Fable

Change Our Somatic Markers,

Change Our Life Experience.

We write to organize our re-experience, to find insight and wisdom, to change our somatic markers. When we change our markers, we change the story. We also change all other stories marked in the same way.

We sculpt the foundation of our autobiography.

“Imagine a mean-looking dog is playing with a wallet.” As we walked Cheese and Eli, I pointed to a broken pitch of sidewalk up a small rise. “A few dollar bills are lying on the ground.”

“How much?” My son asked.

“Depends what’s in the wallet,” I said. “Maybe enough to get a DS game. Maybe enough to buy a whole playstation.”

“What kind of dog?” He scratched Cheese as we walked.

“A shepherd-mix.” Eli jerked the leash. I jerked back. “The dog sees you, starts to run off then drops the wallet. What do you do?”

“If he tries to bite me,” he said. “I’ll kick’m in the teeth.” To prove his point, my son kicked a pile of leaves. Cheese was startled then danced away.

“Did the money make you chase off the dog?” Eli jerked me again. He wanted to join the play. The smells of fall intoxicate my dogs. “Or did your plan to kick it in the teeth?”

He stopped. Cheese sat. “How much money did I get?”

My question is sneaky. I am really asking my son to tell me how his brain functions. He is too used to trick questions to give me a proper answer.

How does he regulate the choice to approach or withdraw? The pscyh-literature is unclear. Do we have two motivational systems? Or one system to allow for decision and another system to execute the chosen action?

Jonathan Haidt¹ explains the more common viewpoint:

Your behavior is governed by opposing motivational systems: an approach system, which triggers positive emotions and makes you want to move toward certain things; and a withdrawal system, which triggers negative emotions and makes you want to pull back or avoid other things.

These systems are named the Behavior Inhibition Systems (BIS) and the Behavior Activation Systems (BAS). The ambiguities about BIS-BAS center on four verbs - stop, withdraw, go, approach, and two halves - right- and left-brain.

Emotions seem lateralized, with the right-brain more active during the experience of the emotions of withdrawal - fear, sadness, disgust. Behaviors seem lateralized, with the left-brain more active during approach responses.

Are the systems organized into right- and left-brain versions? Or are they organized by function? Which construct is more accurate:

A. BIS-BAS organized into right- and left-brain versions:
Withdraw-stop (BIS, threat-retreat, right-brain), or approach-go (BAS, reward-pursue, left-brain). Back away from the scary dog or retrieve the money?

B. BIS-BAS organized by function:
Stop-go (BIS, conflict monitoring, right-brain), and then withdraw-approach (BAS, response coordination, left-brain). Decide between pursuing reward or avoiding the dog, then execute the better choice?

In a study designed to clear up BIS/BAS ambiguities, Amodio (et al.)² demonstrates BIS is a different system designed to inhibit behavior in order to monitor conflicting responses. The inhibition-activation process is a test-then-try process.

In the presence of an emotionally significant object (▼), BIS inhibits the activation of behavior - BAS. BIS allows time to test different responses to ▼ and to recruit higher-order (“more sophisticated”) cognitive processes. BIS and BAS iterate...

I could imagine my kid’s unconscious mind as he chases off the shepherd-mix.

Q: What to do about the wallet and dog? [BIS]
A: Chase off dog. [BAS]

Q: What to do about the snarling dog? [BIS]
A: Pick up stick. [BAS]

Q: What to do about yelling dad? [BIS]
A: Ignore dad. [BAS]

Q: What to do with the stick? [BIS]
A: Throw at snarling dog. [BAS]

Q: Dog chases stick. What now? [BIS]
A: Get wallet. [BAS]

Q: What now? [BIS]
A: Dance like a crazy NFL defensive end after sacking the quarterback. [BAS]

A two step process: consider then act.

Conflict-monitoring then behavior-activation is an iterative process, like the one my son experienced as he chased away the dog. The iteration of BIS and BAS regulates the pursuit of homeostasis, the organism’s well-being.

Consider something novel - a cookie with white chips.

First scenario: What if I eat the cookie? This cookie with white chips is similar to chocolate chip cookies. I love the act of eating chocolate chip cookies. I like the taste of white-chocolate. I anticipate I will love the act of eating this cookie.

The emotionality (pleasure) marks the body change (eat cookie), and is an important factor in the mind’s evaluation of eat-cookie-with-white-chips. “Pleasure” answers “what if I eat the cookie?”

Often we feel conflict about eating cookies. In other words, we consider more than one scenario involving the cookie-with-white-chips.

Second scenario: What if I walk away from the cookie? This cookie with white chips is similar to other unhealthy, fattening foods. I fear weight gained from eating fattening foods. I like to avoid consuming unhealthy calories. I anticipate I will feel fear and shame from the act of eating this cookie.

