The Biology of Control - Why living systems are regulated by inhibition, not force
Real control isn’t about force. It’s about inhibition. Here’s how the brain regulates behaviour under pressure.
Control is usually imagined as effort. More will. More discipline. More force applied to an unruly system.
Biology tells a very different story.
Living systems are not organised around constant activation or maximal output. They are organised around inhibition—structures that hold activity back until the moment it is needed. What looks like control from the outside is, internally, a finely tuned capacity to release restraint in response to demand.
This inversion matters. It changes how we understand behaviour, learning, stress, health, and even conscience itself.
Living Systems are Tonically Inhibited
Across levels of biological organisation, activity is not the default state. It is constrained, buffered, and delayed. Energy is stored, pathways are gated, responses are held in reserve.
Roberts (1991) described living systems as “tonically inhibited, autonomous optimisers.” The core organising principle is not excitation, but disinhibition coupled to the generation of variability. In other words: systems remain stable by default, and adapt by selectively lifting constraints when conditions require it.
This architecture protects organisms from noise. Without inhibitory barriers, every environmental fluctuation would destabilise the system. Instead, membranes, metabolic pathways, gene expression, neural circuits, and even social norms act as filters. Only signals that cross a certain threshold are allowed to propagate inward and trigger action.
Metaphorically, biological energy is used to wind springs, not to fire continuously. Control is not constant exertion; it is stored potential.
Read: The Hidden Physiology of Big Decisions.
Variability is not Error — It is Capacity
A striking implication of this model is that variability is not a flaw. It is a resource.
When inhibitory control is released, systems do not respond with a single rigid output. They generate variation—multiple possible responses that can be tested against the environment. The ability to vary is the system’s information-processing capacity.
This reframes individual differences. Kosslyn et al. (2002) argue that variation between individuals is not statistical noise to be averaged away, but essential data. Differences in mood, stress reactivity, imagery, or immune response often reflect how inhibitory and regulatory systems are tuned—not the presence or absence of “traits” in isolation.
Control, in this sense, is the capacity to move flexibly across an adaptive range without losing coherence.
Read: The Story Your Nervous System Is Telling You.
Learning as Selective Reinforcement, not Command
This same logic appears in the biology of learning.
Olds’ early work on reward circuitry suggested a relatively unified reinforcement system in the brain, projecting from hypothalamic regions into structures involved in movement, orientation, memory, and planning (Olds, 1969). Reward signals do not issue explicit instructions. They modulate probabilities.
They can increase the frequency of an ongoing response, strengthen specific synaptic relationships, or be stored as memory traces that bias future behaviour. Learning emerges from reinforcement acting on an already active, variable system—not from top-down control issuing precise commands.
Again, inhibition is central. Responses must already be partially constrained for reinforcement to shape them. Without boundaries, reward would amplify chaos.
Read: The Biology of Healthy Ambition.
The Brain does not Control the Body — It Negotiates with it
Traditional models often treat the brain as a command centre issuing orders to a passive body. Adaptive behaviour research has steadily dismantled this view.
Chiel and Beer (1997) showed that behaviour emerges from continuous interaction between nervous system, body, and environment. Sensory preprocessing and motor constraints shape what the brain even has access to. Body structure creates affordances and limits. Feedback loops are constant and bidirectional.
Control is distributed. It is not located in a single structure, but emerges from coordinated inhibition and release across the whole organism.
This matters because it means that regulation cannot be reduced to “mental control.” Attempts to override bodily signals without addressing the underlying regulatory loops often fail—or succeed briefly at the cost of long-term stability.
Read: The Neurobiology of Ambition: How the Brain Generates Drive, Goals, and Purpose.
Control Extends Beyond the Nervous System
The logic of inhibitory regulation does not stop at the brain.
Psychoneuroimmunology demonstrates that immune function is modulated by neural and endocrine signals, and that immune activity feeds back into the brain (Solomon, 1987). Stress, social context, and meaning alter immune responses. The system is not hierarchical in a simple sense; it is nested.
Roberts (1991) pushed this nesting even further, arguing that societal prohibitions—what we experience internally as conscience—function as higher-level inhibitory controls. Social norms become internal regulators, shaping when action is permitted or restrained.
From membrane permeability to moral inhibition, the same principle repeats: stability through constraint, adaptation through selective release.
Read: The Immune System and Emotional Boundaries.
Why Force Fails
Seen through this lens, many modern approaches to self-control are biologically naïve.
They assume that failure to act “correctly” reflects insufficient motivation or willpower. The solution offered is usually more pressure. More activation. More demand.
But forcing output without adequate inhibitory structure destabilises systems. It increases noise, reduces variability in the wrong places, and collapses adaptive range elsewhere. Burnout, rigidity, and stress-related illness are predictable outcomes—not moral failings.
Biological control is not about domination. It is about maintaining the conditions under which flexible response remains possible.
Read: The Executive Brain Under Threat.
Control as Coherence, not Suppression
At its core, control is the capacity to remain coherent under changing demands.
That coherence is achieved not by constant effort, but by layered inhibition: boundaries that protect the system while preserving the ability to adapt when necessary. When those boundaries are well-tuned, behaviour looks purposeful, resilient, and intelligent. When they fail, systems oscillate between chaos and shutdown.
Understanding this changes how we think about discipline, leadership, stress, and responsibility. The question shifts from “How do I force this system to behave?” to “What regulatory structures are missing, overloaded, or misaligned?”
Biology does not reward control through force. It rewards control through restraint, timing, and the capacity to release precisely when it matters.
Work With Me
If you’re a founder, leader, or high-capacity professional, you don’t need motivation — you need clarity, self-command, and psychological precision. You need a way to navigate complexity with a nervous system that stays stable under pressure.
That’s where I come in.
I combine biology, psychology, and narrative strategy to help you make decisions you can trust, break friction cycles, and build a way of working that doesn’t burn you out. My clients come to me when they want depth, honesty, and a thinking partner who won’t let them hide from themselves.
If you want to explore whether we’re a fit, you can schedule a consultation here.
