Rationality and emotion: an evolving debate
Our thinking about decision making used to be simple. Plato pictured the mind as a chariot pulled by two horses. The rider is our rational mind, the horses our emotions. The rider may have difficulty controlling the horses, but the goal is simple: our rational mind must dominate. The issue is self mastery. This view has remained prevalent in the Western world. Descartes believed our soul was the source of rational thinking, while our body was the source of wasteful emotions. Sigmund Freud divided our mind into the id (our core, the source our emotions), above which sat the ego (our conscious self and rational brain). In the conflict between the two, the ego must dominate.
Neuroscience is telling us that this view is wrong. In Descartes’s error, Antonio Damasio describes experiments with neurological patients unable to experience emotion. You may think these patients would be in an ideal situation to make rational decisions, unencumbered by emotions. In fact, these patients are unable to decide. They may be unable to fill out a form – because they cannot choose between the black pen and the blue pen. They are paralyzed. The bottom line is: without our emotions we are lost. The rational brain alone cannot carry the basic functions of life. In a way Plato was right: if the horses are dead, the chariot will not move.
We have moved beyond the mere necessity of having emotions. Sometimes out intuition allows us to make decisions be could not reach using our rational mind. Sometimes our feelings can also lead us astray. We may think of it as sometimes letting the horses lead, striking a balance between efficiency and control.
Scientists have identified areas of the brain involved in certain processes: fear, negative feelings, pleasure, rational thinking. Initially these discoveries were made based on the neurological effects of damage to these areas (trauma, tumors). We now have tools to view the activity of these areas in real time, as we make decisions. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has allowed us to confirm and refine our knowledge of the role of different regions of the brain in decision making.
The same technique is beginning to tell us that decision making is not a simple competition between rational and emotional parts. In a study published in the May 29 issue of Neuron, Scott Huettel and his colleagues at Duke used fMRI to analyze realistic economic decision making. The tasks were designed to dissect choices and strategies. Choices that minimized losses or maximized gains activated different brain areas. Simplification strategies (based on the overall probability of winning) activated another. Activation of yet another area predicted the variability of strategic choices for an individual. Decisions depend on the interaction of many parts of the brain.
Where does this leave us, in practical terms? While it now appears that the rational/emotional competition is an oversimplification of our decision making process, it is still a useful metaphor for improved decision making. The first step many of us need to take is to listen to our emotions, and become more aware of what drives our decisions. Rational thinking alone does not solve everything! As our scientific knowledge of the brain improves, it provides a framework for us to understand what goes on in our brains. We need to think about our thinking. This is the key to better decisions.