Talk:Emotion/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Some General Concerns about This Review of Emotion As a Scientific Review

To borrow from Jaak Panksepp (a premier researcher and theorist in affective neuroscience whose own work is not adequately represented in this review), trying to discuss emotion in two or three pages in this fashion is a little bit like trying to navigate the Atlantic in a rowboat. In both instances, there is a better than 95% chance you're going to get swamped.

This article needs a major, major overhaul. It has major weaknesses in almost every single critical domain related to emotion science. It is very weak in terms of addressing a host of definitional and terminological issues that plague discussions of emotion, it references a tiny fraction of the affective neuroscience literature, it misrepresents/oversimplifies a host of complexities, it misrepresents the neuroanatomy of emotion, it has no conceptualization in any systematic way for how to understand the reciprocal relationships between emotion and cognition, and it has no principled evolutionary perspective (in which emotion might be thought of as an extension of homeostasis) other than some modest discussion of Darwin's contributions. It even contains several statements that are genuinely nonsensical such as "An emotional feeling, like an aroma, has a volatile or "thin-skinned" quality because sensory cells lie on the exposed exterior of the olfactory epithelium (i.e., on the bodily surface itself).

It frankly reads much more like an undergraduate college essay/laundry list of ideas about emotion rather than a professional review of such a critical subject. Such an important topic really does mandate someone to go in and start with a clean sheet of paper and overhaul the whole thing. Preferably someone with a serious neuroscience background who can write a balanced and decent review. This isn't even an adequate reference for someone trying to write a high school term paper. If one of my graduate or medical students produced something like this, they would get a D. It's frankly embarrassing to Wikipedia. WE CAN/SHOULD DO BETTER!! DFW April 2, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.143.19 (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree (in full); this article is in a sorry state.
Even worse, besides not referencing Neuroanatomy/Neuropsychology, the quality of the traditional psychology arguments is very low.
I think Wikipedia is getting overtagged with cleanup tags, but this is one of the few articles where I agree with each and every one of them. Arnoutf (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DFW: Thanks for the supportive comments and validation. If I had (much) more time, I might try to clean this thing up myself, but right now I have too many other things on my plate. Perhaps later (if I can talk a senior colleague of mine into helping me out). In the meantime, I worry that students who read this and take Wikipedia as near-gospel are going to absorb a whole bunch of pretty muddled ideas as state-of-the-art science. Hopefully readers will see some of these tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.110.143.19 (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So it is agreed then that this page should be substantially reduced? It would look better as a central area connecting all the other various pages on emotions (e.g. notable figures in emotions, affective neuroscience, aesthetic emotions). On this page there should just be some discussion of how emotions are defined, and even here it would involve links to different pages on emotion theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not how I read above, the agreement seems to be a major overhaul is needed.
Practically I think your suggestion has some merit as it maybe a way to build the area from scratch. We need some historical overview of Emotion research and comparison of approaches somewhere though, I am not sure that is in the other articles as these are topic specific. Arnoutf (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consistancy of the List of Emotions

"Gay/Happy" are adjectives, while the rest are nouns. "Gay" redirects to the sexuality, while "Happy" redirects to "Happiness" (which is also on the list). Is this right? 142.104.73.29 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reflecting NPOV in the List of Emotions

Several prominent researchers each have their own lists of what they regard as an emotions. See for example three referenced lists at: http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/recognizing.htm To accurately represent a NPOV this article needs to describe the lack of agreement on a definitive list of emotions. The list of emotions that appears at the end of this article, and is listed as a sidebar on others pages (see for example anger), needs to either have a definitive reference, or be presented in the context of the on-going debate in the research community.--Lbeaumont 14:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. Perhaps this (although a bit older by now) reference may help Ortony, A., & Turner, T. J. (1990). What's basic about basic emotions? Psychological Review, 97(3), 315-331.. Arnoutf 08:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed also. Nowhere in the article (or even the talk) is the word "criteria" mentioned for determining whether a given word described should be called an emotion. That seems like a basic omission. I am aware that this is a bit of an old chestnut, but there seems to be active debate at this moment bearing on the WP emotion categorization. DCDuring 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It will not be easy, as world renowned emotion psychologists are still not fully agreeing what the criteria should be. Arnoutf (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old talk

Why is emotion defined as a decision and not a state? One can legitimately argue about states and will, but this approach seems very unusual. User:CSTAR

