Mon 16 Feb 2009
Talking About Bad Feelings Helps Control Them? Really, now?
Posted by Michael McAlister under Theory & Practice, Writing
[3] Comments
Check out Wired’s post on UCLA psychologist Matthew Lieberman’s recent study of labeling emotions. At first blush it may seem like this supports the idea that any of us using the vipassana technique of “noting” or “witnessing” where we name whatever emotion arises in our experience as it is happening, are now practicing with science on our side. This may be true, and for the record, I don’t know many long term meditators who wouldn’t look at this as obvious. However, as we read a little more carefully we see that Wired’s writer, Alexis Madrigal misses something huge here when he starts off his article with:
Perhaps all those blog posts you wrote about your breakup really did have a purpose.
I’ve never read a blog about a breakup that wasn’t in some capacity a chorus of egoic clinging. Describing one’s pain, and then backfilling the description with its associative story lines isn’t the same thing as simply witnessing the pain of heartbreak. To be fair, there is a sentence late in the article that touches on this:
The researchers postulate that … the bare fact of labeling your emotions that counts, not whatever conclusions you draw in the course of verbal expression (or poetry writing).
But this is the whole point of using a witnessing technique in ones practice. It’s not about controlling our feelings. It’s about letting the light of our awareness dissolve our identification with positively everything. This offers us, and everyone else, a spacious openness in which we can meet the world.
As meditators, our job is to watch our thoughts and emotions as well as the baggage brought on by experiencing them fully. The moment we either indulge or avoid either our thoughts or feelings along with their baggage, awakening is veiled from our sight.

February 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am
You’re absolutely right that the journalist (as is sometimes the case) completely misunderstands what he’s writing about. Or it may have been some editor who decided to “spice up” the article. In fact I was so embarrassed by the cluelessness evidenced in the last sentence of the article I couldn’t bring myself to copy it across to our blog.
The basic research however sounds fine. As you say, it’s obvious to a meditator that naming emotions makes it easier to deal with them However something “seeming obvious” is no guarantee that it’s true, so it’s heartening to see this kind of research going on. It’s very helpful in establishing the credibility of meditation.
February 16th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Great comment. Like you, it sounds, I’m always amazed at the journalistic community’s treatment of all things Buddhist. To be fair, some nail it, but as you point out, this is a case of DharmaOops. Furthermore, I can’t wait to see where this type of research leads us. Cheers.
February 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I don’t read the Guardian newspaper much these days since I left Britian, but they could never mention the Dalai Lama without calling him a “God-King” and they once described Shakyamuni as the “Tibetan Buddha of compassion.” Generally, though, if you find yourself appearing in the paper you will experience this disconnect between what was said or happened and what appears in print, so this isn’t a problem just with Buddhism.