Sharon Begley (1956–2021)
Author of The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force
About the Author
Sharon Begley is the senior science writer at STAT, the life sciences publication of the Boston Globe. The author of the New York Times bestseller Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain, she has received numerous awards for her writings about science.
Works by Sharon Begley
Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves (2007) 610 copies, 17 reviews
Associated Works
The Hand Of God: A Collection of Thoughts and Images Reflecting the Spirit of the Universe (1999) — Introduction — 264 copies
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1956-06-14
- Date of death
- 2021-01-16
- Gender
- female
- Education
- Yale University
- Occupations
- science writer
author
journalist
columnist - Organizations
- The Boston Globe
STAT - Awards and honors
- Public Understanding of Science Award, San Francisco Exploratorium (2005)
AAAS Kavli Science Journalism Award (Online 2019)
Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting (2017)
Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award, American Statistical Association (2009)
Clarion Award, Association for Women in Communications (2004 | 1997)
Front Page Award, Newswomen’s Club of New York (2002 | 2000) - Short biography
- Sharon Begley was born in Englewood, New Jersey, and grew up in Tenafly, where she graduated from high school as valedictorian. She graduated from Yale University in 1977 with a bachelor of arts degree in combined sciences. She began her journalism career as an undergraduate, when she was a contributing reporter for Yale Scientific Magazine. After graduation, she went to work for Newsweek, where she became a well-known science writer. In 2002, after 25 years at Newsweek, she joined The Wall Street Journal to write its weekly science column, "Science Journal." In 2007, she returned to Newsweek to write a science column. From 2012 until 2015, she worked as senior health and science editor at Reuters. In 2015, she became a senior member of the inaugural staff of The Boston Globe's newly-established online life sciences publication STAT. In 2002, she co-wrote The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force with Jeffrey M. Schwartz. Begley published the bestselling Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform Ourselves in 2007. In 2012, she again served as a co-author, this time with Richard Davidson, for The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live -- and How You Can Change Them. She was the author of the 2017 book Can't Just Stop: An Investigation of Compulsions. Begley received numerous awards for her writing, including the 2005 Public Understanding of Science Award from the San Francisco Exploratorium, the 2017 Victor Cohn Prize from the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, and the 2019 Kavli Science Journalism Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). She spoke before many audiences about science writing, neuroplasticity, and science literacy, including at Yale University, the Society for Neuroscience, AAAS, and the National Academy of Sciences.
- Cause of death
- lung cancer
- Nationality
- USA
- Birthplace
- Englewood, New Jersey, USA
- Place of death
- Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Associated Place (for map)
- USA
Members
Reviews
The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live--and How You Can Change Them by Richard J. Davidson
The Emotional Brain: Character, Personality, and Temperament
Those of us committed to personal growth will find much that is rewarding in The Emotional Life of Your Brain. Davidson draws on an array of scientific experiments and studies to develop a set of ideas that can add to our understanding of how the “emotional brain” works, how its unique patterns affect the way we think, feel, and live, and how we can change them.
Three of these ideas are worth highlighting here. The first is that show more contrary to the way we tend to think about it, personality and temperament, though innate, are not fixed or immutable. That traditional view was reinforced in the age of genetics by “The dogma that ‘genetic equals unchangeable.’” If a “negative” trait (say shyness) is inherited and in your genes, you’re stuck with it. Instead, says Davidson, “plasticity is intrinsic to the brain,” and its “ability to change its structure and function in significant ways” extends into adulthood and “through the life of the individual.”
The second idea is that such “change can come about in response to experiences we have as well as to the thoughts we think.” Traits that are genetically based can be altered because “the mere presence of a gene is not sufficient for the trait for which it codes to be expressed. A gene must also be turned on, and studies . . . have shown that life experiences can turn genes on or off.” Thus, “In terms of the shopworn debate called nature vs. nurture, nurture is able to act on nature.” Our brain can be altered by these “experiences as well as by conscious, intentional effort . . . through the intentional cultivation of specific mental qualities or habits.”
And, thirdly, the reason such change is possible is that head and heart are more closely linked in the brain than previously thought: “the barricade that psychology had erected between reason and emotion has no basis in fact.” Emotion involves neural activity in the right and in the left side of the brain, in the amygdala and in the prefrontal cortex. “The circuitry of the emotional brain often overlaps with that of the rational, thinking brain,” so that “Emotion works with cognition in an integrated and seamless way to enable us to navigate the world of relationships, work, and spiritual growth.”