"It is not even clear whether emotion is a purely human phenomenon, since animals seem to exhibit conditions which resemble emotional responses such as anger, fear or sadness." Is it clear that humans experience emotion? We say yes because they are able to communicate that emotion. But who would be willing to say that a baby doesn't experience emotion, despite the similar lack of communication that other animals have? Wouldn't that imply that emotion is clearly not a human phenomenon? --Brad 20:59, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

I don't think the article claims that existence of emotion in human beings follows from any kind of verbal communication. Perhaps you could reformulate your argument. In fact the article as it stands claims very little. CSTAR 18:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article doesn't claim it, but I think it implies some form of communication (not necessarily verbal, as I originally implied). Let's assume that humans feel emotion. I could claim that I know this because I'm a human and I feel, but choosing the associative category of human is arbitrary. I might as well say "all programmers experience emotion, but it's not clear it's restricted to that profession." We could take it to the other extreme end and say "all matter experiences emotion," althought that's pushing it a bit. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can agree we feel because we can express that emotion and understand it through empathy and sympathy. I don't see how else we could make such a claim. --Brad 20:59, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

OK that's an important claim. Note that the article is constrained by some (perhaps false) precept of objective narrative. I think what's missing in the artcile is a short section asking the question whether it is even possible to theorize about emotion without devaluing the human quality that characterizes it. The reason I put the comment about animals was twofold:

  • To suggest (by a kind of reductio-ad-asburdum) the essentally human characteristics of emotion
  • This is not a new idea, by a long shot. Aristotle already had it.

In this regard, I think Martha Nussbaum's work is almost heroic, because she is attempting to inject the element of humanism into the dry discourse of academic philosophy.CSTAR 22:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Instead of splitting this article into the peculiar categories of psychology and culture, we might simply note that emotion has been studied physiologically, philosophically (including religious and psychological studies departing from standard accepted neurologic research), as well as including differing views of emotion occuring through the traditions of the world, and not just in recent European popular outlook. (-anonymous user}

[edit] This article is psychology-centric :)

This article looks at emotions pretty much exclusively from the point of view of psychology. I actually came here looking for information on how emotions actually work in the brain, in particular to what degree neuron firings are involved, and how much of it is chemical reactions/processes. Someone wants to expand? :) — Timwi 16:01, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes that should be included under something like physiology of emotions. Sorry can't help you there :( CSTAR 16:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. for now, see affective neuroscience. sallison 08:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Still not enough, from another angle there is almost no mention of the extensive philosophic tradition on emotions. The ontology of the mind and it's emotions is too big a problem to just mention a few views from science and Descartes (who hasn't disproved him?). There should be a serious consideration of phenomenological works, and the other lesser known traditions in cognitive science besides computational functionalism. There have been serious issues raised with the scientific methodology in this area by Fancisco Varela and others.


[edit] Lead paragraph

Why is emotion now described as a language (of an internal state of being?) I would have thought emotion would be described as a state or a process of a person. Whether that state/process is internal, external or observable inobservable is an entirely different matter. CSTAR 16:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- I find it bizarre and nonstandard to describe emotion as a "language". I recently edited the article to remove that claim, but I see that Stevertigo reverted my change. Stevertigo, can you please defend your reversion...? Look up "emotion" in the dictionary, I don't see any definition that resembles yours at all. --SethTisue 14:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have not heard from Stevertigo, so I have again removed the description of emotion as a "language".--SethTisue 4 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

It may be noted that emotional reaction can be considered personalised and individuated. In cases where emotional reaction is highly individuated, this might not designate a neurotic severance from society, but rather as exposure to social variances that are not usually combined. Interpetation of a sufficiently individuated emotional reaction becomes nonreflexive, and a conscious process. However, it is the experience of another's emotion and articulation of emotion that is similar to learning a language, at least if we view emotion as physiological: the physiological emotion itself is a complex inborn trait. In spiritual or philosophical analysis, all depends on the basis from which any individual philosophy or spiritual theory extends. Often we find less proofs in the spiritual than in the scientific, and hence emotion needn't be governed by rules and thus emotion could be seen as a language.
Emotion could in any case be theoretically linked to language or might possibly extend evolutionarily from expressive tendency in complex organisms with neural structure (though I doubt that it's a direct tie: language comprehension and actual emotion, despite the effect of slander or of flattery). My belief is that the state of this emotion article is presently limited and should be open to large development (with small revisions and repositions under new categories) rather than large negative revision (deletion of passages to reword them entirely). It's usually better to find a way to fit things in.
Emotion is a very interesting subject. Please add neurological definitions or links to these. (all three above paragraphs by anonymous user)

[edit] song lyrics useless?

should this be removed? I find them overly lengthy and not very helpful.--Mr. Moogle 23:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes please remove the lyrics. This article needs serious attention. CSTAR 04:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary views

I got rid of a link to a page on "discrimination" that was all about an entirely different definition of the word.

