the autism people need continuing education in eliminative materialism and the social construction of emotion

The importance of what Lisa Feldman Barrett has to say in this article at Nautilus cannot be overstated. It has a very profound implication: much of what is said about autism rests on folk psychological assumptions that are false.

The traditional foundation of emotional intelligence rests on two common-sense assumptions. The first is that it’s possible to detect the emotions of other people accurately. That is, the human face and body are said to broadcast happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and other emotions, and if you observe closely enough, you can read these emotions like words on a page. The second assumption is that emotions are automatically triggered by events in the world, and you can learn to control them through rationality. This idea is one of the most cherished beliefs in Western civilization. For example, in many legal systems, there’s a distinction between a crime of passion, where your emotions allegedly hijacked your good sense, and a premeditated crime that involved rational planning. In economics, nearly every popular model of investor behavior separates emotion and cognition.

These two core assumptions are strongly appealing and match our daily experiences. Nevertheless, neither one stands up to scientific scrutiny in the age of neuroscience. Copious research, from my lab and others, shows that faces and bodies alone do not communicate any specific emotion in any consistent manner. In addition, we now know that the brain doesn’t have separate processes for emotion and cognition, and therefore one cannot control the other. If these statements defy your common sense, I’m right there with you. But our experiences of emotion, no matter how compelling, don’t reflect the biology of what’s happening inside us. Our traditional understanding and practice of emotional intelligence badly needs a tuneup.

This is not the first time I’ve posted this video, but the eliminative materialists stand vindicated!

When I took a philosophy of mind course as an undergrad, the professor was a former attorney guy who said eliminative materialism was “bizarre.” I felt like the only person in the class it was totally obvious to.

The next passage means that the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” task is invalid:

Let’s begin with the assumption that you can detect emotion in another person accurately. On the surface, it seems reasonable enough. A glance at someone’s face and body language reveals what the person is feeling, right? Haven’t we been told that a smile tells one story whereas a scowl tells another? Raised arms and a puffed up chest supposedly display pride, while a drooping posture supposedly declares that someone is sad.

The big problem with this assumption is that in real life, faces and bodies don’t move in this cartoonish fashion. People who are happy sometimes smile and sometimes don’t. Sometimes they even cry when they’re happy (say, at a wedding) and smile when they’re sad (when missing a beloved aunt who passed away). Likewise, a scowling person might be angry or just thinking hard, or even have a case of indigestion. In fact, there isn’t a single emotion that has one specific, consistent expression.

Numerous scientific studies have confirmed these observations. When we place electrodes on people’s faces to record their muscle movements, we see that they move in different ways, not one consistent way, when their owners feel the same emotion. Where the body is concerned, hundreds of studies show that instances of the same emotion involve different heart rates, breathing, blood pressure, sweat, and other factors, rather than a single, consistent response. Even in the brain, we see that instances of a single emotion, such as fear, are handled by different brain patterns at different times, both in the same individual and in different people. This diversity isn’t random. It’s tied to the situation you’re in.

In short, when it comes to detecting emotion in other people, the face and body do not speak for themselves. Instead, variation is the norm. Your brain may automatically make sense of someone’s movements in context, allowing you to guess what a person is feeling, but you are always guessing, never detecting. Now, I might know my husband well enough to tell when his scowl means he’s puzzling something out versus when I should head for the hills, but that’s because I’ve had years of experience learning what his facial movements mean in different situations. People’s movements in general, however, are tremendously variable. To teach emotional intelligence in a modern fashion, we need to acknowledge this variation and make sure your brain is well-equipped to make sense of it automatically.

This passage suggests that the treatment for autism is books with a lot of psychological content:

From your brain’s perspective, your body is just another source of information to make sense of—the thumping of your heart, the tug of your lungs expanding, the warmth of inflammation, and so on. These changes in your body have no objective emotional meaning. A dull ache in your stomach, for example, might be disgust, anxiety, or merely hunger. So, your brain spends most of its time issuing thousands of microscopic predictions of what your body needs (water, glucose, salt) and attempts to meet those needs before they arise. In the process, your brain also predicts the sensations that those physical changes would cause, such as feeling your heart pound in your chest, as well as what actions you should take. This constant storm of predictions—which occur automatically and completely outside of your awareness—forms the basis for everything you think, feel, see, smell, or otherwise experience in any way. That’s how emotions, thoughts, and perceptions are made.

Emotional intelligence, therefore, requires a brain that can use prediction to manufacture a large, flexible array of different emotions. If you’re in a tricky situation that has called for emotion in the past, your brain will oblige by constructing the emotion that works best. You will be more effective if your brain has many options to choose from. If your brain can only make stereotypic instances of smiley happiness and pouty sadness, then that is all you will experience and perceive in others. But if your brain is equipped to make you scowl in anger, smile in anger, widen your eyes in anger, squint in anger, shout in anger, stew silently in anger, and even bond with others over anger, then your brain can more finely tailor your emotions and behavior to the situation. In other words, you have better tools to be emotionally intelligent.

