Emotions and Motivation

Leave a reply

People generally believe that thoughts and emotions are separate, often opposing, motives for behavior. We think of ourselves as—at least potentially—rational beings who can make, and then act on, dispassionate logical decisions. On the other hand, although we might value emotional expression in art or relationships, we can also see our emotions as unruly “irrational” forces that hijack our behavior and make us do things despite our better judgment: We see a piece of cake, feel pleasure as we imagine its taste and texture, and despite thinking “I shouldn’t eat this.” find ourselves doing just that.

As a result, people may conclude that things would work best if we suppressed our emotions and just followed our rational thinking. In reality, thought without emotion doesn’t influence action: thoughts are only as motivating as the emotions they accompany.

So, the problem isn’t that we desire the cake, but rather that the thought “I shouldn’t eat this.” isn’t coupled with negative emotions strong enough to overcome the pleasure and excitement triggered by the thought of eating it. If instead we remember having felt angry, even disgusted, with ourselves for having indulged in the past–or even better–pride over having successfully resisted, to the extent that those memories trigger strong emotions in the present, we might turn away from the cake and distract ourselves. Anticipatory emotions triggered by imagining how we will feel after eating can also have the same effect. After the fact, we might attribute our self-restraint to “willpower” supported by rational thought, rather than understanding it as the happy outcome of a tug of war of emotions.

Neurological evidence supports this idea. Brain injuries that damage the limbic areas responsible for emotional responses leave people passive and unmotivated. People with injuries that prevent emotional input to the frontal brain areas where planning occurs are incapable of deciding whether to make an appointment on a Monday or a Tuesday. Much of the time people with this lack of emotional input to decision making areas seem unchanged because they rely on habits that they developed before the injury. Indeed, much of what we think and do is a product of force of habit.

So, rather than thinking in terms of thought versus emotion, it is more accurate to think of behavior as the result of emotions and habits.

Habits are created when emotions motivate us to repeatedly think or do the same thing. That said, emotions can also interfere with habitual behavior: e.g. while following your morning routine, the sight of a piece of cake in the fridge triggers anticipatory pleasure that takes you off track.

Another way of putting it is that emotions and habits are the brain’s motivational operating system.

The things that we know and believe are also mental habits, originally created by emotion-based reinforcement: knowing that 2+2=4 is a mental habit reinforced by childhood experiences of pride when others praised us for getting it right and shame we felt when we didn’t.

How Do Emotions Operate?

Emotions are the result of an unconscious interpretation of a present, imagined or remembered situation as bad or good; according to evolutionary biology, bad or good for passing on our genes to the next generation.

Each emotion has a specific goal. For example, fear motivates us to avoid, escape or neutralize danger. Anger motivates us to take control of situations: to stop others (or ourselves) from doing things that we believe are against our interests, or to get them to do things that we believe will benefit us.

Emotions further their goals in two ways: instinctual responses and and attention leading to problem solving.

Instinctual responses include both actions and physiological changes that support them. Both fear and anger trigger the fight or flight response: adrenaline is released into the blood, resulting in increased heart rate and blood sugar; blood flow to the muscles is increased; surface blood vessels contract to limit bleeding if attacked.

Some emotions also trigger facial expressions and physical postures intended to induce emotions in others that then motivate them to act in ways that further the emotion’s goal. When we grimace from pain, others feel discomfort that motivates them to help us with the dysfunction or injury that has caused it. When we feel sad over losing someone or something we were bonded to, our facial expression and dejected posture elicits concern and consoling behavior that reminds us of existing connections, and possibly creates new ones.

The sensation of these physical changes are the “feeling” of the emotion. We feel emotions in our bodies.

When an emotion focuses our attention on the object–or thought–that is associated with the emotion, this facilitates problem-solving. You see a pothole out of the corner of your eye, the idea of going into it triggers fear, which makes you pay attention to it and rapidly, unconsciously, develop and implement a plan avoid it.

