Brain and Mind

The Downshifting Dilemma

In stress the brain automatically downshifts – or does it? Robert Sylwester argues the case for two excellent solution systems in stressful situations
By Professor Robert Sylwester
University of Oregon
August, 1998

Introduction
Metaphors are useful, since they connect complex concepts to understandable objects and events. All metaphors (and also maps, models, and explanations) contain a certain level of distortion -- which is acceptable as long as the metaphor adequately communicates the essence of the concept, and encourages us to seek its broader applications.

Recent cognitive neuroscience developments are altering our understanding of a variety of brain systems and processes, and so it should come as no surprise that some of these new understandings suggest that we'll probably have to redesign or even abandon some of our long established much-loved metaphors.

I've recently suggested that we abandon the downshifting metaphor - because it doesn't adequately communicate current understandings of how our response systems function. It was a useful metaphor for many of us, but I think it's now time to bid it good-bye. When asked at a conference a couple weeks ago what I would use as a replacement, I had nothing to offer, beyond admitting that I should try to come up with a replacement if I'm critical of the metaphor. I've now restudied the relevant literature, and so what follows is a commentary on (1) what I think is wrong with the downshifting metaphor and (2) a suggested alternative.

The Downshifting Metaphor
Downshifting is a mixed metaphor that emerged out of Paul MacLean's Triune Brain model and a car's gear mechanism. It implies a three shift automobile drive system. When I ask educators who use the metaphor to explain their understanding of it, they tend to respond somewhat as follows: Low gear (the reptilian complex) drives primitive/reflexive responses. Middle gear (the limbic system) drives emotional responses. High gear (the cortex) drives rational/reflective responses. Thus, someone who is currently functioning rationally may be confronted by a difficult problem, and downshift to an emotional or primitive response level (much as we downshift a car when we're confronted by hills/ mud/etc). When questioned further, most view downshifting negatively.

One thing that's wrong with this scenario is that our emotional system is not a centralized response system (as second gear implies), but rather part of an extended alerting or arousal system that establishes the emotional tone and bias of our response pattern to danger and opportunity. Emotion is quite transitory, mood might last for days, and temperament provides a lifelong emotional bias.

Our several specific emotional subsystems alert us to dangers and opportunities that shift our attention from its current locus to that of the emerging problem -- and these actions then activate our various response systems (or as I've previously written it: emotion drives attention, which drives learning, memory, problem solving and just about everything else). We thus don't make an emotional response, but rather our emotions simply establish and help to maintain the focus and intensity of our attentional and solution systems. It's a fine, but important distinction. So it's neurologically incorrect to suggest that we downshift from a rational to an emotional response (second gear).

Another problem with the downshifting metaphor is that only one car gear can function at a time, and our brain is a marvelous parallel processor. So to use the current car metaphor, I could be driving with friends and simultaneously carry out all of the following: (1) automatically operate the car's navigation mechanisms (low gear), (2) monitor a beautiful orchestral piece on the car radio, and note dangers and opportunities in traffic patterns (middle gear), and (3) carry on a thoughtful conversation with my friends (high gear). That's some gear box! Downshifting implies to me that our brain functions in only one response mode at a time, and it doesn't.

I indicated above that many folks view downshifting in negative terms, and that also creates a problem. Each of our several response systems evolved to carry out an important function, so primitive responses aren't necessarily negative. We don't have to use good manners when our life is on the line. Most of our responses to challenges involve simultaneous behaviors at several levels, and so we ad hoc our way through life with regrets and apologies for acting too quickly or for delaying too long. Would that the cognitive line between rational and irrational responses were so neatly drawn.

Consider the Current film, Saving Private Ryan. It's apparent that the concept of downshifting isn't up to the task of explaining the complex emotional/attentional and primal-to-intellectual dynamics of the high-level military/political decision to risk the lives of several soldiers in an attempt to save the life of one. Was the decision good/bad, moral/immoral, heroic/cowardly, rational/irrational?

Further, who were the good guys and who were the bad guys in the film (considering that the German military tended to send Polish and Estonian youth to defend the dangerous positions that are the focus of the film)? We see what is called downshifting throughout the film, and yet it seems an inadequate metaphor for the complexity of the behaviors depicted.

Finally, the limbic system (which is central to the Triune Brain Theory that sparked the downshifting metaphor) has recently come under increasing critical assault (LeDoux, 1996. Brothers, 1997. Pert, 1997. Pinker, 1997). We now know that our emotional system is neurologically widespread, although many of its important functions involve structures (such as the amygdala) historically associated with the limbic system. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of my finger/bagel/construction paper version of the Triune Brain, and I now think that I finally better eat the bagel.

