Why my FOUR brains play havoc with my mental health.

An article that explores the complexities of how our brains (might) work and what we can do to help manage our wellbeing and resilience.

With extracts from “The Art of the Mentally Healthy Conversation” by Jonathan Phelan and published by The Evenhood Organisation Limited. Available from  evenhood.org.

Although I frequently give speeches, training and coaching on mental health I repeatedly make it clear that I’m no scientist. I’m not medically trained — I’m not a counsellor or therapist; nor a psychiatrist or psychologist. I don’t pretend to know what is actually going on in the brain.

My work is all about helping people have more effective conversations about their mental wellbeing and resilience; so that they stand the best chance of getting support (rather than stigma). This conversational approach I propose we take to talking about mental wellbeing is not about providing an alternative to therapy or medication. It is not a cure or treatment.

This is about giving and receiving practical support. It is about finding or providing the support needed to manage mental wellbeing.

This is why I very deliberately refer to my work as being about The “Art” of the Mentally Healthy Conversation. And with that qualification in play, I’m now going to give you an idea of my personal perspective about what is going on here.

To underline my non-scientific approach; let’s do that with a plate of cakes.

When I train people in The Art of the Mentally Healthy Conversation I’ll pop a box of cakes at the front of the room. They look all delicious and inviting. With things usually kicking off in the morning, most people have rushed to work, university or school having had an inadequate breakfast and are in need of a bit of caffeine and sugar. So this is a particularly inviting move.

It’s also a touch cruel, because the purpose of the cakes is not to feed and sustain. It’s to illustrate a point about how I characterise our brains working.

The reason why I refer to “brains” in the plural is not because we have many people, each with a brain. It is because we, individually, have more than one brain. (I told you I’m not a scientist — this is not intended to be biologically accurate, it’s intended to represent how I characterise the way in which our minds work!).

Each of these brains might spring into life when the box of cakes appears.

First we have the Instinctive brain which you might think of as developing at the earlier part of the evolutionary calendar; perhaps illustrated best by the image of prehistoric reptiles. This Instinctive brain is the brain that sustains our essential needs. We don’t tend to scratch our chins and take some time out to wonder whether we are or are not hungry, thirsty, too warm, too cold, have a desire for sex and so on. These things are simply apparent to us. The sight of those cakes kick-starts the Instinctive brain — we crave sugar.

Things that are sweet tasting tend to sustain us well (and that’s supposed to be sugars from fruits, not refined sugars!). So, we Instinctively crave them. It is this Instinctive brain which, uncontrolled, might lead to over-indulgence or even addiction to things like salt, sugar, fat, alcohol, drugs or other stimulants, sex and so on. It’s unsurprising perhaps that the items on this list are the tools of advertisers. Dangling these items in front of us can serve to override other parts of our brain and cause us to make a purchase that we might later regret.

Or to eat a cake.

Then we have the part of the brain that learns from Experience and provides guidance, or promotes desire, or guides decision-making based on memories and emotions and social attachments. We might think of this part of the brain as developing further along the evolutionary calendar; perhaps illustrated best by the image of primitive mammals.

In basic terms a good experience of something in the past might lead us to decide to go for it again in the present. A bad experience of something in the past might lead us to decide to avoid it in the present.

So at the same moment that your Instinctive brain is kicking in, your Experiential brain might kick in too. This can have some interesting consequences because your Experiential brain might not agree with your Instinctive brain.

Again, this might not involve a fully thought-through process. Quite simply you might have learned something from an experience earlier in life that proves useful — so you retain it in your subconscious mind and it kicks in at the appropriate time. Sometimes you might be aware of the memory; other times your subconscious mind prompts you to indulge in something that you have enjoyed before. Or avoid something that you have not enjoyed before.

[I do realise that the scientists would be calling this the “unconscious” mind. I have read and understand the reasons why. This is where we get “unconscious bias” from. I refer to it as the subconscious because I’m not constrained by scientific accuracy here. Plus I think that scientific language doesn’t always translate well to the colloquial in a way that aids understanding. We are, of course, not unconscious in the everyday sense of the word when all this is going on. So, forgive me for sticking with “subconscious”.]

