviour/serves one function - as it is a common knowledge now in neuroscience that it is just not how things work. Having said that, we also want to be able to learn about the specific regions and understand how they might contribute to the whole - which is what I, very imperfectly, tried to do.
I read one of the other pieces and have commented and in that you seem especially to
explore emotions as shaped by our social and predictive worlds. in this piece you focus on the insula as central to emotion, which makes sense from a brain point of view, but also seems a bit at odds with the idea that emotions are socially constructed. Do you see that as a both/and? Like the brain setting the stage, but the meaning of what we feel coming from culture and relationships. These are things I try to grapple with. This is not my active account so I will follow you from my other account. I keep locking myself out so end up with several accounts.
Hey Maud, that's a really good point re emotions brain-based vs socially constructed - but I don't see these two views being at odds - in fact, however the emotions are made (innate or constructed) there ultimately is a neural correlate for them, they will be rooted in neural circuity that includes the key emotional processing areas such as the insula. I think the key to resolve that apparent paradox is to see that neural networks are plastic and they depend on both nature and nurture, and so while all the underlying machinery might be the same (or very comparable) how it is then shaped to interconnect and interact in a terms of networks is very much influenced by experience (which includes the culture in which we live in). If you see what I mean?
First, I cannot stress enough how you are my people!
So many decision making models and frameworks are starting to converge on the idea that decisions are not data driven, but emotion driven. Is this a good move? Is this OK? Let me check to see how I feel RIGHT NOW - that will tell me. That's fast, cheap thinking that will have to do because brain power is pretty damn expensive from a metabolic standpoint, isn't it? In the end, we are simply far less rational and analytical than we hope we are.
We are definitely far less driven by pure logic than we would like to believe.
☺️🙏🙏
Interesting Ana...thanks!
Has more than just the ring of truth that all thought has an emotional ingredient - my experience is that they are intertwined...inseparable,with thought (even what superficially might be considered "neutral" thought) also causing a "flavour" of emotion/feeling to arise...if we look closely enough to notice it...
So emotion as both cause and effect - which sits nicely. 😂🈚️
I think that’s very relevant. I think I heard some neuroscience big cheese guy using that metaphor to explain the conundrum that neuroscience faces.
Ooh...of course, I'm far too sophisticated to need affirmation🤭...but babes - you just made my day😂
Happy to help 😊
Hey Stephen. I know I bang on about this myth a lot - but it fascinates me how it fascinates people. And I get into lots of trouble because of it - when I debunk it! Thank you for reading 🙏
Hmm... there's a Buddhist story about what constitutes a "thing" - the example used is a chariot, and the questioning breaks the chariot down into its constituent parts, asking at each stage whether that part gives the whole its nature...
We may well be unable to explain a "thing" by analysing its elements...doesn't necessarily mean that, when reconstructed, the "thing" isn't what it seems to be...
Enjoy your day😎
I enjoyed this read and intuitively ( maybe my insula ) is drawn to it but I do become uneasy when we reduce or create a causation chain back to a specific brain region. So I am going to go and do some more reading.
Hey Maud. Thank you for reading. I indeed agree with you - I do not want to appear to say that one area cases one behaviour/serves one function - as it is a common knowledge now in neuroscience that it is just not how things work. Having said that, we also want to be able to learn about the specific regions and understand how they might contribute to the whole - which is what I, very imperfectly, tried to do.
I read one of the other pieces and have commented and in that you seem especially to
explore emotions as shaped by our social and predictive worlds. in this piece you focus on the insula as central to emotion, which makes sense from a brain point of view, but also seems a bit at odds with the idea that emotions are socially constructed. Do you see that as a both/and? Like the brain setting the stage, but the meaning of what we feel coming from culture and relationships. These are things I try to grapple with. This is not my active account so I will follow you from my other account. I keep locking myself out so end up with several accounts.
Hey Maud, that's a really good point re emotions brain-based vs socially constructed - but I don't see these two views being at odds - in fact, however the emotions are made (innate or constructed) there ultimately is a neural correlate for them, they will be rooted in neural circuity that includes the key emotional processing areas such as the insula. I think the key to resolve that apparent paradox is to see that neural networks are plastic and they depend on both nature and nurture, and so while all the underlying machinery might be the same (or very comparable) how it is then shaped to interconnect and interact in a terms of networks is very much influenced by experience (which includes the culture in which we live in). If you see what I mean?