Emotions As Communication

Clint Fyke

Charles Darwin postulated that emotions were universal and hardwired. Some
theoreticians believed that they were culturally learned responses. Paul Ekman, a
pioneer in the study of emotions and their relation to facial expressions, was one of
those who believed that they were conditioned responses. The difference was that
he received grant money from the government to find out the truth. He started his
research in the 1950‘s and much to his surprise, after years of research, and
independent collaboration, today he knows differently. Darwin was right. During
that time Ekman has learned that the face is capable of over 10,000 expressions.
He wrote “the first atlas of the face, a systematic description in words, photographs,
and films, of how to measure facial movement in anatomical terms.” “In 1978 his
tool for measuring the face—the Facial Action Coding System (FACS)—was published
and is now being used by hundreds of scientists around the world to measure facial
movements.” “Using the Facial Action Coding System he have identified the facial
signs that betray a lie.” He has been hired by government agencies to train their
interrogators and investigators to detect lying. A new TV show, “Lie To Me”, based
loosely on him and his research, use him as a consultant to lend authenticity to the
scripted material. He has written numerous books about emotion, including one
with the Dalai Lama. He has been named as one of the 100 most eminent
psychologists of the 20th century.

What he discovered was that emotions like disgust, happiness, fear, sadness etc.
have all been identified as culturally independent reactions or emotions. The
physiological responses are universally the same. The important thing for this
discussion is that they have been shown to be genetically hard wired.
Dr. David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. wrote a book about emotions called Power vs.
Force, The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior: An Anatomy of Consciousness.
It was published by Veritas Publishing whose web site describes Dr. Hawkins as “an
internationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher, and pioneer in the
fields of consciousness research and spirituality. He writes and teaches from the
unique perspective of an experienced clinician, scientist, and mystic and is devoted
to the spiritual evolution of mankind.” He is also co-author of Orthomolecular
Psychiatry, with Linus Pauling and Abram Hoffer, a major work on the role of
nutrition in mental health. Pauling is best know as a double Nobel Prize winner and
Hoffer for his pioneering work with LSD on the biochemical basis for schizophrenia.
Hawkins wrote the book, Power vs. Force after 20 years of research into the
physiological effect of emotion on physical strength. He used a method of muscle
testing called “applied kinesiology”, a technique now used by nearly 40% of
chiropractors as well as naturopaths, medical doctors, dentists, nutritionists,
physical therapists, massage therapists and nurse practitioners. This method of
muscle testing is based on a scale of 1000. Hawkins determined that when people
experienced different emotions, muscle testing returned different results. He
discovered that some emotions were empowering and others disempowering. In
general, positive emotions were empowering and negative ones not. He developed
and published the power level of each emotion in the book. He defined them as
levels of consciousness. He says that each of us has a specific level that we are at
on a day to day basis and that it is hard to move up the consciousness ladder even a
little in a lifetime. One factor above all others that brought up a persons level was
an awareness of the levels and the empowerment and disempowerment of the
different emotions. The thing I want to stress is that each hardwired emotion has a
documented allocated power/strength parameter.
Bonnie Bassler, teaches Molecular Biology at Princeton. In a description from the
TED website it say that “In 2002, bearing her microscope on a microbe that lives in
the gut of fish, Bonnie Bassler isolated an elusive molecule called AI-2, and
uncovered the mechanism behind mysterious behavior coined “quorum sensing” --
or bacterial communication. She showed that bacterial chatter is hardly exceptional
or anomolous behavior, as was once thought -- and in fact, most bacteria do it, and
most do it all the time. (She calls the signaling molecules "bacterial Esperanto.")

The discovery shows how cell populations use chemical powwows to stage attacks,
evade immune systems and forge slimy defenses called biofilms. For that, she's won
a MacArthur "genius" grant -- and is giving new hope to frustrated pharmacos
seeking new weapons against drug-resistant superbugs.” She has done this by
using the chemical header and attaching a non-message to the header. This
essentially sends spam to the bacteria receptors making them “dumb” so that they
do not attack en mass. Disrupting the bacterial communication allows clinicians
time to try different methods to eradicate the bacterial threat.

Consider this, bacteria are single celled. They are the oldest living organisms on
the planet. We essentially evolved from a single cell. We are an evolved
conglomerate of single cells. Bonnie discovered that cells of the same type emitted
a signature chemical compound, not unlike a data header used by computer
systems. The cells have compatible receptors, allowing the chemical to be read by
the cell. This chemical identified the rest of the chemical as a message for cells of
that type. Other cells of a different type have a different chemical identifier. When
there were only a few cells emitting the chemical, nothing happened. However,
when a threshold was reached, of a specific number of cells (quorum), they started
to act as a collective. The number was consistent. Once a “quorum” was reached
the cells acted as a group to decide whether to participate in a collective behaviour,
based on a chemical vote. Majority ruled. She also determined that just as
intraspecies bacterial cells used a species specific chemical, that there was also an
interspecies chemical identifier, that allowed other non-species specific bacteria to
communicate.