This ability is called emotional granularity, and my students and I discovered it about 20 years ago. We asked hundreds of test subjects to record their emotions throughout the day on handheld computing devices (in the pre-smartphone days). From the data, we found that people use the same emotion words, but not necessarily to mean the same thing. For example, some people use words like “angry,” “fearful,” and “sad” to refer to completely different experiences, while others use all three words interchangeably to mean “feeling bad.”

Emotional granularity is a bit like wine tasting. Wine experts perceive extremely subtle variations in flavor, even among different batches from the same vineyard. People with less experience might not taste these differences, but perhaps they can at least distinguish a pinot noir from a merlot or cabernet sauvignon. A wine novice is much less capable of making these distinctions—perhaps he can tell dry wine from sweet wine, or perhaps they both just taste like alcohol.

Likewise, people who exhibit high emotional granularity are emotion experts. Their brains can automatically construct emotional experiences with fine differences, like astonished, amazed, startled, dumbfounded, and shocked. For a person who exhibits more moderate emotional granularity, all of these words might belong to the same concept, “surprised.” And for someone who exhibits low emotional granularity, these words might all correspond to feeling worked up.

Emotional granularity is a key to emotional intelligence. If your brain can construct many different emotions automatically and make fine distinctions among them, it can tailor your emotions better to your situation. You’re also better equipped to anticipate and perceive emotion in others in the blink of an eye. The more emotions that you know, the more finely your brain can construct emotional meaning automatically from other people’s actions. Even though your brain is always guessing, when it has more options to guess with, the odds are better it will guess appropriately….

The idea that you can increase your emotional intelligence by broadening your emotion vocabulary is solid neuroscience. Your brain is not static; it rewires itself with experience. When you force yourself to learn new words—emotion-related or otherwise—you sculpt your brain’s microwiring, giving it the means to construct those emotional experiences, as well as your perceptions of others’ emotions, more effortlessly in the future. In short, every emotion word you learn is a new tool for future emotional intelligence.

People who can construct finely grained emotional experiences have advantages beyond the expected social ones. Children who broaden their knowledge of emotion words improve their academic performance as well as their social behavior, according to studies by the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence. Adults who exhibit higher emotional granularity tend to be healthier with fewer doctor visits, less medication, and shorter stays in the hospital.

Foreign languages are a great source of new emotion words for increasing your brain’s emotional repertoire. You might already know schadenfreude, a transplant from German that means “taking pleasure in another person’s misfortune.” Other languages are filled with emotion words that have no direct equivalent in English. Examples are the Filipino gigil, an urge to squeeze something that’s unbearably adorable, and iktsuarpok, an Inuit feeling of anticipation and impatience while waiting for someone to arrive. As you learn these foreign terms and the concepts behind them, you may become able to perceive these emotions in others and even experience them yourself.

Ironically, emotional intelligence is also knowing when not to construct an emotion. When you’re feeling overwhelmed, take a moment and consider non-emotional explanations for how you feel. Perhaps that jittery feeling in your stomach isn’t anxiety, but determination. Maybe that bitchy coworker is simply hungry. A feeling of distress when talking to your mother isn’t evidence that she said something wrong. Remember that your brain is always guessing, and sometimes its guesses are wrong.

That last sentence is especially important. What’s going on is that normal people believe that their perceptions of social situations are reality and anything else is a deficit. That’s how we end up with pseudoscience like a chickenshit graduate student declaring that honesty is a sign of retardation rather than moral character.

Two decades ago, when Emotional Intelligence hit the bestseller list, scientists didn’t know about the predicting brain, or that the words you hear affect how your brain is wired, and emotional granularity was only newly discovered. Science, after all, is merely our best understanding of how things work, given the evidence at hand. In the face of new discoveries, explanations change, sometimes significantly. That is how science works. Many factors that were traditionally placed outside the realm of emotion, such as your vocabulary, have a profound impact on how you feel, what you see, and what you do. To bring emotional intelligence into the modern age, we must learn what these factors are—even if they challenge common sense—and use them judiciously to understand one another and ourselves.

True. The beginning of the article mentions 1995 as the year Emotional Intelligence is published.

The idea that prediction is fundamental to learning actually comes from at least as long ago as 1972, based on purely behavioral experiments (i.e., “psychology” and not even “neuroscience”). You learn about the Rescorla-Wagner model in any kind of “learning and behavior” class. In 1997, two years after Emotional Intelligence came out, there was this paper:

The idea that the outer world we experience is a model constructed internally, “the imaginary,” is something Jacques Lacan had no problem figuring out with psychoanalysis. Buddhists figured it out through introspective observation. Autism experts can’t figure it out, though.

The truth you’re not supposed to say: it’s normal when parents don’t read books or understand their own emotions, so they’re definitely not about to teach “emotional granularity” to an autistic child. Note that, for the reasons explained, this implies more behavioral problems. That will make the parents angry, so they will say hurtful things and be abusive and make it worse, while blaming autism. When people deny this, it’s like they’ve never been outside or experienced life.