Buoyed by these findings, Emiliana Simon-Thomas and I have sought to locate awe in the brain. The conventional neuroscience wisdom is that there is one reward circuit in the brain, which is activated in response to any kind of pleasure, be it money, a massage, a milkshake, hearing an aria, a raise at work, seeing your smiling infant, the touch of a friend, a smooch from a romantic partner, or a view of mountains. All forms of happiness reduce to a single kind of self-interested pleasure. We, of course, would suggest a different hypothesis, one that argues for distinct regions of the brain engaged in different kinds of pleasure and satisfaction. We would expect evolution to have built into the brain different neural circuits that enable the individual to engage in different kinds of positive emotion, be it about taste and smell, or the strength of the self, or about being good to others, or in the presence of that which is vast and beyond our current understanding.
To test this hypothesis, we first culled databases to find slides that elicit sensory pleasure, pride, compassion, and awe. We then had participants view series of these slides while having images of their brains taken in an fMRI scanner. The results strongly suggest that awe, compassion, and pride are not reducible to sensory pleasure; that there is more to good feeling and pleasure than self-interested rewards.
The images of sensory pleasure—hammocks on tropical beaches, pictures of steaming pizza—did just what you would expect from the neuroscience literature: They activated the nucleus accumbens, a region of the brain implicated in anticipation and registration of rewarding stimuli, including food and money. The images of sensory pleasure also activated the left dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex and hippocampus—involved in memory and reflective thought (clearly our participants were reflecting, perhaps longingly, upon past sensory pleasures).
The pride slides—images of Berkeley landmarks—activated the rostral medial prefrontal cortex. This region of the frontal lobes has been consistently found to light up when people think about themselves—a perfectly sensible finding, given the self-referential core of pride.
The images of harm and suffering activated bundles of neurons that tell a coherent story about where compassion is in the brain. These images activated the amygdala. These slides also activated a portion of the frontal lobes known as the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, which is involved in empathy and taking the perspective of another. Compassion integrates the sense of harm and the appreciation of the other’s experience.
Finally, awe. The awe slides activated the left orbitofrontal cortex. This region lights up when we are physically touched, and when we anticipate rewards. It is centrally involved in approach and goal-directed action. It is activated in instances in which people reflect upon their own internal experience, from a broader perspective. There are many forms of happiness in the brain; not everything reduces to self-interested pleasure.
A Darwinian study of awe is documenting the physiological underpinnings of our capacity to devote ourselves to the collective. It involves the bodily manifestation of expanding beyond ourselves (goose bumps) and connection (the vagus nerve). It transforms self-representation from that which separates to that which unites. It activates regions of the brain associated with goal-directed behavior and approach, a perspective upon the self, and pleasure. In its ultimate origins in evolution, the sacred is social. Our capacity for wonder and reverence is rooted in the body.
WIRED FOR JEN
The experience of awe is about finding your place in the larger scheme of things. It is about quieting the press of self-interest. It is about folding into social collectives. It is about feeling reverential toward participating in some expansive process that unites us all and that ennobles our life’s endeavors.
For Charles Darwin, it was his trip on the Beagle, and transcendent experiences in the Andes, in the Galápagos, around the cape, and with the hunter-gatherer people he saw during his five-year voyage. After wandering through a forest in the Amazon, he mused: “It creates a feeling of wonder that so much beauty should be apparently created for such little purpose.” The forest was “a temple filled with varied productions of the God of Nature.” In his observations of flowers, and beetles, and flatworms, and armadillos and trees, he began to discern some force—natural selection—that united them all. Humans were, in the words of Darwin biographer Janet Browne, “just a small part of a much larger interlocking system of life on earth.”
For cell biologist Ursula Goodenough, the biochemical processes that make up life and living are sacred. How life-forms emerged in the hot mud of billions of years ago, how two sex cells combine to develop into the human, how DNA evolved over time—these questions stirred her soul. Her understanding of these biological processes is filled with the sense of design, beauty, and vastness that stirred Muir’s feelings about the Sierras.