If, for example, you have regularly had cakes on Friday as a treat, or you have fond memories of a granny or grandpa who baked you some cakes whenever you visited, or you associate cakes with celebrations and happy events, then your Experiential brain might produce a desire for you to want one of those cakes.

On the other hand, things might be different if you have a memory of over-indulging on cakes to the point of being sick, or some other negative experience. Perhaps you suffer from an uncomfortable sugar-high if you eat sweet things on an empty stomach, or perhaps you’re gluten intolerant or diabetic and eating cakes has had more severe adverse consequences in the past.

What you have in these situations is a possible conflict between the Instinctive brain and the Experiential brain. On the one hand you might Instinctively crave some sugar and carbohydrates; but on the other you may want to avoid the cake because of your negative past Experiences.

Moving on around the brain, we next have the Logical brain which moves us along the evolutionary calendar to humanity. This is the thinking brain. It produces a higher level of logical thought, the ability to plan and gives us self-awareness. In decision-making it is the part of the brain that might result in us coming up with a thought-through list of pros and cons.

Again, we may have conflict here. Logically you might say to yourself — I’ve lost a few pounds recently, or I ate a healthy breakfast so I see no Logical harm in having a nice cake.

Or, Logically you might say to yourself, much as I really fancy a cake, I’m going to avoid it because it’s not healthy — I’ve already had too much sugar today or I’m going out later so even though I am hungry I’ll save my appetite for later.

We now have three brains in play. We have the Instinctive brain, the Experiential brain and the Logical brain. These may well be in harmony. Equally they could be in conflict — each with different thoughts and opinions on what might be the “right” thing to do.

There’s a further active brain which often comes into play in practical terms as if it’s a separate intervention, even if that suggestion has dubious basis in biological fact. If we think about this in evolutionary terms, we really are just looking at our most recent history for the development of this part of the brain.

I’ll call it “Values” as a general term but in different people it has different names.

Some might see it as their personal ethical Values — where choices might be derived from a real personal sense of what is right and wrong. People in this category might “choose something that they consider is the right thing to choose”. Others might see it as their religion — where choices are driven by the rules and demands of the religion. People in this category might “choose something that they should have”, consistent with their faith. Then there are people whose Values are influenced socially; they might or might not completely believe in those Values, but their family or society might have those Values, so here the person might “choose something that they ought to have” to fit-in with their social group.

I see the Values-based brain coming up a great deal in Coaching. People often make significant life choices (what sort of degree to take, what sort of career to pursue, what sort of person to marry, where to live and how to manage finances) on the basis of influenced social or family or religious Values that, deep down, they might not completely share. This in itself can create some incredibly strong internal conflicts.

When people make decisions about the right outcome, I’ve often seen Instinctive, Experiential and Logical preference overtaken by Values-based considerations. The point I want to draw out is that, I don’t much care what the biological accuracy of this is; in practical terms, Values kick-in as an additional and separate part of the process. This is important because Values often produce a more acutely painful conflict with the Instinctive, Experiential and Logical parts of the brain.

Let’s take the example of sex and sexuality; particularly a preference for same-sex relationships. Someone’s sexual preferences might very much be dictated by their personal Instinctive preferences. These may be very much aligned with their Experiential attachments and desires. And, for them, it might be Logical to pursue a sexual relationship that is consistent with their Instinct and Experiences. So, where’s the conflict between Instinct, Experience and Logic? They are all aligned in expressing a desire for a same-sex relationship.

With same-sex preferences there may be complete harmony between an Instinct for a same-sex relationship, positive Experiences which confirm that this is the normal and pleasurable thing to do, and Logical reasons why this is the right thing to do.

Yet there is an enormous amount of conflict in the world of sexual preferences. People suppress same-sex preferences for years, sometimes decades, sometimes a lifetime because of Values (including religious Values, social Values, family Values and their own personal Values). This is an incredibly painful internal conflict. It is also a conflict that produces stigma from others, whose brains produce different decisions based on their own Instincts, Experiences, Logical thoughts and Values.

Taking it back to my own thought experiment about cakes, we could have an individual influenced by Instinct, Experience and Logic unanimously telling them to eat the cake — to sustain, to ignite a happy experience and because logically it will do no harm. But for religious or ethical reasons (a Catholic fasting on a Holy Day or a Muslim in Ramadan or someone acting out of thoughtfulness for another person in the room who they know suffers from an eating disorder) they may decline the opportunity.