[edit] Incomplete template

For some unfathomable reason, Desire and Lust are missing from the "Emotions" template. Perhaps William Blake knows why they are missing. But can someone who knows how to work with templates please add them in? Haiduc 04:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Two years later, I'm wondering too. I will try to add them, as I searched this talk page, and found no argument why they should be excluded (e.g. pyschologists exhibit such base emotions themselves so little that they don't recognise them). In my opinion, desire should be amongst the base emotions. Centrepull (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Should material in the expanded introduction be largely moved to the body sections below? Dpr 05:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overall

This article overall needs better structure and interal consistency/integration. Thanks. Dpr 05:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Links

I deleted this [1]. It is a link to an individual researcher on emotion and contains nothing that would serve someone looking for general information on emotion. --Kzollman 02:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Is emotion simply are response?

[edit] Cleanup

Based on the many complaints above and my own reading of this article, I see a need for a major clean-up. I am willing to spearhead this process, but I am very interested in what the other authors who have invested in this page have to say. A few issues that I see on a first read are:

  • The article needs a more coherent structure (a clear outline structure that fairly presents different approaches to the topic that will make room for new sections like 'physiology of emotions' as requested above.)
  • The article needs to be less wordy. Some of the paragraphs present ideas that could be expressed in one or two sentences. Also, the introductory section should be much shorter. Being concise will result in a clearer article for the reader.
  • The article needs to be more balanced. Specifically:
    • Philosophy of Emotion needs to be more balanced with current understandings of emotion through psychological science and other social sciences. There should also be some room for perspectives from the biological sciences.
    • Personal opinions are presented in this article without reference (some of these can be supported with research ... it just isn't included). Science and philosophy arguments should be transparently grounded with references that the reader can follow.
    • Opposing viewpoints that are well supported by research are not represented (e.g. the relative constancy of many emotions across cultures as demonstrated by Paul Ekman)
    • Links to individual researchers, clinicians, and programs should be avoided unless they are widely accepted as historically important to the vast subject of emotion.

What are the most important ideas on this page that you want preserved? What are your references? In addition to what's been listed above by others, is there anything else that you would like to see on this page?

sallison 08:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This article definately needs some Ekman. That was the first thing I thought when reading it. It shouldn't be reduced to just his framework through - he assumes that only commonly expressed emotions are universal. Things like "lust", "spirituality" and "enlightenment" are probably equally universal, they just aren't commonly expressed directly. 203.208.80.13 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

thoroughly agreed. it's one of the most comprehensive scientific studies of valence of emotion. i also agree with you on its limitations. it is especially important to add as the page currently makes it sound like emotion is not universal. great suggestions. thanks, sallison 00:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

i added a brief few paragraphs to emotion and relation to social factors. just trying to condense a little and pull from sources around wikipedia to avoid any repetition. this is just a rough draft, please email w/ changes and opinions. Genery351

[edit] Removal of Psychotherapeutic POV

I've removed a couple of anonymously contributed sentences today which seemed to be pushing particular views of emotions held by some members of the psychotherapeutic community. So far as I know, there is no balance of evidence supporting the views that were inserted. If evidence can be provided, let's put it in. If not, it's just POV. WMMartin 19:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Men and women

A blogger wrote:

"Who's more emotional, men or women? Contrary to popular belief, I think men are much more emotional than women. Women let out surface s**t like crying to their friends because everyone's going away to school, but I think men have emotion that runs deeper than oceans. We hold them in, (we must) and we confront them in private, in our rooms, in our sleep, in our car, in our MUSIC. Music can BREAK a man in half. Tear him down to a child. Sitting on the floor, crying, listening to those beautiful melodies, wanting love, wanting to give love, share love, feel, feel, feel. Women like to dance to music, and have beautiful rhythm, but I've never met one where the music could kill them. Where the music was EVERYTHING. Where music had the power to strip them of walls and masks. For my male friends, music saves them. It purges them of deep desperation and anguish in this idiotic world where men can't cry." [2]