Again, the emotionality (fear and shame) marks the body change (eat cookie). “Fear and shame” answer the second scenario of “what if I walk away from the cookie?”

What do we do about the cookie? For the cookie-▼, is “pleasure” greater than “fear and shame”? Approach or withdraw? How do we value options and chose the best response? ³

The cookie-with-white-chips (a novel-▼) triggers a cascade of similar-▼-images for what-if?-▲▼▲-scenarios. Each consequent similar-▼-test⁴ evokes an experience of emotions, feelings, and “cognitions.”

This blooming what-if?-collage of evoked experience fuels the decision process. We might be aware of the gist of the what-if?-collage, but are unconscious to its details.

The blooming details alter the state of the physical body. You anticipate eating the cookie: your mouth waters, you stomach gurgles, you rub you tongue against your teeth, you wince at the reading on the scale, your frown at your appearance in the mirror and the jiggle of puffy cheeks, you scrunch your face with the strain of exercise.

You want milk.

All you will remember from the cookie encounter is the explanation you will make up: “I missed lunch.”

Each image evokes an emotion. Emotionality marks each what-if?-body-change. This combination is called a somatic marker.⁵

The cookie is measured by these marks and their cascade of emotionality. Reasoning often has little to do with a “reasonable” choice. Emotionality often has far more.

Our mind uses these somatic markers from similar-▼ to value possible responses to a novel-▼. In other words, somatic markers represent the way we are triggered by a novel-▼, however conscious we are of the fleeting sensations, emotions and imagery.

Somatic markers trigger rapid emotional responses. Survival depends on quick reflexes.

Our higher order systems are slower. They also evaluate the circumstances and influence our choice of actions. We need time to think. Reflection might improve our success. The Behavior Inhibition System (BIS) inhibits reactions to allow for more nuanced responses.

Somatic-markers must be “smart” to be effective. They are a form of knowledge which combines experience with personality. They embody our deepest, experiential, implicit learnings - our biases, beliefs, scripts, past defenses and other near-automatic sensations, emotions, feelings and thoughts. They are our learned wisdom or our Fury-curses.⁶

Somatic markers bias our testing process and highlight specific responses from the broad set of possible responses. They speed up and drive the decision making process.

Within the immediacy of the novel-▼, the somatic-marker-driven evaluation process continues until the most highly valued response exceeds some threshold.⁷ BIS gives the mind time to determine the best behavior possible (rather than best-possible behavior).

Perhaps as we consider a novel-▼, its emotional significance diminishes. Our attention then shifts to a different-▼ with greater emotional significance. The BIS-BAS process then regards this other ▼. We move on.

Otherwise, after consideration, we act. The novel-▼ requires a response. I eat the cookie.

Out of the set of possible ▲▼▲, The Behavior Activation Systems coordinate the most valued. The selected ▲▼▲ plays out in the body rather than as an as-if test. We act.

If we are caught eating the cookie-with-white-chips, we explain. Only then might we have a distinct story for the behavior. We often have experiences without distinct stories...

What would my unconscious process look like as my son charges after a snarling shepherd mix to retrieve the found money? What would be my experience? What about images, somatic markers, and so on?

The dog mauls my son. His mother screams at me. He fears dogs for the rest of his life. We rush to the hospital. I despise awful emergency room lines. Bleeding patients yell at me. I’m insignificant, incompetent as a father, unworthy.

“Son,” I yell, “stop.” He ignores me. Good for him. He gets the wallet.

Fathers don’t matter. Just drive me away like the damn shepherd-mix.

My son does some strange dancing, yelling thing. I become aware of my subsiding panic, the sensation of metabolizing cortisol.

Afterwards, I try to leave the dad-Fury panic behind. Even if the dad-Fury was a physical object - like dog-poop - I would be unable to drop the imagery. I own it. All I can give up is perspective and agency. The imagery might haunt me.

When I next see a shepherd mix, an abandoned wallet, or a pile of leaves, I remember the dad-Fury panic. The relived-object engages BIS-BAS. During BIS, my mind determines the dad-Fury is a threat then withdraws my attention.

With practice, my defenses become reflexive, cutting off higher order processes. I grow indifferent to the repeat performance. Even when triggered, the pain somehow is separated off into some hidden place.

If we look at the same picture over and over, in the same setting, for the same length of time, the brain activity of each viewing changes at first, but eventually become fixed. The experience is unchanged.

If I ignore the dad-Fury each time it arises, my experience of it becomes similarly fixed - a scar. Still, the memory haunts me, and I recognize the sensation of panic more than I care to admit.

