Talk:Emotion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction[edit]

"Those acting primarily on the emotions they are feeling may seem as if they are not thinking, but mental processes are still essential, particularly in the interpretation of events. For example, the realization of our believing that we are in a dangerous situation and the subsequent arousal of our body's nervous system (e.g. rapid heartbeat and breathing, sweating, muscle tension) is integral to the experience of our feeling afraid. Other theories, however, claim that emotion is separate from and can precede cognition." Are you serious that this is supposed to be third sentence of this whole article on the vast field of emotions, for which we don't even have a common definition? To me it sounds like it is the opinion of somebody (without citation btw), maybe of Spok?! "Those who act on their emotions ... are not thinking"? Geeez, really? Maybe our deep, differntial emotions are seperating us from animals just as our rational does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.173.63 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Next sentence: Emotions are complex". Really? Why doesn't start the introduction for the wiki "Brain" start with "The brain is complex". Or the universe wiki?

New Sections on Psychophysiology and the Conceptual Act Theory[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Community. I am interested in adding some information to the emotion page regarding psychophysiology of emotion. I wanted to first add a section after neurocircuitry of emotion for information on study into psychophysiology. I also hoped to add to theories a section on the Conceptual Act Theory. I wanted to see what other people thought of the sections before I added them however so I have drafts of both in my sandbox here. Feel free to add comments on edits and what information you believe is pertinent as I am new to editing Wikipedia. Ja meier (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the first proposed section (while clearly having merit) might create substantial redundancies with e.g. the "multidimensional analysis" section several of the subsections in the "Somatic theories" section, and perhaps even the neurocircuitrt section.
For the second suggestion - Conceptual act model of emotion; I am not sure that is sufficiently mainstream at this moment in time to warrant a full section. When I read the current Wikipedia article on the topic, it claims to solve the "emotion paradox" by going from hardwired basic emotions - to learned categorisation of specific affect constellation (as basic emotions). I am not familiar with the theory, but I do not see how this would solve Ekman's seminal finding that humans from cultures that have no contact identically categorise the same emotions the same way (i.e. have learned the exact same categories without having any contact). So it seems the Conceptual act theory would fit best in cognitive theories - and perhaps even as part of the section on "perceptual theory". I hope this helps. Arnoutf (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Arnoutf. If you read contemporary emotion research, you might know that it is broadly characterized by a debate between the basic emotion theorists (e.g., Ekman, Panksepp, Izard) and the psychological constructionists (e.g., Barrett, Russell). This argument is mainstream. It is at the heart of emotion theory. Collectively, Barrett and Russell have 90,000 citations, according to Google Scholar. Their work has clearly been read by many, and there is no debate that they (and their theories) are widely known in the affective science community. If you have read the many criticisms of Paul Ekman's work, you might know why the Conceptual Act Theory (CAT), and psychological constructionism more broadly, are gaining steam. However, your description of Paul Ekman's work hints that you may not be familiar with this literature. On the other hand, I can cite 50-100 papers that frame this debate and make reference to CAT. Even the book The Nature of Emotion, initially co-edited by Ekman and now in its second edition, has about 5 chapters that reference Conceptual Act Theory. Not to mention, there was a prominent meta-analysis published in a high impact journal that compared CAT and basic emotion theories in the brain (now cited 510 times), which ultimately favored CAT. I would argue that this theory is sufficiently mainstream to warrant a section on this article; moreover, it could inform some less well elaborated sections (like the neurocircuitry of emotion, which is lacking).Wikislyons (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough Wikislyons , I was more or less up to date with the debate until some years ago (when the debate already was going on for some considerable time) I missed CAT gathering steam; so I did read up on that theory from its Wikipedia article (what I tell my students not to do). The tone of the Wikipedia article does not do it anything near the credit your post above does - neither in arguments nor citations; so I may have underestimated the importance of the effort to bring this debate (to its long overdue) conclusion. Feel free to work on the section. Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doczilla, it would be great if you could justify your deletion with more information. I am up-to-date with contemporary emotion research, and it's not clear why your deletion is warranted. You call the source "speculative," but there is no evidence for that. Thanks in advance for your response.Wikislyons (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Classification section[edit]

Elaborate schemas for classification of emotions are described, but the only real reference is a blog entry that cites no primary sources.that seems rather weak. I am not sating the article is factually incorrect. At least the Eckman portion seems correct to my non expert eyes and memory. I just thought ab imprtant section conveying so much info should be able to be supported better. Ignatios2000 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess you mean the Basic Emotions sub-section in particular (the multiple dimensions subsection has good sources in my view). I agree, the blog entry is not a strong reference (although it does not seem to say anything factually wrong to my knowledge either). Since the Ekman-Plutchik theories are so central to the topic, I agree we should look for better references. Text books on psychology should give the information and would already be a stronger source. (if I, nor anyone else can find the time to fix it, we could always add {{Self-published|section|date=November 2015}}, later on, but let's wait and see whether someone solves it).Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Feeling merged to Emotion? Suggestion[edit]

They are similar things, Feeling is the perception of emotions in the conscious human, while emotions are the feelings themselves. I think we should merge the two articles, and have Feeling as a section under Emotion. Kernosky talk2me! 17:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Emotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Related to goals?[edit]

My Interpersonal Communications textbooks says at page 246, "According to researchers, an emotion is the body's multidimensional response to any event that enhances or inhibits a person's goals.[1]"

  1. ^ Frijda, N.H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 381-403). New York: Guilford.