These ideas have broad implications. They suggest that we are not irremediably shaped by our genes, upbringing, environment, or of this or that neural circuitry in our limbic system. We are not at the mercy of our emotions. We can change because our brain can change.
The question of course is how. Davidson answers this question in the terms of traditional psychology by focusing on personality and temperament, offering a new classification of these traits which he calls “Emotional Style.” His claim is that “Understanding the neural underpinnings of the six dimensions of Emotional Style can empower you to recognize your own” overall style and apply various techniques he recommends to change it in the direction you desire.
Briefly stated, the six dimensions are: Resilience (how fast you recover from adversity); Outlook (optimist vs. pessimist); Social Intuition (how adept you are at picking up social signals); Self-Awareness (how well you are in touch with your feelings); Sensitivity to Context (how well you adapt your emotional responses to a given context); and Attention (how well you can focus).
To get an idea of the problems that arise with Davidson’s model, let us consider an example he gives of a situation involving two of these categories: “You might be irritable for a whole day after a morning argument with a coworker but not realize that your funk is the result of being Slow to Recover (This ability to introspect and understand our own emotions is an aspect of the Self-Awareness dimension).”
Now, suppose I answer the book’s questionnaires for these categories, identify their neural correlates in the brain, conclude my styles are “Slow to Recover” and “Self-Opaque,” and follow Davidson’s techniques in the back of the book so that, assuming they work, I’m able to recover faster after my morning argument with my coworker.
Does that improve my relationship with my coworker? Not necessarily. In fact, it could even worsen it, for the more successfully I reduce their negative impact on me and the faster I recover from these arguments the easier it is to continue having them. They just won’t bother me that much anymore. But they may bother my co-worker, other colleagues, and my boss. My “resilience” could actually end up making a lot of people unhappy, affect my work, and even cost me my job.
This is because traits of personality and temperament do not necessarily correlate with the rightness or wrongness of what I’m doing. They are not moral categories. A high degree of optimism can lead me to take unreasonable risks in business or the stock market and leave me in financial ruin. High social intuition, self-awareness, and sensitivity to context can all help me manage myself better the better to lie and manipulate people. Being highly focused can help me succeed in my career even as it leads me to neglect my family and fail as a spouse and as a parent.
In the situation cited by Davidson, I need to look at more than my “emotional style.” I need to look at what I might be doing wrong, at the moral dimensions of the situation. This means looking at my character, understood as a moral category. Traits of character determine whether a trait of personality or temperament serves a morally worthy or unworthy end, whether it works for good or for ill. But Davidson’s model, which is based on personality and temperament to the exclusion of character, makes no provision for such considerations.
A more effective model for personal growth is found in the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, whose principles, it should be noted, can be practiced by anyone. One of these principles is the discipline of self-examination, where I make an inventory of my character defects and associated emotions, taking into account the positive character traits and associated emotions which can displace and replace them. Considered principles of the good life, these positive character traits are traditionally known as virtues, among which, honesty, for instance, is essential to the process of self-examination.
Honestly looking at myself in the above situation, I might find that my “funk” is the result of my nursing a resentment against my coworker. I may be “irritable” because I’m still angry over something she said or did that affected something that is important to me (e.g. my self-esteem), and I’ve been obsessing about it all day. Upon further examination, I may discover that I said or did something which started or contributed to the argument, and that behind my words and actions there were certain character defects at work, perhaps impatience, or unkindness, or intolerance. My adversity, as is often the case with many of us, may have been self-inflicted.
Having made such an examination, I move to take corrective action by practicing other applicable principles. Where I am in the wrong, I promptly and humbly admit it, and I sincerely make amends. Where my coworker is in the wrong, I forgive, turn the matter over, and let go of any ill feelings.
By practicing these principles, I can surrender my resentment and obsession, reconcile with my coworker, and restore peace and harmony to our relationship. Not only do I recover from negative emotions myself, but I can help my coworker to do the same. My recovery goal is not self-centered. I’m not selfishly concerned only about my own well-being.
Depending on the situation, I will find other principles that can help me to recover from adversity: after a loss, for instance, acceptance of the things I cannot change, and gratitude for the things I still do have. By practicing these principles day in and day out and in situation after situation, I am engaging in the kind of conscious, intentional, and repeated effort which Davidson says can help me to acquire the habits which can alter my brain and reshape my thoughts and emotions. I will become better at recovering from adversity, but my recovery will reflect fundamental character and emotional changes, not just an improved personality trait (more resilient).