It might also be interesting to compare the views of John Gray, author of the Men Are From Mars series. Uncle Ed 01:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Talking about differences men and women sounds really interesting. There's some great peer-reviewed literature in this area, so I think it will be possible to add something even stronger than people's individual impressions on the subject. I'll take a look and summarize what I find here soon. sallison 02:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

--Yanni Murfetto would like to add--: In general, the chemical makeup and innumerous drama scenes involving men often depict a deeper emotional loss to the male (not that women can't feel pain from such a situation, I'm just going by how often it occurs). Perhaps the testostorone creates more than just a passion for sex, but the desire to be with a mate as well. And this, mind you, is just speculation from me. I agree on your music opinion. It's one of the only accepted ways we can show and proclaim emotional state. It's miserable, really, and I'm very sensitive myself so it's even more difficult than the common chum. =End Reply=

My take on the literature so far is this: While there may be some differences in emotional terms between men and women, for the most part there are more differences between individuals within each sex than there are between women and men on the whole. This can be taken another way to mean that given any one man and any one woman, it would not be possible to predict much about their emotions based only on knowing their sex. In short, it seems likely that exploring individual differences in emotion is likely to be even more interesting than trying to characterize sex-related difference in emotion. sallison 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Level of emotions is not dependent upon gender. It is different for every person. There is one saying in Marathi "Vyakti titkya Prakruti" It means that each and every person on the earth has different properties and nature. Instead emotional leval depends upon various things such as ones culture,surroundings,way of bringing up etc.- Shilpa Choudhari

[edit] "War on emotion"

The author Hackwrench removed content from this page and put it on a new war on emotion page, most likely because he disagreed with that section's POV. The funny thing is that I agree with the author that this content does indeed represent a limited POV; nonetheless, we can arrive at the final result better through intelligent discussion than through rash provocative deletions and postings. I'd appreciate if in the future, Hackwrench would take a deep breath himself and cool down his own emotions before making changes to articles. His action was inappropriate, but I look forward to working with both him and the other authors to come to a compromise that works for everyone. Perhaps a section titled "Approaches to Emotion in Psychotherapy" would be acceptable to all parties. sallison 20:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The most concise and useful definition of emotion: A physiological change in response to a stimulus. Most of this article deals with human conscious awareness and interpretation of those changes. Many human and non-human emotions occur without conscious awareness. --Mike 21:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As an affective neuroscientist I agree with you, but I think others with valuable viewpoints will disagree with that approach. It could also be argued that the most important aspect of emotion is the subjective conscious experience, and that wouldn't be wrong, as at that point it comes down to a matter of definitions. I suggest we split the article into sections, so that everyone can have their fair say. The best overall article would come out of a synthesis of these different perspectives. As an overall structure to the article I suggest:

  • Perspectives on emotion from philosophy
  • Perspectives on emotion from psychology
  • Perspectives on emotion from psychotherapy
  • Perspectives on emotion from neuroscience and psychophysiology

Each of these views is valid and more different than one might think. Our initial definition of emotion would then need to avoid offending any of these viewpoints. The definition you proposed is most likely to be untenable to the philosophical and psychotherapeutic views. Perhaps if we just used an even more general definition of emotion derived from the etymology section at the end, that would be accetable to everyone. Thoughts? sallison 21:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a danger in generalizing one definition too far, when one can just instantiate multiple simple definitions that are accordingly clarified and classified as to general realm of usage. Consider trying to create a single definition for the word 'and' that actually retained knowledge informative outside of grammar.
In terms of physical psychotherapies such as yoga, I believe that definition wouldn't be too untenable (but wouldn't cover everything, probably) —24.16.251.40 21:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (Formerly 24.22.227.53)


A main theme I keep seeing in the debate over this article is between these two perspectives:

  • Understanding (and coping with) our personal subjective experience of emotions
  • The scientific or philosophical study of emotions from a detached perspective

These two different approaches are very interesting. An article that addresses both may result in a very fulfilling synthesis on this subject, with the added benefit of stoping people from deleting each other's entries. sallison 08:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of emotion in the "measurable by machines" sense is that it is a neurological not a physiological state, brought about by the combination of rules encoded in the brain's neuro net and external stimuli. That neurological state, however results in a physiological effect. Some people cry when they are happy, for example. Hackwrench 22:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

However, to the best of my knowledge, everyday human experience, has not been observed outside itself, which is to say that no one has hooked up a device to say, ah ha this person is experiencing something, or this object is exhibiting a phenomenon that can only be human experience. Hackwrench 22:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE TO ALL AUTHORS: PROVIDE A REFERENCE TO A PUBLISHED SOURCE FOR ANY ADDITION YOU MAKE TO THIS ARTICLE. Only by grounding this article in established bodies of knowledge on emotion will we be able to reach any sort of consensus on what does and does not belong here. sallison 08:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about?

