A coauthor of the studies referenced in:
- Advance science by including emotion in research; and
- Empathy, value, pain, control: Psychological functions of the human striatum
offered an opinion piece in A Paper a Day Keeps the Scientist Okay entitled “Do We Need To Study The Brain To Understand The Mind?”:
“The emerging consensus appears to be that implementation is important. Interestingly, the inverse question is also being asked by neurobiologists—do we need consider the mind to understand the brain?—and answered largely and increasingly in the affirmative.
Is pain different from negative emotions such as sadness and anger, or are they variants on a common theme? Pain appears to be distinct from negative emotion, but commonalities suggest ways in which they may share underlying processes such as heightened attention.
One of the biggest pitfalls is the temptation to observe brain activity and make inferences about the psychological state—for example, to infer:
- Episodic memory retrieval from hippocampal activity,
- Fear from amygdala activity, or
- Visual processing from activity in the ‘visual cortex.’
These inferences ignore the scope of processes which may activate each of these areas and involve a fallacy in reasoning: “if memory then hippocampus” is not the same thing as “if hippocampus then memory.”
The fact that few brain areas, including the ‘visual cortex,’ are dedicated to one process means that self-report is still the gold standard for assessing emotional experience and the contents of thought. This is a serious challenge for those who would like, for example, to assess your brand preferences or your political affiliation from a brain scan. (And isn’t it easier just to ask?)”