That personality and temperament are malleable, that emotion and cognition work in an integrated manner, and that experience and thought can reshape the brain are important ideas in Davidson’s book. When it comes to translating these ideas into practice, however, the 12 Steps remain the best program of action. ( ) show less
Those of us committed to personal growth will find much that is rewarding in The Emotional Life of Your Brain. Davidson draws on an array of scientific experiments and studies to develop a set of ideas that can add to our understanding of how the “emotional brain” works, how its unique patterns affect the way we think, feel, and live, and how we can change them.
Three of these ideas are worth highlighting here. The first is that show more contrary to the way we tend to think about it, personality and temperament, though innate, are not fixed or immutable. That traditional view was reinforced in the age of genetics by “The dogma that ‘genetic equals unchangeable.’” If a “negative” trait (say shyness) is inherited and in your genes, you’re stuck with it. Instead, says Davidson, “plasticity is intrinsic to the brain,” and its “ability to change its structure and function in significant ways” extends into adulthood and “through the life of the individual.”
The second idea is that such “change can come about in response to experiences we have as well as to the thoughts we think.” Traits that are genetically based can be altered because “the mere presence of a gene is not sufficient for the trait for which it codes to be expressed. A gene must also be turned on, and studies . . . have shown that life experiences can turn genes on or off.” Thus, “In terms of the shopworn debate called nature vs. nurture, nurture is able to act on nature.” Our brain can be altered by these “experiences as well as by conscious, intentional effort . . . through the intentional cultivation of specific mental qualities or habits.”
And, thirdly, the reason such change is possible is that head and heart are more closely linked in the brain than previously thought: “the barricade that psychology had erected between reason and emotion has no basis in fact.” Emotion involves neural activity in the right and in the left side of the brain, in the amygdala and in the prefrontal cortex. “The circuitry of the emotional brain often overlaps with that of the rational, thinking brain,” so that “Emotion works with cognition in an integrated and seamless way to enable us to navigate the world of relationships, work, and spiritual growth.”
These ideas have broad implications. They suggest that we are not irremediably shaped by our genes, upbringing, environment, or of this or that neural circuitry in our limbic system. We are not at the mercy of our emotions. We can change because our brain can change.
The question of course is how. Davidson answers this question in the terms of traditional psychology by focusing on personality and temperament, offering a new classification of these traits which he calls “Emotional Style.” His claim is that “Understanding the neural underpinnings of the six dimensions of Emotional Style can empower you to recognize your own” overall style and apply various techniques he recommends to change it in the direction you desire.
Briefly stated, the six dimensions are: Resilience (how fast you recover from adversity); Outlook (optimist vs. pessimist); Social Intuition (how adept you are at picking up social signals); Self-Awareness (how well you are in touch with your feelings); Sensitivity to Context (how well you adapt your emotional responses to a given context); and Attention (how well you can focus).
To get an idea of the problems that arise with Davidson’s model, let us consider an example he gives of a situation involving two of these categories: “You might be irritable for a whole day after a morning argument with a coworker but not realize that your funk is the result of being Slow to Recover (This ability to introspect and understand our own emotions is an aspect of the Self-Awareness dimension).”
Now, suppose I answer the book’s questionnaires for these categories, identify their neural correlates in the brain, conclude my styles are “Slow to Recover” and “Self-Opaque,” and follow Davidson’s techniques in the back of the book so that, assuming they work, I’m able to recover faster after my morning argument with my coworker.
Does that improve my relationship with my coworker? Not necessarily. In fact, it could even worsen it, for the more successfully I reduce their negative impact on me and the faster I recover from these arguments the easier it is to continue having them. They just won’t bother me that much anymore. But they may bother my co-worker, other colleagues, and my boss. My “resilience” could actually end up making a lot of people unhappy, affect my work, and even cost me my job.
This is because traits of personality and temperament do not necessarily correlate with the rightness or wrongness of what I’m doing. They are not moral categories. A high degree of optimism can lead me to take unreasonable risks in business or the stock market and leave me in financial ruin. High social intuition, self-awareness, and sensitivity to context can all help me manage myself better the better to lie and manipulate people. Being highly focused can help me succeed in my career even as it leads me to neglect my family and fail as a spouse and as a parent.
In the situation cited by Davidson, I need to look at more than my “emotional style.” I need to look at what I might be doing wrong, at the moral dimensions of the situation. This means looking at my character, understood as a moral category. Traits of character determine whether a trait of personality or temperament serves a morally worthy or unworthy end, whether it works for good or for ill. But Davidson’s model, which is based on personality and temperament to the exclusion of character, makes no provision for such considerations.
