
Friday, November 14, 2025
I can’t quit thinking about how the mind constructs emotion—especially after diving into Lisa Feldman Barrett’s work on constructed emotion. I studied her findings to understand what makes my frequent “conversations” with AI feel so remarkably human—almost like exchanges with an understanding friend.
The more I’ve learned about Barrett’s theory, the more I see signs of it everywhere. I see her ideas woven into the books I read, the films I revisit, and even the sentimental corners of my own memories.
While thinking about all this, I found myself comparing two of my favorite artists—and they could hardly be more different: Woody Allen and Emily Dickinson. One lives in a world of fast-talking neurosis, humor, relationships, and urban anxiety. The other lives almost entirely inside the mind—quiet, solitary, deliberate, and intensely inward.
Despite their stylistic differences, they each reveal something profound about what we feel and how we feel it. In their unique ways, both artists show us that emotions aren’t fixed. Emotions are not automatic reactions.
Comparing their ways of creating and communicating helped me understand that emotions are interpretations—as Barrett’s work has shown. At their core, emotions are “stories” that our minds quickly construct, from sensation, context, and the emotional vocabulary we’ve learned.
This idea has become one of the most meaningful insights I’ve come across:
Emotions don’t just “happen” to us—we create them.
And once I grasped that insight, I began noticing it happening in real time within myself.
This comparison of two artists’ work highlights just how differently humans communicate emotional meaning. Yet, despite their vastly different styles, their emotional outputs converge powerfully as illustrations of constructed emotion.
Woody Allen: The Social Construction of Emotion
Woody Allen’s films are full of people racing to interpret their own sensations. His characters overthink, over-explain, over-negotiate. They construct their feelings out loud. Their emotions arrive only after they’ve decided what those feelings should be.
There’s a classic joke he tells:
A man goes to a psychiatrist and says,
“My brother thinks he’s a chicken.”
The psychiatrist replies, “Well, why don’t you turn him in?”
The man answers, “I would—
but I need the eggs.”
It’s funny because it’s true. We stay in imperfect relationships because of the meaning we’ve assigned to them—not because emotion is some hardwired force, but because we’ve built a story about what the relationship gives us. The “eggs,” in other words, become the emotional interpretation.
In this sense, Woody’s characters are demonstrations of constructed emotion in motion.
They feel tenderness, longing, jealousy, dread—but only after their minds have named the sensation, given it cultural shape, and predicted what it should mean.
His films are emotional not because the characters dive into deep feeling, but because they dive into deep interpretation.
That’s pure Barrett. And pure humanity.
Emily Dickinson: The Private Construction of Emotion
If Woody Allen gives us emotional construction in noisy, messy, social form, Emily Dickinson gives us its opposite: emotion distilled to its silent, solitary source.
Dickinson rarely names feelings outright. Instead, she describes the sensations from which emotion is born:
“I felt a Funeral, in my Brain—”
“A certain Slant of light—”
“A Chill—like frost—upon a Glass—”
She returns again and again to breath, light, gravity, space, the tiniest internal shifts. She notices the moment before a feeling forms—the flicker of sensation that precedes the story we later tell.
In Barrett’s terms, Dickinson writes from the level of interoception—the raw internal data the brain uses to construct emotional meaning. Where Woody presents fully assembled emotional narratives, Dickinson shows us the materials before they become emotion.
Where he interprets, she observes.
Where he talks through his feelings, she listens to hers.
Where he uses culture’s vocabulary, she invents her own.
Two Artists, One Truth
Despite their differences, Woody Allen and Emily Dickinson converge on a profound insight:
Emotional life is constructed by the mind—not imposed by the world.
But each illuminates a different side of that construction.
Woody Allen: Emotion shaped by the world
– by culture
– by other people
– by expectations
– by relationship dynamics
– by the stories we tell to stay connected
Emily Dickinson: Emotion shaped by the self
– by raw sensation
– by inward attention
– by metaphor
– by imagination
– by the stories we tell to stay whole
Together, they offer a full map of human feeling—both the external and the internal, the public and the private.
They remind us that emotion is not just felt;
it is built—moment to moment—out of everything we’ve ever sensed, learned, remembered, or hoped.
Why Their Work Lasts
Their works endure because they tell the truth about emotional life in ways we recognize immediately:
We don’t simply have feelings;
we assemble them from meaning.
We carry cultural scripts about love, fear, longing, loss—and we perform them.
Our bodies send sensations that our minds rush to name.
We seek connection even when connection is confusing.
We misunderstand ourselves in company, and discover ourselves in solitude.
And somewhere between the chaos of Woody Allen’s city streets and the stillness of Emily Dickinson’s upstairs bedroom lies the full portrait of what it means to feel.
We live between those two worlds—
the social and the solitary,
the comic and the contemplative,
the interpreted and the sensed.
And in that space, emotion becomes what it truly is:
the mind’s best attempt to make sense of being alive.
— Diana