If someone doesn’t say hello back, we interpret this as a rejection, feel hurt, maybe then angry, and think “He doesn’t like me.” Not only does the hurt keep us focused on this idea, it validates it. In this situation we are more likely to say “I feel that he doesn’t like me.” than “I think that he doesn’t like me.” When we say “I feel that…” we are expressing a thought that is validated by an emotion. Indeed, concordant emotions makes thoughts “feel true.” (Imagine thinking “He doesn’t like me.” but feeling nothing; doesn’t feel true, does it?).

Why don’t we understand the role emotions play?

The main reason we don’t understand the ubiquitous role of emotions is that they focus our attention on the objects or thoughts that trigger them, rather than on the physical sensations that allow us to consciously identify the emotion. We typically only pay attention to the feeling of the emotion when the emotion is strong and lasting enough to trigger unusual physical sensations, sensations that trigger distress that then focuses our attention on those sensations, e.g. when fear of public speaking makes our heart race and knees shake, allowing us to identify that we are afraid. But this is the exception to the rule: most emotions are mild and transient. They slip under the radar unless we are asked to identify them by a therapist or friend.

We also may become aware of an emotion when it motivates a behavior that we don’t like: e.g. when the person who thinks of herself as “nice” feels anger that motivates her to shout “in spite of herself.”

Emotions are not a problem; in fact, we need them to motivate action and the creation of helpful habits. That said, emotions work best when they are mild and brief, when they serve a “signaling” function which draws our attention to things that may be important, but aren’t strong enough to trigger impulsive action. This allows us to consciously evaluate the importance of those things and, if necessary, consider possible responses and their outcomes. This thinking may then generate other emotions that may reinforce a well founded but weak signal emotion, or counter an unfounded one.

 

 

“Never Be Late Again” – review

If you are someone who has problems being on time, or you live, work or socialize with a person who does, you know how much of a problem lateness can be. Chronic lateness stresses personal relationships and undermines careers. By making a bad impression on a date or at a job interview even a single lateness can change the direction of a person’s life.

I am a psychotherapist who has worked with many chronically late clients. When I decided to write about this issue, I reviewed the psychological literature, only to find that very little has been written specifically about people who have problems being on time.

Diana DeLonzor is the only psychologist who wrote specifically about—and for—people who are chronically late in a variety of situations. In her self-help book “Never Be Late Again” she writes about seven lateness syndromes.

Rationalizers refuse to accept that s/he has a problem, believing that others are too “uptight”, blaming lateness on uncontrollable circumstances, and failing to see the selfishness of her choices.

Producers squeeze as much as possible into a day. They repeatedly underestimate how long even routine tasks take. They ignore possible delays, fixating on rare, perfect, outcomes.

Deadliners leave at the last minute because they enjoy a fast paced, pressured, risky lifestyle.

Indulgers find it difficult to postpone gratification.

Absent Minded Professors are late because of distractibility (potentially as a result of ADD), forgetfulness (e.g. of appointments and of belongings such as keys) and a failure to consider others as a result of being caught up with their own thoughts.

Rebels have some combination of a desire to feel powerful (often to mask a sense of powerlessness), difficulty accepting authority (resulting from an authoritarian upbringing), &/or a need to feel special or unique by defying social norms.

Evaders have low self-esteem, manifesting in anxiety and/or depression. They avoid situations where they expect rejection and failure. They may use lateness as a self-esteem preserving excuse for failure.

DeLonzor offers good practical exercises. However, her analysis of what causes these issues doesn’t go very deep. She also fails to discuss two of the most important and most neglected causes of chronic lateness: sleep issues and transit avoidance.

Sleep issues—which can be caused by a variety of factors including night owl tendencies. lack of sleep and poor sleep—create morning fatigue that makes people press the snooze button.