A more effective model for personal growth is found in the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, whose principles, it should be noted, can be practiced by anyone. One of these principles is the discipline of self-examination, where I make an inventory of my character defects and associated emotions, taking into account the positive character traits and associated emotions which can displace and replace them. Considered principles of the good life, these positive character traits are traditionally known as virtues, among which, honesty, for instance, is essential to the process of self-examination.
Honestly looking at myself in the above situation, I might find that my “funk” is the result of my nursing a resentment against my coworker. I may be “irritable” because I’m still angry over something she said or did that affected something that is important to me (e.g. my self-esteem), and I’ve been obsessing about it all day. Upon further examination, I may discover that I said or did something which started or contributed to the argument, and that behind my words and actions there were certain character defects at work, perhaps impatience, or unkindness, or intolerance. My adversity, as is often the case with many of us, may have been self-inflicted.
Having made such an examination, I move to take corrective action by practicing other applicable principles. Where I am in the wrong, I promptly and humbly admit it, and I sincerely make amends. Where my coworker is in the wrong, I forgive, turn the matter over, and let go of any ill feelings.
By practicing these principles, I can surrender my resentment and obsession, reconcile with my coworker, and restore peace and harmony to our relationship. Not only do I recover from negative emotions myself, but I can help my coworker to do the same. My recovery goal is not self-centered. I’m not selfishly concerned only about my own well-being.
Depending on the situation, I will find other principles that can help me to recover from adversity: after a loss, for instance, acceptance of the things I cannot change, and gratitude for the things I still do have. By practicing these principles day in and day out and in situation after situation, I am engaging in the kind of conscious, intentional, and repeated effort which Davidson says can help me to acquire the habits which can alter my brain and reshape my thoughts and emotions. I will become better at recovering from adversity, but my recovery will reflect fundamental character and emotional changes, not just an improved personality trait (more resilient).
That personality and temperament are malleable, that emotion and cognition work in an integrated manner, and that experience and thought can reshape the brain are important ideas in Davidson’s book. When it comes to translating these ideas into practice, however, the 12 Steps remain the best program of action. ( ) show less
1st incident: A week ago, I went on a short trip in a lovely town not too far from Athens for three days. We ended up leaving 15 minutes later than planned, because I just HAD to make sure that the door and the windows were locked. And then, I HAD to go back and check whether the boiler and all appliances were switched off. But then, I thought ‘’did I lock properly?’’ Needless to say, I was almost thrown in the car by the other member of the household…
2nd incident: In my class, show more there are three rows of desks. Each desk has a set of two chairs,one painted in pistachio green and a second in canary yellow. They’re so beautiful, they make me happy just by looking at them. One evening, I noticed that three chairs were out of place. I just couldn’t leave until the colour coordination was properly restored.
3rd incident: Possibly the weirdest of all. When we travelled to beautiful Moscow,I insisted that we had to return to the hotel from the same route each night, no matter the spot of the city where we had found ourselves in. If we hadn’t, I was convinced that something would have happened to us.
If you made it through these crazy moments, first of all, congratulations! Secondly, you're probably thinking this is OCD to the core.I thought so too, I even declared so in a half-ironic, half-serious manner, but after reading this book, I realised how wrong I was.
Sharon Begley’s book attempts to shed light in the disorder that becomes more and more notorious and relevant to our age. There are facts and personal confessions that shocked me. I’m not exaggerating. They shocked me and frightened me. It can start harmlessly. Let’s check the mobile phone one more time, let’s check the e-mails even though we checked ten minutes ago, let’s try to pass the level of this addictive video game. And what about all the buttons and the clippings and the clothes we don't need anymore? And the problems mount in frightening progress and the impact on the patients and their close relationships becomes almost irreversible.
What really made me sad was the bottom line in many of the cases referred to in the book. Loneliness, disappointment and a deep feeling of failure. People clinging onto things that they regard as their anchor to a past,happier life or to a life they wanted to live,but fate had other decisions in store for them.
I’ve always considered my mother to be a hoarder. Let’s keep this jar, let's keep this lamp, keep this, keep that...when my grandmother passed away, she simply had to throw away and donate things, it couldn't have been otherwise. And she did so, but I could see the pain in her eyes while she was carrying out the task,and I remember I thought that was such an unhealthy clinging to the past. Now I know I was cruel. You see, I've learnt not to cling onto things. The teaching profession requires us to have almost no basis at all. This year we’re in this school , next year we may found ourselves miles and miles away. But I understand now that my mother has no disorder,nor is she a victim of the past, and I will never call her ‘’a hoarder’’ again.