In my short scientific life, my feelings of wonder and reverence began one moment in a lab as a post-doc, a late afternoon when I first began applying the tools of the Facial Action Coding System. These tools allowed me to freeze human action in the millisecond frame of a videotape and take a Darwinian journey, tracing our positive emotions as they manifest today back in evolutionary time to the social dynamics that gave rise to such forms. The emotions that I have been so fortunate to capture in my lab, just for a fragile, fleeting instant, have their evolutionary provenance in a reverence and respect for others, and “identification of ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own.” A teenager’s blush triggers a forgiving smile from parents, and conflict and tension subside. A deferential smile and “thank you” between bag boy and elderly woman in the checkout line spread respect and enhance our faith in the human endeavor, if only for a moment or two. Parents, pushing infants on swings, fill a space with smiles, coos, and laughs, creating a warm environment of trust and goodwill. Songs of laughter ripple through couples, friends, families, auditoriums, linking minds in cooperative, lighthearted play. With the subtle turn of a phrase or use of the voice, spouses and siblings and parents and their children transform thorny conflicts into playful banter. Kind embraces spread from child to friend to grandparent. We have neuropeptides that enable trust and devotion, and a branch of nerves that connects the brain, the voice, and the heart that enables caretaking. Our capacity for awe has given us art, a sense of the sacred. We have genes, neurotransmitters, and regions of the brain that serve these emotions as we serve others. These emotions are the substance of jen. Evolution has produced a mind that evolves toward an appreciation of the vastness of our collective design, and emotions that enable us to enact these loftier notions. We are wired for good.
NOTES
JEN SCIENCE
in honor of the Confucian concept of jen: For an excellent summary of Confucius’s life, times, and philosophy, see Karen Armstrong, The Great Transformation (New York: Anchor, 2006), 240–51.
Jen is the central idea in: Wing-Tsit Chan, trans., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), chap. 6. Below are some other quotes from Wing-Tsit Chan’s translation of the analects of Confucius that provide an understanding of jen:
1:2 Few of those who are filial sons and respectful brothers will show disrespect to superiors, and there has never been a man who is not disrespectful to superiors and yet creates disorder. A superior man is devoted to the fundamentals (the root). When the root is firmly established, the moral law (Tao) will grow. Filial piety and brotherly respect are the root of humanity (jen).
1:3 A man with clever words and an ingratiating appearance is seldom a man of humanity.
1:6 Young men should be filial when at home and respectful to their elders when away from home. They should be earnest and faithful. They should love all extensively and be intimate with men of humanity. When they have any energy to spare after the performance of moral duties, they should use it to study literature and the arts.
3:3 If a man is not humane (jen), what has he to do with ceremonies (li)? If he is not humane, what ha
s he to do with music?
4:2 One who is not a man of humanity cannot endure adversity for long, nor can he enjoy prosperity for long. The man of humanity is naturally at ease with humanity. The man of wisdom cultivates humanity for its advantage.
4:3 Only the man of humanity knows how to love people and hate people.
4:4 If you set your mind on humanity, you will be free from evil.
4:5 Confucius said, “Wealth and honor are what every man desires. But if they have been obtained in violation of moral principles, they must not be kept. Poverty and humble station are what every man dislikes. But if they can be avoided only in violation of moral principles, they must not be avoided. If a superior man departs from humanity, how can he fulfill that name? A superior man never abandons humanity even for the lapse of a single meal. In moments of haste, he acts according to it. In times of difficulty or confusion, he acts according to it.”
4:6 Confucius said, “I have never seen one who really loves humanity or one who really hates inhumanity. One who really loves humanity will not place anything above it. One who really hates inhumanity will practice humanity in such a way that inhumanity will have no chance to get at him. Is there anyone who has devoted his strength to humanity for as long as a single day? I have not seen anyone without sufficient strength to do so. Perhaps there is such a case, but I have never seen it.”