My hypothesis is that certain environmentally specific responses to specific

situations became hardwired into DNA, automating the global responses of the
different cells and types. This allowed different cell groups to assume roles in the
collective aggregate of cells. A synergy developed between groups of cells based on
this specialization. Eventually a grand central station of information exchange
developed that we call the brain. Collections of previously decided responses could
be automated if they became encoded in DNA? But, whoa, aren’t we talking about
chemicals here? Isn’t brain cell communication electrical in nature?

In the April 2004 issue of Scientific American, the lead article entitled “The Other
Half of the Brain” and the lead issue headline of “Has Science Missed Half the Brain?”
indicated that new research was revealing some interesting facts. Studies of
samples of Einstein’s brain revealed that one thing that set his brain apart was the
large number of brain cells called glia. In fact, the more highly evolved a species
the more glial cells they have. These cells are non-neuronal. Research reveals that
they respond to specific chemicals and appear to exhibit the same quorum
behaviour as Bonnie Bassler’s bacteria. Bonnie Bassler would not be surprised since
she suggested that cellular behaviour was determined long before humankind
evolved into being and that we are simply an adding of “bells and whistles” to use
her words. In the brain, glial cells outnumber neurons about 9 to 1, more if you’re
an Einstein. These cells are found around neurons, axons and synapses. They
trigger the creation of new synapses, deliver nutrients to neurons, determine ion
levels, provide immune protection and help determine the strength of signals to
receptors over time. They also have receptors for neurotransmitters, but do not
engage in neuron communication, just seem to monitor it. An interesting discovery
was that when neurons were firing, the glial cells around the axon, released a
chemical called ATP (adenosine triphosphate), which causes calcium intake by
neighbouring glial cells prompting more ATP release. ATP is the energy source for
cellular activity. ATP is also a signaling molecule, used in both extracellular and
Intracellular signaling. ATP are present in every type of cell, from the simplest
bacterium to evolved human cells. ATP has been described as a nanomachine, with
complexity equal to that of a tv set or electron microscope. It is a macromolecule—
arguably “second in importance only to DNA.” By definition it is a machine “used to
build complex molecules, contract muscles, generate electricity in nerves, and light
fireflies.” Functionally it does transport work, mechanical work and chemical work.
ATP is also used as an on-off switch both to control chemical reactions and to send
messages. While ATP is only one of the chemicals used in communication by glial
cells, it has to be considered one of the most important. In summary, glial cells
control the numbers of synapses, the extent to which they are active and the
amount of energy available, in a quorum sensing type process.

Now let’s return to emotions and how they function. We receive an emotional
response to some kind of triggering event. The resulting physiological changes we
experience as “feelings”, a kinesthetic experience. Since we know that emotions are
universal and hard wired, we know that specific effects take place, in tandem, of
which one we know is an energy/power component. This mobilizes the body to
react in specific ways in response. If this is automatic in nature (hard wired), why is
it being presented to the conscious mind?

Visual information is sent to the visual cortex, sound sent to the auditory
processing part of the brain, information to do with maintaining body temperature
to the parts of the brain responsible for its regulation. So why is this information
being sent to the conscious mind? My assertion is that it is sent to the conscious
mind because the brain is working perfectly. The conscious mind is what should be
processing the information.

Thomas Blakeslee in his book “The Right Brain”, speaks of the left and right brains
as actually 2 brains. He examines the idea that each has its own communication
medium, even in verbal language. He points out that what we say is often less
important than how we say it. The left brain processes the words and reasoning,
while the right brain processes tone of voice, facial expression and body language.
He talks about how we call the right brain the “unconscious”. He disagrees. He
claims that while we might not be left brain aware, we are right brain aware and
communicate that information, with things like gut feelings, impressions -
emotional responses. We are highly aware of the tones, expressions and body info.
Research suggests we place more confidence in that, than what is actually said.
This is interpersonal communication but I suggest emotions are intrapersonal
communications as well.

In their book “Emotional Hostage”, Leslie Cameron-Bandler and Michael LeBeau

present possibly the best book available on emotions. They describe emotions as
communication, an idea I fully believe. I believe that emotions are messages. Leslie
and Michael introduce the idea of “functional attribute” to the communication
message of the emotion. Whereby, left brain processing is digital and linear in
nature, the right brain tends to specialize in emotional communication and is
holistic in nature. The message the conscious mind receives as an emotion,
amounts to a whole status report, a “gestalt”. It might include information from the
past, “experience”, present situation state, recommendations for future action. It
also contains situational information. For example, consider an emotion like
frustration. A natural assumption that can be made is and since the conscious mind
has been targeted to receive the message it should be able to interpret it. Using the
idea of functional attribute consider what frustration’s message means. Frustration
tells you that you have been and are continuing to try to achieve an outcome. You
have a goal you are trying to achieve. It also gives you information that something
is stopping you from achieving it. Additionally, it tells you that it is likely you need
a different strategy or change in available resources to achieve the outcome. It is a
feedback emotion with a feedforward recommendation for how to continue. It may
be to quit, and change the feeling to disappointment. Disappointment tells a
different story. It tells most of the same story as frustration but indicates that you
have failed to reach the outcome and have quit. You are no longer pursuing the
outcome. This allows you to get past the endless failing loop of frustration and
focus efforts elsewhere. You may experience being upset, even angry, in addition.
This usually includes the source of your frustration or disappointment in the form of
a blaming process. The wisdom built in to bringing this information to the
conscious mind is immense. Once you understand that it is telling you about
processes you have running in the background, you can decide to end them or
continue to run them. If however, they are not brought into consciousness, they
can run for years or an entire lifetime.