I appreciated the fact that the writer provides no personal opinions and answers, She states the facts and let us decide and learn. She informs without imposing any explanations on such a delicate subject,and thus, this book does worth your time.
And as for me,next time we travel anywhere, I am determined to change routes to the hotel each and every day.Well, perhaps... show less
2nd incident: In my class, show more there are three rows of desks. Each desk has a set of two chairs,one painted in pistachio green and a second in canary yellow. They’re so beautiful, they make me happy just by looking at them. One evening, I noticed that three chairs were out of place. I just couldn’t leave until the colour coordination was properly restored.
3rd incident: Possibly the weirdest of all. When we travelled to beautiful Moscow,I insisted that we had to return to the hotel from the same route each night, no matter the spot of the city where we had found ourselves in. If we hadn’t, I was convinced that something would have happened to us.
If you made it through these crazy moments, first of all, congratulations! Secondly, you're probably thinking this is OCD to the core.I thought so too, I even declared so in a half-ironic, half-serious manner, but after reading this book, I realised how wrong I was.
Sharon Begley’s book attempts to shed light in the disorder that becomes more and more notorious and relevant to our age. There are facts and personal confessions that shocked me. I’m not exaggerating. They shocked me and frightened me. It can start harmlessly. Let’s check the mobile phone one more time, let’s check the e-mails even though we checked ten minutes ago, let’s try to pass the level of this addictive video game. And what about all the buttons and the clippings and the clothes we don't need anymore? And the problems mount in frightening progress and the impact on the patients and their close relationships becomes almost irreversible.
What really made me sad was the bottom line in many of the cases referred to in the book. Loneliness, disappointment and a deep feeling of failure. People clinging onto things that they regard as their anchor to a past,happier life or to a life they wanted to live,but fate had other decisions in store for them.
I’ve always considered my mother to be a hoarder. Let’s keep this jar, let's keep this lamp, keep this, keep that...when my grandmother passed away, she simply had to throw away and donate things, it couldn't have been otherwise. And she did so, but I could see the pain in her eyes while she was carrying out the task,and I remember I thought that was such an unhealthy clinging to the past. Now I know I was cruel. You see, I've learnt not to cling onto things. The teaching profession requires us to have almost no basis at all. This year we’re in this school , next year we may found ourselves miles and miles away. But I understand now that my mother has no disorder,nor is she a victim of the past, and I will never call her ‘’a hoarder’’ again.
I appreciated the fact that the writer provides no personal opinions and answers, She states the facts and let us decide and learn. She informs without imposing any explanations on such a delicate subject,and thus, this book does worth your time.
And as for me,next time we travel anywhere, I am determined to change routes to the hotel each and every day.Well, perhaps... show less
A well-written book that argues that “mental illness” is a spectrum; none of us is “normal” but some of us are in severe distress and can benefit from particular interventions. As she explains, the discourse around impulse, addiction, and compulsion can get pretty confused, with various problems described in all three ways; some people’s behavior may be better described by one or another. Some compulsive shoppers are depressed or manic; others are anxious. I particularly liked one show more expert’s explanation of how our brains respond to unexpected dopamine hits: “It’s like, DUDE: UNEXPECTED HOT POCKET! KEEP DOING WHAT YOU’RE DOING UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AGAIN! So you keep playing.” I feel I know this expert, and that he would get along well with my son. What about compulsions? Acting on them relieves anxiety, at least for a bit, which teaches the brain that it makes sense to act on them.
Begley doesn’t like the language of “chemical imbalances” in the brain and argues that it’s more about conditioned responses in neural patterns of activity: wiring, not chemicals. Where OCD sufferers seem to have overactive responses to perceived danger, hoarders don’t get the “something is wrong” signal when non-hoarders would. Nonetheless, Begley has commendable caution about what we don’t know about brain activity yet, including differences among people. “The only safe thing to say about compulsive behaviors is that they probably involve dysfunction of the brain’s dopamine-fuled reward circuits.” I learned that a common treatment for Parkinson’s has as a known side effect in a subset of patients triggering compulsive behavior, from gambling to sex. I also learned that the story of Phineas Gage includes not just loss of decisionmaking capacity, but also a new fondness for souvenirs—frontal lobe damage made him a collector, apparently. show less
Begley doesn’t like the language of “chemical imbalances” in the brain and argues that it’s more about conditioned responses in neural patterns of activity: wiring, not chemicals. Where OCD sufferers seem to have overactive responses to perceived danger, hoarders don’t get the “something is wrong” signal when non-hoarders would. Nonetheless, Begley has commendable caution about what we don’t know about brain activity yet, including differences among people. “The only safe thing to say about compulsive behaviors is that they probably involve dysfunction of the brain’s dopamine-fuled reward circuits.” I learned that a common treatment for Parkinson’s has as a known side effect in a subset of patients triggering compulsive behavior, from gambling to sex. I also learned that the story of Phineas Gage includes not just loss of decisionmaking capacity, but also a new fondness for souvenirs—frontal lobe damage made him a collector, apparently. show less
The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live--and How You Can Change Them by Richard J. Davidson
The Emotional Brain: Character, Personality, and Temperament
Those of us committed to personal growth will find much that is rewarding in The Emotional Life of Your Brain. Davidson draws on an array of scientific experiments and studies to develop a set of ideas that can add to our understanding of how the “emotional brain” works, how its unique patterns affect the way we think, feel, and live, and how we can change them.