I'm not arguing that we can never consciously move from a rational to a primitive response mode (as implied by downshifting). Continued frustration with a persistent problem could certainly lead to a deliberately directed primitive outburst, but primitive responses aren't generally deliberate. They're stress driven, and are typically precipitated by serious new information. This means that the previous situation itself has now changed to a new situation -- and this then-now separation finally suggests how we might begin to think of a new explanation for what we formerly called downshifting.

A Proposal
Cognitive problems can arise out of external sensory information or internal mental processes. Most incoming sensory information is initially processed through the thalamus into two separate response systems:
1. We have a relatively slow, analytic, reflective (primarily cortical) system to explore the more objective factual elements of a situation, compare them with related memories, and then rationally respond. It's best suited to non-threatening situations that don't require an instant response -- life's little challenges.
2. We have a fast, conceptual, reflexive (primarily subcortical) system that identifies the dangerous and opportunistic elements in a situation, and then quickly activates powerful innate or learned automatic response programs if survival seems problematic. This fast system developed to respond to imminent predatory danger and fleeting feeding and mating opportunities. Our emotional/attentional systems thus are primed to quickly note (for example) any loud, looming, contrasting, moving, obnoxious, or attractive elements that signal potential danger, food, or mates, and rapidly signal the information to our solution systems.

The fast system thus enhances survival, and so it's the default or go-to system, and not the one we downshift to. If anything, our response would typically begin this immediate reflexive response system and then upshift to a more reflective response if it's apparent that the situation doesn't require an immediate response (just as in a car, which almost always begins in low gear, and then shifts up).

Unfortunately, the rapid superficial analysis of the fast system often leads us to respond fearfully, impulsively, and inappropriately to situations that don't require an immediate response. Stereotyping, prejudice, regrets, and apologies are but one of the prices we humans continually pay for this powerful survival system. Worse, the neurotransmitter or hormonal discharges associated with fear can strengthen the emotional and weaken the factual memories of an event if the stressful situation is serious and/or chronic. We become fearful of something, but we're not sure why, so we've learned little from the experience that's consciously useful.

Further, chronic activation of our fear pathways can result in physical deterioration within our memory systems. I suppose that it is these elements that have led to the negative reputation that primitive responses seem to have in the downshifting metaphor -- but a primitive stress driven response is truly advisable in a situation that requires it. Think of the amount of stress in our life like the amount of salt in food -- a small amount can be good, but a whole lot is generally harmful.

I'm now not sure that we need a metaphor to describe our dual response system. Why not just use the term reflexive and reflective?
The explanation might go something like this: When our emotional/attentional systems report a problem, our first line of either defense or attack tends to be reflexive. Powerful reflexive response repertoires are unconsciously activated. Our slower reflective problem-solving system is simultaneously alerted, and it can affect or even override our reflexive system's response if it can quickly come up with a better solution, or it can at least soften the response.

We thus have two excellent solution systems that can independently and cooperatively respond to most of the dangers and opportunities we face. It is possible, though, that a person biased towards reflexive responses may reflexively respond to many situations that are better solved through reflection, and a principally reflective person may likewise reflectively delay responses to imminent dangers and opportunities. It's not a foolproof system.

Children must developmentally come to understand, respect, and selectively use both of the systems -- to learn how to intelligently solve problems beset with obstacles the school environment and curriculum should enhance this learning process by reducing the specter of threat when it doesn't enhance the learning process (so a little fear is probably OK when practicing safety activities like fire drills).

I would therefore suggest that we simply use the terms reflexive and reflective to describe our response patterns. Further, we shouldn't think in terms of shifting back and forth between the two (as with a gearshift), but rather that we use the reflexive or reflective system that's initially best suited to the current situation, and that we probably also use both systems in a variety of currently ill-understood combinations to respond to many of the problems that we face.

For example, a teacher could be reflectively working with a class and suddenly be confronted by the inappropriate behavior of a student. She could immediately reflexively respond to that student while continuing to function reflectively with the rest of the class. There's no shifting, just a simultaneous response to two different stimuli, something our parallel-processing brain does with ease.

Reflexive and reflective are easily understood terms that are commonly used by cognitive neuroscientists, and they don't contain the problems that downshifting has. They work for me, and so perhaps also for you.

References
1) Brothers, Leslie. Friday's Footprint: How Society Shapes the Human Mind (1997, Oxford).
2) LeDoux, Joseph. The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life (1996, Simon/Schuster).
3) Pert, Candace. The Molecules of Emotion: Why You Feel the Way You Feel (1997, Scribners).
4) Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works (1997, Norton).


Source: Professor Robert Sylwester