6:21 Confucius said, “The man of wisdom delights in water; the man of humanity delights in mountains. The man of wisdom is active; the man of humanity is tranquil. The man of wisdom enjoys happiness; the man of humanity enjoys long life.”
6:28 Tzu-kung said, “If a ruler extensively confers benefit on the people and can bring salvation to all, what do you think of him? Would you call him a man of humanity?” Confucius said, “Why only a man of humanity? He is without doubt a sage. Even (sage-emperors) Yao and Shun fell short of it. A man of humanity, wishing to establish his own character, also establishes the character of others, and wishing to be prominent himself, also helps others to be prominent. To be able to judge others by what is near to ourselves may be called the method of realizing humanity.”
7:6 Confucius said, “Set your will on the Way. Have a firm grasp on virtue. Rely on humanity. Find recreation in the arts.”
7:29 Confucius said, “Is humanity far away? As soon as I want it, there it is right by me.”
Engaging in five acts of kindness a week: Sonja Lyubomirsky, The How of Happiness (New York: Penguin, 2007), 127–28.
Spending twenty dollars on someone else: E. W. Dunn, L. B. Akin, and M. I. Norton, “Spending Money on Others Promotes Happiness,” Science 319, no. 5870, (2008): 1687–88.
When pitted against one another in competitive economic games: A. Dreber, D. G. Rand, D. Fudenberg, and M. A. Nowak, “Winners Don’t Punish,” Nature 452 (2008): 348–51.
New neuroscience suggests we are wired for jen: J. K. Rilling et al., “A Neural Basis for Social Cooperation,” Neuron 35 (2002): 395–405.
In over twenty studies: T. N. Bradbury and F. D. Fincham, “Attributions in Marriage: Review and Critique,” Psychological Bulletin 107 (1990): 3–33.
see hidden virtues accompanying their partner’s foibles and faults: In this research, romantic partners were asked to write about their partner’s greatest fault. More satisfied romantic partners were more likely to see virtue in their partner’s faults, and to reflexively offer “yes, but” refutations of the fault. See S. L. Murray and J. G. Holmes, “Seeing Virtues in Faults: Negativity and the Transformation of Interpersonal Narratives in Close Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (1993): 707–23.
In 1996, Paul Zak: P. J. Zak, “Trust,” The Capco Institute Journal of Financial Transformation 7 (2003): 13–21.
signs of a loss of jen in the United States are incontrovertible: For the most comprehensive assessment of the well-being of our culture, see David G. Myers, The American Paradox (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000).
U.S. adults now have one-third fewer close friends: M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and M. E. Brashears, “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades,” American Sociological Review 71 (2006): 353–75.
In a recent UNICEF study of twenty-one industrialized nations: The overall score is based on a sum of six categories: material well-being, health and safety, education, peer and family relationships, behaviors and risks, and children’s own subjective well-being. “UNICEF Ranks Well-Being of British, U.S. Children Last in Industrialized World,” USA Today, February 14, 2007.
I see these disheartening social trends as the culmination of a broader ideology about human nature: Barry Schwartz was one of the first scholars to deconstruct the deeper assumptions of self-interest underlying the social and biological sciences. Barry Schwartz, Battle for Human Nature (New York: W. W. Norton, 1986). For another excellent challenge of the assumption that humans are self-interested, one more focused on the debate over altruism, see Alfie Kohn, The Brighter Side of Human Nature (New York: Basic Books, 1990).
When “pleasure centers” were first discovered in 1954: J. Olds and P. Milner, “Positive Reinforcement Produced by Electrical Stimulation of Septal Area and Other Regions of Rat Brain,” Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 47 (1954): 419–27.