Three of these ideas are worth highlighting here. The first is that show more contrary to the way we tend to think about it, personality and temperament, though innate, are not fixed or immutable. That traditional view was reinforced in the age of genetics by “The dogma that ‘genetic equals unchangeable.’” If a “negative” trait (say shyness) is inherited and in your genes, you’re stuck with it. Instead, says Davidson, “plasticity is intrinsic to the brain,” and its “ability to change its structure and function in significant ways” extends into adulthood and “through the life of the individual.”
The second idea is that such “change can come about in response to experiences we have as well as to the thoughts we think.” Traits that are genetically based can be altered because “the mere presence of a gene is not sufficient for the trait for which it codes to be expressed. A gene must also be turned on, and studies . . . have shown that life experiences can turn genes on or off.” Thus, “In terms of the shopworn debate called nature vs. nurture, nurture is able to act on nature.” Our brain can be altered by these “experiences as well as by conscious, intentional effort . . . through the intentional cultivation of specific mental qualities or habits.”
And, thirdly, the reason such change is possible is that head and heart are more closely linked in the brain than previously thought: “the barricade that psychology had erected between reason and emotion has no basis in fact.” Emotion involves neural activity in the right and in the left side of the brain, in the amygdala and in the prefrontal cortex. “The circuitry of the emotional brain often overlaps with that of the rational, thinking brain,” so that “Emotion works with cognition in an integrated and seamless way to enable us to navigate the world of relationships, work, and spiritual growth.”
These ideas have broad implications. They suggest that we are not irremediably shaped by our genes, upbringing, environment, or of this or that neural circuitry in our limbic system. We are not at the mercy of our emotions. We can change because our brain can change.
The question of course is how. Davidson answers this question in the terms of traditional psychology by focusing on personality and temperament, offering a new classification of these traits which he calls “Emotional Style.” His claim is that “Understanding the neural underpinnings of the six dimensions of Emotional Style can empower you to recognize your own” overall style and apply various techniques he recommends to change it in the direction you desire.
Briefly stated, the six dimensions are: Resilience (how fast you recover from adversity); Outlook (optimist vs. pessimist); Social Intuition (how adept you are at picking up social signals); Self-Awareness (how well you are in touch with your feelings); Sensitivity to Context (how well you adapt your emotional responses to a given context); and Attention (how well you can focus).
To get an idea of the problems that arise with Davidson’s model, let us consider an example he gives of a situation involving two of these categories: “You might be irritable for a whole day after a morning argument with a coworker but not realize that your funk is the result of being Slow to Recover (This ability to introspect and understand our own emotions is an aspect of the Self-Awareness dimension).”
Now, suppose I answer the book’s questionnaires for these categories, identify their neural correlates in the brain, conclude my styles are “Slow to Recover” and “Self-Opaque,” and follow Davidson’s techniques in the back of the book so that, assuming they work, I’m able to recover faster after my morning argument with my coworker.
Does that improve my relationship with my coworker? Not necessarily. In fact, it could even worsen it, for the more successfully I reduce their negative impact on me and the faster I recover from these arguments the easier it is to continue having them. They just won’t bother me that much anymore. But they may bother my co-worker, other colleagues, and my boss. My “resilience” could actually end up making a lot of people unhappy, affect my work, and even cost me my job.
This is because traits of personality and temperament do not necessarily correlate with the rightness or wrongness of what I’m doing. They are not moral categories. A high degree of optimism can lead me to take unreasonable risks in business or the stock market and leave me in financial ruin. High social intuition, self-awareness, and sensitivity to context can all help me manage myself better the better to lie and manipulate people. Being highly focused can help me succeed in my career even as it leads me to neglect my family and fail as a spouse and as a parent.
