Broad thinking promotes happiness, and happiness promotes broader thinking. That’s the conclusion of a recent study published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. The study, by Harvard’s Moshe Bar, suggests that broad, associative thinking — the ability to move smoothly and creatively from one thought to the next and entertain novel ideas and perspectives — makes us happy. It is a reward nature gives us to help us survive.
It’s the opposite of getting stuck on one thought and being unable to let it go. For instance, “I made an ass of myself at dinner last night,” or, in the case of Glenn Beck, “Obama is a fascist.”
Mood is affected by our thinking, and our thinking by our mood. Both impact our health. When you think about it, it seems obvious that bad moods are often marked by singular, persistent negative thoughts (known as rumination). Barr suggests that inducing broad, associative thinking opens new therapies for depression. Leaping (carefully) from this insight to its political and social implications, we might find the reason for the frowning faces of ideological extremists. We might also see that the bitter clinging to negative thoughts regarding our political antagonists actually inhibits creative solutions to our shared problems.
Prodded by a media which rewards with attention shrill name-calling and fear-inducing accusations, we could discover a national mood disorder. Collectively, our thinking is narrowed by a media that keeps us anxious. Creative solutions to the health care crisis or global warming are inhibited by depressives stuck on their singular thoughts.
Here is Bar’s conclusion:
Associations are inherently crucial for learning, and the healthy brain might be motivated to learn by a consequential mood reward. As has been proposed and shown in the past, associations are also crucial for the generation of predictions. Being able to minimize uncertainty with the generation of association-based predictions is a most effective means for improving chances of survival. Therefore, activating associations broadly and frequently, while still being able to focus more narrowly when necessary, could provide a mechanism that promotes survival and progress. When using this mechanism ‘as intended’, one is rewarded with a positive mood.
This is not a recommendation for the wearing of rose-colored glasses. It doesn’t mean we should simply deny the negative, telling ourselves that there is no climate crisis, for instance. It means we should loosen up, let go of the temptation to focus upon our opponents in the struggle.
Ask yourself this: Why aren’t bigots happy? After all, in their view of the world they are superior to those they dehumanize, a circumstance that ought to promote a sense of well-being and happiness. The frowns of Dick Cheney and George Wallace tell the opposite story. Indeed, I’ve never met a happy bigot, and I think the reason is their closed minds lock them into a perpetual state of unhappiness. The destructive consequences of their negative thinking is quite obvious throughout history.
Breaking this bad and dangerous habit isn’t as easy as it sounds, in part because of other brain traits: we are wired to be alert to danger, and we remember negative facts more readily than positive ones. This is why negative ads work so well in politics. It’s also why TV news, trying to secure an audience for advertising, focuses so much on the negative. It keeps us watching. Also, as anyone who has written for political blogs will know, negative attacks on opponents drive up traffic. It’s a vicious cycle that keeps us ruminating on the negative as creative solutions continue to elude us.
Depression is a disease with multiple physiological and psychological causes, so I’m not suggesting a simple “don’t worry, be happy,” solution to depression. The “power of positive thinking” is sometimes used to hide individual and social problems. We can’t fall into that trap, either. Broad, associative thinking can’t be simplified as positive thinking. It’s better known as open-mindedness.
The world faces many complex and dangerous problems. It’s going to take a goodly number of creative minds to solve those problems. We better smile and open our minds to one another.
Good stuff Glenn. Sharing now…
I’ll add my “good stuff” thanks for this.
“Open-mindedness” is often dismissed as a lack of thoughtfulness and/or conviction. Either / Or framing doesn’t allow for “opening our minds to one another,” and that us / them approach seems to characterize much of media, much of politics, and a good bit of human interactions in general. It’s hard to hear others, and to be creative, within the strict limitations of that framing.