So Values often kick in as a fourth dimension in the decision-making process. That’s relevant to us being able to have a Mentally Healthy Conversation. It’s also generally useful for us to consider the role of Values when we are making decisions for ourselves and when we are talking to other people about decisions that they have to make.

My little thought experiment with cakes hopefully illustrates how there can be all sorts of conflicts going on in the brain; with potentially different positive or negative messages for each decision being prompted by the different functions of our brains.

In my work as a Coach, working with people who have wellbeing or resilience challenges I’ve seen these different parts of the brain in operation. I’ve seen it with my own mental wellbeing too.

Through my experience of a tragic and traumatic child bereavement, my experiential brain had a massive workout (like it went to the gym every day for a five hour workout!).

Because it experienced a one-in-a-million tragedy, with enormously traumatic consquences, my experiential brain became massively dominant in my thought processes. That experience of one highly impactful tragedy gave me, through my experiential brain, a really powerful influence on my thought processes that now dominated my life. My experiential brain learned that one-in-a-million tragedies can happen, at any point. And so I ended up with a hyper-vigilant mind that constantly looked out for new tragedies, all the time. And this was really debilitating.

My instinctive brain became constantly fearful of new tragedies. My logical brain (the one that should have said that one in a million tragedies are so unlikely they aren’t worth bothering about) became numb and muted. And my Values-based brain was offended by the awfulness and unfairness of it all.

My ability to manage my condition comes as a result of firstly understanding this; and then from learning how to give more power to my logical brain and dampening down my experiential brain.

I see this in my clients too. Some with addictive tendencies having a powerful instinctive brain, that craves the kick and ignores the bad experience, or the ethical wrongness. Others who have followed a path in life based on inherited values (from family, social groups, religion) that they don’t just feel comfortable with and causes them constant anxiety, stress or depression. People who find themselves able to better-manage their challenges if they give more power to their logical brain and dampen down the influence of other parts of their thinking.

Try a little thought experiment to help you think through the concepts that we have just explored. Instead of the word “cake” in the centre of the brain above, insert the thing that you struggle with — an event, a situation, a thought . . . anything.

Reflect on how your four separate brains influence this situation. Consider which part of your brain is most powerful here. Give a voice to all parts of your brain and consider which are muted and which are powerful. Then you can start to think about how you might adjust the way you think. You can start to make a choice about how to give more power to less-influential parts of your brain; and less power to those parts of you brain that have most influence, but produce poorer outcomes.

This way of thinking about our brains is important in the realm of mental wellbeing. It forms an essential foundation stone for two major subjects of my book, “The Art of the Mentally Healthy Conversation”.

The first is to help us understand why mental health conversations go so badly wrong. The second is to help us understand our own mental health and how our internal resilience is challenged by these internal conflicts in our brains.

I wish you well — Jonathan Phelan

About Jonathan Phelan

Jonathan is the author of “The Art of the Mentally Healthy Conversation” which tells the story of how Jonathan learned how to manage the challenge of a mental health condition following a child bereavement. The book helps the reader discover how to have mentally healthy conversations, which are more likely to result in support, rather than stigma. It also promotes the benefits of workplaces, universities and schools nurturing a culture in which it is normal for people to talk about their mental health and to offer mutual support for wellbeing and resilience.

Jonathan has held a senior leadership position in a large financial services organisation since 2004, with a long-term career in law, law enforcement and consumer protection. When he went through the trauma of a child bereavement he gained an insight into the obstacles people face when they have mental wellbeing challenges. More importantly he learned how to overcome those obstacles by improving the way we talk about our wellbeing and resilience.

Through his talks, workshops and book Jonathan shares his personal story. Using the drama of how mental health has been portrayed in film, and his own particular take on how our brains process information, Jonathan guides the listener to discover more effective ways to talk about mental wellbeing.

Jonathan also promotes the concept of mutual support for wellbeing; based on the belief that we should all aim to make it normal for people to talk about their mental wellbeing, just as we are already willing to talk about physical wellbeing.