In the situation cited by Davidson, I need to look at more than my “emotional style.” I need to look at what I might be doing wrong, at the moral dimensions of the situation. This means looking at my character, understood as a moral category. Traits of character determine whether a trait of personality or temperament serves a morally worthy or unworthy end, whether it works for good or for ill. But Davidson’s model, which is based on personality and temperament to the exclusion of character, makes no provision for such considerations.
A more effective model for personal growth is found in the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, whose principles, it should be noted, can be practiced by anyone. One of these principles is the discipline of self-examination, where I make an inventory of my character defects and associated emotions, taking into account the positive character traits and associated emotions which can displace and replace them. Considered principles of the good life, these positive character traits are traditionally known as virtues, among which, honesty, for instance, is essential to the process of self-examination.
Honestly looking at myself in the above situation, I might find that my “funk” is the result of my nursing a resentment against my coworker. I may be “irritable” because I’m still angry over something she said or did that affected something that is important to me (e.g. my self-esteem), and I’ve been obsessing about it all day. Upon further examination, I may discover that I said or did something which started or contributed to the argument, and that behind my words and actions there were certain character defects at work, perhaps impatience, or unkindness, or intolerance. My adversity, as is often the case with many of us, may have been self-inflicted.
Having made such an examination, I move to take corrective action by practicing other applicable principles. Where I am in the wrong, I promptly and humbly admit it, and I sincerely make amends. Where my coworker is in the wrong, I forgive, turn the matter over, and let go of any ill feelings.
By practicing these principles, I can surrender my resentment and obsession, reconcile with my coworker, and restore peace and harmony to our relationship. Not only do I recover from negative emotions myself, but I can help my coworker to do the same. My recovery goal is not self-centered. I’m not selfishly concerned only about my own well-being.
Depending on the situation, I will find other principles that can help me to recover from adversity: after a loss, for instance, acceptance of the things I cannot change, and gratitude for the things I still do have. By practicing these principles day in and day out and in situation after situation, I am engaging in the kind of conscious, intentional, and repeated effort which Davidson says can help me to acquire the habits which can alter my brain and reshape my thoughts and emotions. I will become better at recovering from adversity, but my recovery will reflect fundamental character and emotional changes, not just an improved personality trait (more resilient).
That personality and temperament are malleable, that emotion and cognition work in an integrated manner, and that experience and thought can reshape the brain are important ideas in Davidson’s book. When it comes to translating these ideas into practice, however, the 12 Steps remain the best program of action. show less
Those of us committed to personal growth will find much that is rewarding in The Emotional Life of Your Brain. Davidson draws on an array of scientific experiments and studies to develop a set of ideas that can add to our understanding of how the “emotional brain” works, how its unique patterns affect the way we think, feel, and live, and how we can change them.
Three of these ideas are worth highlighting here. The first is that show more contrary to the way we tend to think about it, personality and temperament, though innate, are not fixed or immutable. That traditional view was reinforced in the age of genetics by “The dogma that ‘genetic equals unchangeable.’” If a “negative” trait (say shyness) is inherited and in your genes, you’re stuck with it. Instead, says Davidson, “plasticity is intrinsic to the brain,” and its “ability to change its structure and function in significant ways” extends into adulthood and “through the life of the individual.”
The second idea is that such “change can come about in response to experiences we have as well as to the thoughts we think.” Traits that are genetically based can be altered because “the mere presence of a gene is not sufficient for the trait for which it codes to be expressed. A gene must also be turned on, and studies . . . have shown that life experiences can turn genes on or off.” Thus, “In terms of the shopworn debate called nature vs. nurture, nurture is able to act on nature.” Our brain can be altered by these “experiences as well as by conscious, intentional effort . . . through the intentional cultivation of specific mental qualities or habits.”
And, thirdly, the reason such change is possible is that head and heart are more closely linked in the brain than previously thought: “the barricade that psychology had erected between reason and emotion has no basis in fact.” Emotion involves neural activity in the right and in the left side of the brain, in the amygdala and in the prefrontal cortex. “The circuitry of the emotional brain often overlaps with that of the rational, thinking brain,” so that “Emotion works with cognition in an integrated and seamless way to enable us to navigate the world of relationships, work, and spiritual growth.”
These ideas have broad implications. They suggest that we are not irremediably shaped by our genes, upbringing, environment, or of this or that neural circuitry in our limbic system. We are not at the mercy of our emotions. We can change because our brain can change.
The question of course is how. Davidson answers this question in the terms of traditional psychology by focusing on personality and temperament, offering a new classification of these traits which he calls “Emotional Style.” His claim is that “Understanding the neural underpinnings of the six dimensions of Emotional Style can empower you to recognize your own” overall style and apply various techniques he recommends to change it in the direction you desire.