Although solving sleep issues may not be easy, the person is usually aware of how this contributes to his or her lateness. This is often not the case with transit avoiders who are often not aware that this is the reason that they find it so hard to get out the door. Without awareness of the problem, it is not possible to solve it.

In order to address the limitations of what has been written to date, I have created lateness.org. You will find a comprehensive exploration of the causes, and techniques for becoming punctual.

 

“The Selfish Gene” – review

In this classic, fascinating sociobiology text, Dawkins shows how mathematical analyses can help us understand the evolution of social behaviors in humans and other animals.

For much of the book, Dawkins uses game theory to show how differing strategies can come to coexist in populations. He does this with strategies of physical aggression (“hawk”, “dove”, “bully” etc.). He also uses this approach to explain how the sexes could have evolved and to analyze the interactions of various mating and infant-care strategies.

Dawkins also shows how mathematical models can explain the evolution of altruistic behaviors—i.e., behaviors that promote others’ survival while reducing the chances of survival of the altruistic individual. Here the analysis is based on the fundamental understanding that natural selection operates at the level of genes rather than organisms.

In the process of natural selection, random mutation creates differing alleles (versions) of genes that create different varieties of a feature (e.g. different eye colors, or different levels of aggression). The alleles that provide the organism with characteristics that best serve to reproduce that allele become increasingly common in the population. For example, an allele that confers resistance to a fatal disease will become more common because individuals who have the allele will be more likely to survive and have children who carry that allele.

By reducing the likelihood of survival, altruism reduces the likelihood of reproduction of individual organisms. However, an allele that creates an altruistic behavior could become common if that behavior preferentially benefited enough other individuals who also carried that allele: the process known as kin selection. For example, if an individual with one copy of an allele sacrificed their life to save the lives of two individuals who both carried a copy of that allele, the loss of the one copy would be compensated for by the preservation of two. Altruistic acts toward closer relatives are more likely to be of benefit to an allele because closer relatives are more likely to also have that allele.

In a similar vein, Dawkins elaborates the strategic advantages of reciprocal altruism and forgiveness using an analysis of “the prisoner’s dilemma” trust game

All of this makes for fascinating reading. However, in order to make his arguments more engaging and accessible to the general public, Dawkins takes three linguistic and logical shortcuts that can lead the reader to misunderstand the process of natural selection.

Dawkins makes the common mistake of referring to gene alleles as “genes.” Secondly, for much of the book he writes at the level of the individual organism rather than the allele. Thirdly, he writes as if genes—and animals—are thinking beings that consciously strategize with self-reproducing goals in mind.

Dawkins sometimes points out when he is taking the logical shortcuts, and they don’t compromise his mathematical analyses of specific strategies. However, he almost never restates his arguments in scientifically objective, allele-centered terms. As a result, these shortcuts can prompt the reader to misunderstand natural selection as a process in which genes direct individual organisms to engage in a dog eat dog competition for dominance.

When evolutionary theorists write of “survival of the fittest” they are referring to reproductive fitness, not the ability to win a fight. Indeed, Dawkins himself shows how non-aggressive strategies can come to stably co-exist with aggressive ones in a population.

Unfortunately, Dawkins himself seems to have succumbed to this misconception. On page 2 he writes: “I shall argue that the predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfish behavior.”

Gene alleles don’t have attitudes to other alleles of the same gene, they simply code for characteristics, only a fraction of which have anything to do with social behavior. Is an allele that confers disease resistance “selfish”?

The alleles that become frequent in a population are the ones that code for characteristics that enhance their reproduction. Most mutations produce alleles that reduce the viability of the organism and hence of the allele. If one wanted to attribute a quality to alleles that become common it would be “lucky,” or “effective,” not “selfish.”

That said, reading “The Selfish Gene” was a pleasurable, at times even enlightening, experience for this reviewer. I strongly recommend this book, especially if you don’t already have a background in game theory or in the theory of kin selection.

Just be careful to step around the pitfalls that Dawkins falls into.