Pride and Shame?
Compassion/Empathy?
Calm/Relaxed?

agreed. those are very interesting emotions that need to be added. the first four you mention are particuarly intersting, as they would seem to be from a class of emotions that requires theory of mind, as might jealousy. the last two (calm/relaxed) would seem to be related to the concept of arousal, which is also an important theme that needs to be developed here with regards to emotion. lastly, a discussion of arousal needs to be developed alongside a discussion of emotional valence. sallison 16:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Are some of these (ie. Calm/Relaxed) emotions, or non-emotional states sometimes instantiated by emotions (or the lack thereof)? I think what my question boils down to is whether emotions are singular, or are/can be compound (emotion vs mood state); and if they are considered as compound, whether this loses information (ie. treating the class of organs as a subset of the class of tissues). --24.16.251.40 22:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (Formerly 24.22.227.53)

[edit] molecules of emotion

I suggest to take in consideration the discoveries of Candace Pert on neuropeptides and their implication in emotional behaviour. Including her point of view, it might even be possible to mention the "new era" theories on emotions with a consistent scientific base. There is a need to explain the many alternative therapies who claim to be manipulating emotions or use their terminology to describe diseases (pe. he died of sorrow). Also Pert's discoveries put a link between popular wisdom on emotions and pharmaceutical descriptions of body chemistry where they mention emotions (pe. gutfeelings). Candace Pert is Ph.D in farmocology and currently holds a Research Professorship in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, DC. I add a link to her personal page, for those who want to read her biography.http://www.candacepert.com/bio.htm Cwn 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addings

I just added some ideas (and references) to article from spanish version.

Please make comments

Carlos J. Duarte dubc@email.com

PD. Sorry the grammar

sorry i was really baked

[edit] William James' Emotion

From William James' Emotion as given in Joseph E. LeDoux's "The Emotional Brain: the Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life"; ISBN: 0684836599; p. 43.

Why do we run away if we notice that we are in danger? Because we are afraid of what will happen if we don't. This obvious (and incorrect) answer to a seemingly trivial question has been the central concern of a century-old debate about the nature of our emotions.
It all began in 1884 when William James published an article titled "What Is an Emotion?" The article appeared in a philosophy journal called Mind, as there were no psychology journals yet. It was important, not because it definitively answered the question it raised, but because of the way in which James phrased his response. He conceived of an emotion in terms of a sequence of events that starts with the occurrence of an arousing stimulus {sympathetic nervous system} and ends with a passionate feeling, a conscious emotional experience. A major goal of emotion research is still to elucidate this stimulus-to-feeling sequence—to figure out what processes come between the stimulus and the feeling.
James set out to answer his question by asking another: do we run from a bear because we are afraid or are we afraid because we run? He proposed that the obvious answer, that we run because we are afraid, was wrong, and instead argued that we are afraid because we run:
Our natural way of thinking about... emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My thesis on the contrary is that the bodily changes follow directly the PERCEPTION {the bear} of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion {called 'feeling' by Damasio}.
The essence of James' proposal was simple. It was premised on the fact that emotions are often accompanied by bodily responses (racing heart, tight stomach, sweaty palms, tense muscles, and so on) and that we can sense what is going on inside our body much the same as we can sense what is going on in the outside world. According to James, emotions feel different from other states of mind because they have these bodily responses that give rise to internal sensations, and different emotions feel different from one another because they are accompanied by different bodily responses and sensations. For example, when we see James' bear, we run away. During this act of escape, the body goes through a physiological upheaval: blood pressure rises, heart rate increases, pupils dilate, palms sweat, muscles contract in certain ways {evolutionary, innate defense mechanisms}. Other kinds of emotional situations will result in different bodily upheavals. In each case, the physiological responses return to the brain in the form of bodily sensations, and the unique pattern of sensory feedback gives each emotion its unique quality. Fear feels different from anger or love {need} because it has a different physiological signature. The mental aspect of emotion, the feeling, is a slave to its physiology, not vice versa: we do not tremble because we are afraid or cry because we feel sad; we are afraid because we tremble and are sad because we cry.