Briefly stated, the six dimensions are: Resilience (how fast you recover from adversity); Outlook (optimist vs. pessimist); Social Intuition (how adept you are at picking up social signals); Self-Awareness (how well you are in touch with your feelings); Sensitivity to Context (how well you adapt your emotional responses to a given context); and Attention (how well you can focus).
To get an idea of the problems that arise with Davidson’s model, let us consider an example he gives of a situation involving two of these categories: “You might be irritable for a whole day after a morning argument with a coworker but not realize that your funk is the result of being Slow to Recover (This ability to introspect and understand our own emotions is an aspect of the Self-Awareness dimension).”
Now, suppose I answer the book’s questionnaires for these categories, identify their neural correlates in the brain, conclude my styles are “Slow to Recover” and “Self-Opaque,” and follow Davidson’s techniques in the back of the book so that, assuming they work, I’m able to recover faster after my morning argument with my coworker.
Does that improve my relationship with my coworker? Not necessarily. In fact, it could even worsen it, for the more successfully I reduce their negative impact on me and the faster I recover from these arguments the easier it is to continue having them. They just won’t bother me that much anymore. But they may bother my co-worker, other colleagues, and my boss. My “resilience” could actually end up making a lot of people unhappy, affect my work, and even cost me my job.
This is because traits of personality and temperament do not necessarily correlate with the rightness or wrongness of what I’m doing. They are not moral categories. A high degree of optimism can lead me to take unreasonable risks in business or the stock market and leave me in financial ruin. High social intuition, self-awareness, and sensitivity to context can all help me manage myself better the better to lie and manipulate people. Being highly focused can help me succeed in my career even as it leads me to neglect my family and fail as a spouse and as a parent.
In the situation cited by Davidson, I need to look at more than my “emotional style.” I need to look at what I might be doing wrong, at the moral dimensions of the situation. This means looking at my character, understood as a moral category. Traits of character determine whether a trait of personality or temperament serves a morally worthy or unworthy end, whether it works for good or for ill. But Davidson’s model, which is based on personality and temperament to the exclusion of character, makes no provision for such considerations.
A more effective model for personal growth is found in the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, whose principles, it should be noted, can be practiced by anyone. One of these principles is the discipline of self-examination, where I make an inventory of my character defects and associated emotions, taking into account the positive character traits and associated emotions which can displace and replace them. Considered principles of the good life, these positive character traits are traditionally known as virtues, among which, honesty, for instance, is essential to the process of self-examination.
Honestly looking at myself in the above situation, I might find that my “funk” is the result of my nursing a resentment against my coworker. I may be “irritable” because I’m still angry over something she said or did that affected something that is important to me (e.g. my self-esteem), and I’ve been obsessing about it all day. Upon further examination, I may discover that I said or did something which started or contributed to the argument, and that behind my words and actions there were certain character defects at work, perhaps impatience, or unkindness, or intolerance. My adversity, as is often the case with many of us, may have been self-inflicted.
Having made such an examination, I move to take corrective action by practicing other applicable principles. Where I am in the wrong, I promptly and humbly admit it, and I sincerely make amends. Where my coworker is in the wrong, I forgive, turn the matter over, and let go of any ill feelings.
By practicing these principles, I can surrender my resentment and obsession, reconcile with my coworker, and restore peace and harmony to our relationship. Not only do I recover from negative emotions myself, but I can help my coworker to do the same. My recovery goal is not self-centered. I’m not selfishly concerned only about my own well-being.
Depending on the situation, I will find other principles that can help me to recover from adversity: after a loss, for instance, acceptance of the things I cannot change, and gratitude for the things I still do have. By practicing these principles day in and day out and in situation after situation, I am engaging in the kind of conscious, intentional, and repeated effort which Davidson says can help me to acquire the habits which can alter my brain and reshape my thoughts and emotions. I will become better at recovering from adversity, but my recovery will reflect fundamental character and emotional changes, not just an improved personality trait (more resilient).
That personality and temperament are malleable, that emotion and cognition work in an integrated manner, and that experience and thought can reshape the brain are important ideas in Davidson’s book. When it comes to translating these ideas into practice, however, the 12 Steps remain the best program of action. show less
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 5
- Also by
- 4
- Members
- 1,848
- Popularity
- #13,924
- Rating
- 3.8
- Reviews
- 39
- ISBNs
- 59
- Languages
- 11
- Favorited
- 1