The textbook is: Floyd, Kory. Interpersonal Communication: The Whole Story. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print. Is the textbook correct? And if so, why is it not in our article? I searched for "goal" and found nothing. Admittedly, "motivation" and goals are strongly interrelated. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

think straight.[edit]

http://www.jcsd.k12.or.us/sites/jcsd.k12.or.us/files/files/6th%20grade%20lesson%208.pdf

When emotions are strong, it's hard to think straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

And what do you want to say with that? Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just that. Benjamin (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emotion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

emotion = conscious experience?[edit]

I'm Not in agreement with the entry paragraph sentence that reads as "Emotion, in everyday speech, is any relatively brief conscious experience characterized by intense mental activity and a high degree of pleasure or displeasure." the references provided are: Cabanac, Michel (2002). "What is emotion?" Behavioural Processes 60(2): 69-83. "[E]motion is any mental experience with high intensity and high hedonic content (pleasure/displeasure)." Scirst=Daniel L. (2011). Psychology Second Edition. 41 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010: Worth Publishers. p. 310. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.

It is not clear from the references provided, where is actually stated, and with what degree of mainstream acceptance, that emotions are a function of the consciousnesses. For me it just lacks total validity, it'd place the consciousness at the level of emotions, but if we read Plato we have that consciousness is at the level of the Logos,[1] which is a further plane of existence on top of human emotions and passions (Logos is seen by others as the very source of everything which might place consciousness as the human interaction with the source of everything), others as Aristoteles would indicate that the soul of the humans are rationale and thus in possession of consciousness whereas animals have souls that exist only at the level of emotions and passions he calls it sensitive soul.

What's more, what makes us persons is the fact that we have free will and consciousness on top of that... I think therefore I exist! It doesn't mean that we exist because we think, we have consciousness and therefore we are aware that we think, that we feel, that we remember, unlike animals that could even have all of those operations of the soul without a consciousness.

Saying that emotions are a conscious activity is like saying dogs that get sad are conscious persons just because they feel emotions, or that lions that prepare their hunts in groups with social strategy (we would even say military strategy) making use of things like communication (for instance, they know how to count) have a consciousness just because they have an intellect. There is not even evidence that if you have free will then you would have consciousness, just look at the problems introduced by Artificial Intelligence.

Up to this point, in mainstream Psychology (study of the soul), consciousness is an spiritual state that only human beings possess and we know that free will is (or at least should be) on top of emotions and thoughts, therefore even if the provided reference was in fact reading like the actual entry paragraph then it would deny, or at least enter in contradiction, with other articles in wikipedia, see for instance the article on Soul#Socrates_and_Plato.

the assertion that emotions are a conscious activity should be removed as it contradicts the mainstream understanding of free will and conscience, which is that you are a Person because you know you exist! whilst emotions alone don't provide such capacity. 186.144.41.175 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have reworded the first phrase and now it doesn't read as emotions being limited to a high intensity mental experience but rather to a pleasing or displeasing sensation, as such high intensity emotions should be considered a subset of emotions themselves; The existing reference does provide an assertion that limits emotions to high intensity mental activity only but that clearly writes off subtle emotions which do exist. 186.144.41.175 (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody in everyday speech defines emotion in that way. If you have that modifier at the beginning of the sentence, use a dictionary definition.Petergstrom (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, so you do consider emotion to be conscious? well you simply reverted without the proper discussion had even taken place. Like I said earlier on, ancient philosophers considered consciousness to be on top of things like emotions; Just today I was reading an article on how chicken have emotions, may be you will infer that they have a conscious existence because of the presence of emotions? My problem with that first phrase is that it places person-hood on irrational animals, but like I said even artificial intelligence has some sort of rationality, even that is not enough for consciousness and thus person-hood.
nevertheless I don't consider normal people saying things like: I have a movement of my consciousness in experiencing an affection desire or activity, people do not articulate like that on a daily basis so saying people just refer to emotions as positive (accepted, pleasing) and negative (unaccepted, displeasing) I think it is far more common that bringing ideas of the consciousness that are probably wrong, and I think the dictionary definition restricts emotions to those experienced by human beings that have use of consciousnesses and will as an species defining factor.
As far as I am concerned the article is not restricted to human beings, there are representations of anger and other emotions by making use of renderings of animals within the article body.
Or perhaps the presence of emotions in animals (some say even in plants) is not properly discussed in this article needing the creation of a separate one? in any case, from my point of view, and you could review Plato and Socrates and Darwin (The_Expression_of_the_Emotions_in_Man_and_Animals) on that matter, is that emotion is an early or lower development that can be traced back to animals and therefore it appears way before consciousness does.

186.144.41.175 (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jones, David (2009). The Gift of Logos: Essays in Continental Philosophy. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 33–35. Retrieved 2016-02-23. 

Update please[edit]

https://www.newton.ac.uk/files/seminar/20120313163017001-153025.pdf

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emotion&oldid=761270916"