What if I confront the dad-Fury?

If we want to change a Fury’s pain, we have to reconstitute the experience. The distancing value of reframed thought isn’t enough. We have to get at the underlying emotionality and somatic markers.

I confront:

1. Trigger the dad-Fury [trauma-object],
2. Watch the body and feel the emotions [felt-object]
3. Verbalize the reexperience [a considered-object of the recalled presence],
4. Engage the left hemisphere’s interpreter [an interpreted-object], and
5. Wait so the unconscious can improve decisions and highlight useful understanding [a contemplated-object].

I regard the dad-Fury. I trigger a flight of imagery. The what-if?-collage of emotions, feelings and “cognitions,” starts with “mauled son” and ends with “the damn shepherd-mix.” Reflexive somatic-markers, sensations of flight, raw emotions, painful feelings, dismissive thoughts all try to push me away.

I am less well. I feel pain.

My drive to homeostasis is engaged. I chose to confront the Fury. BIS stifles my reflexive defense: divert attention. It manages the conflict between the desire to run away and the plan to stay with my pain.

I write. I grab a snapshot of the collage imagery and consider my emotions and feelings.

Did I yell after my son out of concern for him? Did I yell at him? Where did all this panic come from?

Words slow down the swirl of emotionally-charged imagery and the intensity of the experience. BIS-BAS holds me to task. With less panic, I push deeper into the Fury.

His mom yells at me. Then I thought about a hospital and the long lines. Funny, but I conflated the two images.

Inevitably, my impressions demand explanation. The interpreter wants in on the process. I expand into speculation.

Why do I worry fathers are so insignificant? What about this belief? Why do I have it? Where does it come from? From wounds and stories of my family of origin: Was mom dismissive of dad? Or was he always preoccupied?

Towards the end, I seek to express agency. As if an editor on deadline, I rework the story. I change perspective:

This pain, how can you address it? Do you know of a good psycho-dynamic therapist? You should write more about your sense of panic tomorrow and your belief about dads.

When BIS is active, brain imagery shows greater conflict-related anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activity.⁸ Conflicts stem from what-if activity and involve the perception of emotion and the somatosensory systems - both right-brain dominant activities. This hemisphere also seems dominant during the experience of withdrawal emotions - fear, sadness and disgust - which are usually invoked by a trauma-object (the dad-Fury panic).

BIS lets our brain recruit higher-order cognitive systems to evaluate and plan possible responses. Because we have a plan to confront the Fury, rather than turn away, we push the experience through a multitude of brain-systems, allowing each to develop a “point of view.” The recruited systems are often associated with a dominant left hemisphere.

The Fury confrontation starts with right-brain somatosensory and perception systems then brain activation shifts to left brain as the development and evaluation of possible responses becomes more sophisticated.

The decisioning process is designed to identify and execute the best-solution possible. Too often, our perspective on the internal decision process is limited. We mistake our choice for the best-possible solution or even the only one possible.

We are not required to have an explicit story or explanation until someone asks “what happened?” We now must be conscious of an experience we were only semi-conscious to as it happened.

Our left-brain interpreter leaps to the “rescue.” The post-mortem begins.⁹

For my story, my post-mortem thoughts could have been: “It’s my fault my son was mauled by the dog. Of course, his mother yelled at me and blamed me. I’m no good as a father. Why do they want me anyway?”

These events carry forward our personality, wisdom, biases, beliefs, defenses and scripts and embody them in a new experience. Wouldn’t you want me to change my post-mortem? If I neglect the Fury, would any of it change?

If an experience ends in trauma, it disrupts our process and disorganizes the experience. We fill the post-mortem with deflection and defense. We sanitize the story to isolate the fear our painful emotions and feelings.

The compulsion for a post-mortem limits open-ended consideration. It pushes us to judge and close. It helps us become unconscious to the pain.

After trauma, we explain rather than consider. We commit to a story over-interpreted from under-examined experience. Our interpretation substitutes for a reasonable story and is filled with assumptions, biases, beliefs, scripts.

All of these distilled elements of experience are based on our personality and learning. They are all based on somatic markers.

Because these assumptions are often the product of our core beliefs, to us, they are “real” and we experience our story as “the truth.” Or at least so true, we can inhibit the impulse to further examine the under-examined experience.

Too defend against a Fury, we give up on “reasonable.” We have only “assumption.” We have hollowed out the pain.

When we confront a Fury, we chose to break down our defenses, to relive the event and to re-examine it. We bring back the pain.

We write to organize our re-experience, to find insight and wisdom, to change our somatic markers. When we change our markers, we change the story. We also change all other stories marked in the same way.

We sculpt the foundation of our autobiography.