Our Brain’s Negative Bias/ Why Our Brains Are More Highly To Capture Negative Events

Brains veto opinion and negativity refers to those even upts that be non constructive and negate our feelings and desires. Conniffs ideas on negativity stresses that even with all positive things in manners, iodine cast out thought or event becomes the focus of upkeep of a individual. tally to him problems atomic number 18 in a dash part of our life. Only problems lead to success. Because problems crave our way to find solutions and eventually new opportunities in life argon established. Until and unless in that respect will be no problem, no one will ever so go to work or strive for better.Hence, our brain has the capability to lift for the solutions in a positive way by positive conjectureing. positive thinking makes a somebody courageous and strong enough to brass section hardships in life. positive(p) thinking generates new ideas to work on and foil one from withdrawal. With every new problem and hardship every person faces some kind of mix attitude and behavi or. Some banish feelings are produced that discourages a person and insist on withdrawal. Simultaneously positive thinking encourages us to overcome the problem and find new solutions to tackle it and think of better.Positive thinking approaches while negative thinking evokes withdrawal. However, both the systems are intelligibly separate and operate independently. Smith et al (2003) demonstrated that negative stimuli duck soup much attention of the individual than positive stimuli. They vizord PI theatrical role of ERP (event related brain potential) as an index for measuring attention allocated to crabby stimuli. They investigate how the event is processed and how the positive and negative information is differentiated. Positive and negative stimuli evoke attention differentially. Negative stimuli grab attention more than positive stimuli.Certain negative stimuli capture attention more than negative stimuli which put up lesser chemical reaction. This research confirms th e idea of confinns that negative stimuli evoke stronger solvent. Researchers measure electric responses. capital of Minnesota Rozin and Edward Royzman in their research Negative stimuli, Negative ascendancy and Contagion hypothesize that all animals and humans give greater attention to negative and threatening event and stimulus as compared to positive one. According to Peeters et al (1989) the reason that negative stimuli grasp more attention is their peculiar and sudden situation.As positive stimuli are presumed to be natural and everyone is adapted to their occurrence, indeed no one is shocked when they occur. But negative stimuli are elevated one and it is usually unnatural and unrealistic to have it and no one wants or assumes it to happen, but when it does it creates shock, anger and affright. The negative stoop and negative events are more dominant and prevalent as compared to positive ones. Secondly they engage that there is no urgency in positive stimuli and their frequent occurrence makes us adaptive to it.But negative stimuli are very rare and sometimes, serious and alarming, that requires urgent reaction to it. Negativity always contaminates positivism. Like even dainty aggregate of pollution can easily contaminate large theater of operations of pure atmosphere. Some negative stimuli are threatening and create fear that produce an urge a need for defense and escape from that environ workforcet. Paul Rozin describes three different skittish systems designed to escape from danger. The three neural systems are at different aims of Central nervous system.One is at the level of spinal cord, at limbic system and at the level of cortex. The reflexive mechanism at the level of spinal cord let the person withdraw immediately from painful stimulus like touching a hot stove. The person immediately withdrew hand from the stove without giving it a thought and before the stimulus reaches the cortex. Rozin suggests that always being playful and qu ick-witted may never let us progress in life and look for new opportunities. He also proposes that positive reactions are exactly short lived while negative actions have long lasting do.Even men who have done something wrong their outcomes last even after they die. Further, the effects of negativity are much stronger that even small amount of negative stimuli can destroy positive effects. The example he quoted is that small amount of tar can ruin a whole barrel of sexual love while a small amount of honey can do nothing to the barrel of tar. Thus, the negative stimuli are much stronger and potent. The chapter 3 in Conniffs book and the remaining two articles are in unity with each other support the idea of negativity having more fascinate than positive events.I agree with conniffs idea about negativity bias because in our day to day observation we can see that negative events affect our emotions more strongly than do positive events. One more thing that I can suggest is that ne gative stimuli evoke stronger response when they occur first time in a sudden. However, the same negative event or stimulus occurring repeatedly can lower the response generated as humans and animals become adaptive to it and gradually they change their environment or behavior in a way to either repeal it or become accommodated with it.Hence, negative stimuli occurring again and again may not produce same response as that was produced at first time. References Coniff, Richard (2005). The imitator In The Corner Office. Chapter 3 (pp. -33-39). N. Kyle Smitha