When we are problem solving we often set in motion problem solving processes.
These processes can include sorting programs. Since a program sorts for specific
information or ideas, it tends to throw out information that does not appear
relevant to the problem. This may be good for solving a problem in the short term,
however, it is also the path of obsessive compulsive behaviour, paranoia and any
number of stuck or dysfunctional looping processes. Bringing a process, into the
conscious mind, as an emotion, makes the process conscious and allows us choice.
Knowledge is the key. Without the knowledge that emotions are communication
there is unlikely to be conscious effort to decode the full message. Instead, the
originating cluster of feelings, its energy and proposed action become the default
response to the emotion. We would be slaves to our emotions.
Emotions are always situational. The conscious mind needs to process all of the
variables. The initial emotional response in right brain language is hard wired
because it needs to be. You do not have time to analyze in reaction time situations.
You duck or dodge, sidestep, whatever it takes, to avoid injury. It happens
instantaneously. The physiological differences are then noted in consciousness. It
allows us to look for safety, design a strategy or choose our next step.

In his book “Blink”, Malcolm Gladwell, examines research into our ability to sense
things on an unconscious level. He determined that research showed that our body
was responding to situations on a physiological level long before we were
“consciously” aware. Ekman in his emotion research identified what he called
micro-expressions. These were a split second emotional response to a situation.
We often cover up our responses. This is where cultural differences come into play.
In some cultures, it is not good to show certain emotions, so a sorting program
running in the background automatically suppresses the physiological responses,
but not before the microexpression appears. That initial response is hard wired.
Sorting programs show a cultural bias and are situation specific. Research showed a
difference in response between when the responder thought he was alone and when
someone was present. Masking behaviour disappeared when the responder thought
he was alone. Research from both sources confirms that first impressions are likely
quite accurate and our initial impressions or gut feelings have some factual basis. It
also tells us that we have innate skills that we can utilize and develop in these areas,
allowing for more accurate assessment of situations and greater empathy with
others. The fact that the communication is hard wired and that we have the ability
to tune into it, is part of a survival mechanism built into the system. The quorum
responses which have become hard wired, have worked for millions of years in
bacteria and we are a beneficiary of that machinery. Our ability to read those
responses in consciousness is just one of those bells and whistles that Bessler was
talking about. Our abilities to mask and suppress those responses represent a
higher order of functioning, a control level. The hard wiring however, makes the
response specific and available, at the very least, in the form of a micro-expression.

The bottom line is that emotions trigger a cascade of chemical responses pre-
programmed in DNA. Those chemicals create a physiological response, a readying
for the action suggested by sub-conscious and unconscious processing, then
presented as a packaged message we call an emotion. Extracting the functional
attribute allows you to utilize the message, like a committee report and make
decisions that are really, emotional choice. We also learn that it is not just the
interpretation of the message that allows you to change the “feelings”. Simply
changing your physiology allows you to change how you feel. If you are feeling
helplessly depressed, changing your posture from a slump to erect and confident,
your facial expression to a smile and laughing chances your mood.

So why not suppress emotions and make decisions in a detached and emotionless
way? After a brain injury a man, Phinneas Gage, was unable to feel emotion. His
intellect was otherwise intact. After the injury though, he was unable to make a
decision. The conclusion is that emotions are a necessary part of the decision
making process. Stock investors were the subject of another study. The study of
decision making by 101 stock investors in the August/ September issue of the
Academy of Management Journal showed that:

“Adding emotions to the decision-making process can enhance creativity,

engagement and decision efficiency… The greater the average intensity of an
individual’s feelings, the higher their investment returns.”

Each emotion represents a unique and remarkable tool. It allows us to see things
clearly from a specific perspective. Each perspective readies us to understand and
perform in specific ways. It gives us access to empathize with others. It offers us
perspective shifting tools which offer flexibility. The more perspectives we have
access to the more options we have. We can see things in the near term and in
longer and longer time frames. Emotions presented to the conscious mind tend to
be reactionary and short term. Simply changing the time frame allows for a
different perspective, changes our emotions and leads to different decisions. We can
create and examine new realities, each with its unique ways or perceiving and
acting. We need to embrace our emotions. Listen to their messages. Feel what an
emotion readies us to do and harness that to get the results we truly want rather.
The other option is to simply ride the roller coaster of feelings and act out the
reactionary scenario presented to us as the most likely future course if the current
compass is used to guide the way. Picking a new “true north” with a moral compass
or a value compass or any other emotion you might choose, give us choice. We may
not always make the best choices but if we use the tools we have wisely, we can
choose better more often.