I wrote
last time that all of our emotions have a biological purpose, and if they have a unifying purpose it is something like
to propagate our genes, i.e. to ensure our survival, to ensure we reproduce, and then ensure our kids’ survival. If that’s so, why, then, would anyone want to control their emotions?
Actually I think there is good reason to (try to) control our emotions. I view emotions as crude tools that rely on the ancient limbic system and cannot possibly deal with all of the complexities of modern life. Consider that we are born with the fear of snakes and spiders but not with the fear of cars and guns. Emotions evolved for specific reasons over thousands of years. And while not all emotions are innate -- emotions can be “learned” through conditioning by things that repeatedly cause (or are at least associated with) outcomes like pain or discomfort -- for certain things like guns and cars it is difficult to “learn” to fear them because you are not likely to survive enough negative encounters. The only reliable way fear of snakes, spiders, cars, or guns can emerge is through natural selection, and that takes many thousands of years.
Further evidence that emotions are un-tuned to modern life: Even people inhabiting white-collar America occasionally experience the same sinking feeling of inner dread (complete with dry-mouth and sweaty palms) that was once a perfectly suited defense mechanism mobilizing our energy to either fight or run away from saber-toothed tigers. But unlike ancient days, those feelings now often arise at the most absurd of times, like in response to delivering a company presentation. It’s absurd because (1) a company presentation has, at best, a tiny, tiny effect on your genes’ probability of survival -- no matter how badly you bore people with your bullet points and trip on your words you will still be able to get laid, and you will still be able to provide enough resources to your offspring that they survive to reproductive age (and if for some reason you can’t provide adequate resources, someone else, the government perhaps, probably will), and (2) for most people (but
not Garrison Keillor) the stage-fright that we experience hinders – not helps – our delivery of a presentation, so in that sense the emotional response is counter-productive.
I have not read Seth Godin’s new book
Linchpin yet, but from what I gather the premise is that in order to be professionally successful we must overcome our “lizard brain”, which is another way of saying our counter-productive emotional responses like the fight-or-flight response before taking a professional risk. I think that’s right. In fact I think that’s pretty obvious. The important point is this:
Evolution seems to have favored inaction over action. E.g., don’t get too close to those people -- they might be dangerous! Don’t do that -- they might laugh at me! Our limbic system -- the emotional center responsible for an embarrassingly high percentage of our behavior -- has yet to learn that in the industrial age with market economies and unprecedented levels of absolute wealth, people aren’t so dangerous. We can quibble over whether it’s rational to fear people at all anymore, but at least we can agree people aren’t as dangerous as they used to be simply for cost-benefit economic reasons. The implication is that the way to succeed professionally (and therefore reproductively) is to (1) recognize that sometimes our emotional responses are counter-productive, and (2) when they are, (try to) change them or overcome them.
Here is an attempt to summarize everything that’s been said so far: Emotions are tools that evolved for the purpose of facilitating our genes’ survival, but, paradoxically, many of our emotional responses, by biasing us toward inaction, hinder the attainment of that goal.
I have a theory that consciousness was selected for precisely because it helped us identify when our emotions were being dumb. The unfortunate thing is that our consciousness has pitifully little power beyond identifying emotions -- we are practically helpless in controlling them. Willpower, while not quite an illusion, is certainly a weaker force than primal emotions.
Although we are practically helpless in controlling what emotions arise, there are ways in which we can encourage our emotions to conform to our conscious wishes. I came up with ten of them, ordered roughly by how cost-effective I perceive them to be:
1. When in a sour mood, stop everything and ask if you are in need of food, sleep, a potty break, fresh air, or exercise
2. Modify your environment
3. Mental tricks
4. Act the way you want to feel (especially in facial expression)
5. Hypnosis
6. Benevolent peer pressure
7. Drugs (or even a placebo)
8. Cognitive behavioral therapy
9. Meditation
10. Exposure/conditioning.
Read Jonah Lehrer, Dan Ariely, Merlin Mann, or Richard Thaler & Cass Sunstein for more on 2 and 3. And read Jonathan Haidt’s
The Happiness Hypothesis for more on 7, 8, and 9.
Then I identified six common strategies that do not seem to work:
1. Taking it out on someone else
2. Willpower
3. Talking yourself out of it
4. Ignoring it
5. Talking about it with someone else
6. Taking it out on some
thing else.
I wish I could explain why these strategies are so prevalent when they do not seem to work. I’d love to hear your theories. (Or do you even agree that these don’t work?)
In conclusion, the reason why it’s a good idea to sometimes (try to) control or change the direction of our emotions is because our emotions are often...how shall I put this...not very smart. A more eloquent writer might say
not suited to the modern environment. It could be that the conscious/rational side of me is being stupid for thinking that my emotions are sometimes stupid, but I think the examples I've cited above make a strong case that at least sometimes emotions are counter-productive. It seems that our emotions guide us like a puppy on a scent trail of gene propagation, eager and energetic but a little chaotic in their approach. (You'll excuse me for the bizarre metaphor.) I’ll talk more about the purpose of gene propagation and whether and how it relates to a larger purpose next time.