And now a new field, neuroeconomics: Neuroeconomics is the scientific study of whether basic principles of behavioral economics—loss aversion, favoring current gains over future ones, risk taking and risk seeking—are represented in different regions of the brain. The study of reward circuits in the brain is one of the hot areas in neuroeconomics. See B. Knutson and J. C. Cooper, “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Reward Prediction,” Current Opinions in Neurology 18, no. 4 (2005): 411–17.
consider the debate about generous acts toward strangers: For a lucid examination of altruism, consult the work of Daniel Batson. Batson argues that kind actions that enhance the welfare of others, even at costs to the self, are motivated by selfish reasons, like the desire to reduce personal distress and to receive social praise, as well as pure altruistic motives that stem from a concern for the welfare of others. D. C. Batson and L. L. Shaw, “Evidence for Altruism: Toward a Pluralism of Prosocial Motives,” Psychological Inquiry 2 (1991): 107–22. Elliot Sober and David Sloan Wilson also provide a thoughtful examination of this debate. Sober and Wilson, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998). And for an earlier treatment of the philosophical mistakes made in assuming that altruism is necessarily self-interested, see Kohn, The Brighter Side of Human Nature.
That the bad is stronger than the good is evident in several findings: R. F. Baumeister, E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer, and K. D. Vohs, “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” Review of General Psychology 5 (2001): 323–70. S. E. Taylor, “Asymmetrical Effects of Positive and Negative Events: The Mobilization-Minimization Hypothesis,” Psychological Bulletin 110 (1991): 67–85. P. Rozin and E. B. Royzman, “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (2001): 296–320.
Economic losses loom larger than their equivalent gains: A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science 21 (1981): 453–58.
Slides of negative stimuli: T. A. Ito, J. T. Larsen, N. K. Smith, and J. T. Cacioppo, “Negative Information Weighs More Heavily on the Brain: The Negativity Bias in Evaluative Categorizations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1998): 887–900.
Freud: On Murder, Mourning and Melancholia, trans. Michael Huise (New York: Penguin, 2005).
Rand: “In the Words of Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand, with Alvin Toffler,” Playboy, March 1964, 40.
Machiavelli: The Prince, trans. G. Bull (New York: Penguin, 2003).
Williams: Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966), 255.
Just ask the parent
s of children with Williams Syndrome: see www.williams-syndrome.org.
This questioning found galvanizing expression: It’s hard to overestimate the influence of Robert Frank’s superb book on thinking about emotion, morality, and cooperation. In elegant and provocative arguments, Frank has made the case for the wisdom of the moral emotions, emotions like gratitude and love, and how these emotions are a bedrock of cooperative communities. Robert H. Frank, Passions Within Reason (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988).
economists Ernst Fehr and Klaus Schmidt found that 71 percent of the allocators offered the responder between 40 and 50 percent of the money: Fehr and Schmidt, “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 (1999): 817–68.
Does material gain make us happy?: These findings as well as many others that speak to the rise of materialism in contemporary U.S. culture are summarized in David Myers, The American Paradox (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000).
Look at the table below, adapted from: Alain de Botton, Status Anxiety (New York: Pantheon, 2004).
Does money make us happy?: D. G. Myers, “The Funds, Friends, and Faith of Happy People,” American Psychologist 55 (2000): 56–67.
what makes us happy is the quality of our romantic bonds, the health of our families, the time we spend with good friends, the connections we feel to communities: For superb summaries of the many benefits of healthy relationships, as well as the costs of impoverished relationships and isolation, see R. F. Baumeister and M. R. Leary, “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation,” Psychological Bulletin 117 (1995): 497–529; M. Argyle, “Causes and Correlates of Happiness,” in Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, ed. Daniel Kahneman, Edward Diener, and Norbert Schwarz (New York: Russell Sage, 1999), 353–73; Jonathan Haidt, The Happiness Hypothesis (New York: Basic Books, 2006).
Born to Be Good_The Science of a Meaningful Life Page 28