From Spinoza's Ethics, Part III - E3:D.III—

"By emotion I mean the modifications {sympathetic nervous system} of the body, whereby the active power of the said body is increased or diminished, aided or constrained, and also the ideas of such modifications."

EMOTION is a change in one's °Perpetuation. Its intensity is proportional to the change.

If the change is negative, it is Sorrow.
If the change is zero, it is Boredom.
If the change is positive, it is Joy.

Yesselman 16:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image suggestions

I would like to see an image related to emotion in the article. My suggestions is the painting The Scream. hgamboa 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. any suggestion for the caption? A series of Ekman's faces showing sadness, anger, fear, joy, surpise, and disgust would also be good. Stephen Allison 10:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The System of Emotions

Subjations

[edit] Deleted comments

The following comments were deleted by User:207.69.138.139 in this edit and have been reintroduced here in their original form' Semiconscious • talk 08:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This diagram shows how emotions are related together. I call it Subjations which is a blend
of the words subjects and relations. A detailed description is posted below.
I'm not sure about the "right/wrong", "happiness and unhappiness", and "more and less" designations. It looks to me like "arrogance" for instance is on the happiness, "more", extrinsic axis and somehow relates to dignity. This is kind of confusing and definitely would break the Wikipedia:No_original_research rule. However it is interesting and I'd like to hear you explain in a little more detail. Semiconscious • talk 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Very nice effort. However the emotion field is debated since about Aristotle, or in other words there is no consensus on the structure of emotions at all. Such a scheme as sketched here needs a vey strong source, and even then can not be put beyond 'according to ......' status. Personally I would not easily agree that arrogance is an emotion for example. So if you want to continue with putting up this scheme, please introduce the necessary cautious phrasing and a large number of essential references. As far as I know you may be interested in Frijda's 1986, or Ortony Clore et al 1988 schemes. But there are more around. Best of luck Arnoutf 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see the other schemes posted here. Then we could compare. I'd like to see what their diagrams look like.

[edit] New comment

Although I appreciate the time and effort put into this section, the above diagram and resulting discussion are not at all scientific. Although these can add to the discussion of emotion it should not be stated that this is THE definition. Furthermore, to follow the rules of Wikipedia one should not be putting forth his or her own agenda or ideas without peer-review and publication. If this is simply one persons idea it should be published and sited, if not it should be removed.

This should be under the category of Emotion Theory, but that category redirects to here.
The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It wants information. If other systems exist, they should
be posted here as well.

A few examples that are incorrect:

"Hate - excessive apathy" Apathy basically means indifference. Hate is a very active, intense emotion and although there is a popular saying, "The opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference" this far from makes hate equal to indifference. Also "excessive apathy" isn't logical. If apathy is lack of concern how can a person be "more unconcencerned".

Good point. A better term as the opposite of empathy would be antipathy. I'll change it.

"Expectation - future Contentment" Expectation is a preconceived idea of how some future event will pan out. It does not have an implication of positive or negative, which are both objective.

Future contentment does not imply positive or negative. This refutation is irrelevant.
Applying positive and negative to expectation incurs surprise, disappointment and
embarrassment. Surprise is above expectation (positive). Disappointment is antipathetically
below expectation or standard (negative). Embarrassment is empathetically below expectation
or standard (negative). There is also ecstatic which is excessive surprise and sadness
which is excessive disappointment or embarrassment. This definition of sadness is especially
interesting because it clarifies how sadness is differentiated from unhappiness.

"Crazy - if the extrinsic subject is ambiguous" Example: I am awoken by something and get angry. I didn't know what caused me to become awake; maybe a sound, or a bug landing on my face? Simply because I didn't know what the subject was or from where it came does not make me crazy.

Not knowing what the subject was or where it came from can drive one crazy. Crazy is also
known to mean not knowing right from wrong. JHuber 05:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New comments

This is a diagram of our emotional system. It is a metaphysical philosophy based on subjects and relations. Since anything can be a subject, it is the highest of all possible systems.
(There is a little more information in this description than is in the diagram. Not everything can be drawn.)
Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation
Relation - more than one subject combined together
Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation
Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation
Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject
Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject
Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject
Good - what increases a relation
Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation
Horror - excessive bad
Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant
Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject
Crazy - if the extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous
Value - direction of a relation
Like - to share Values
Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter 'C'.
  • 1stC - occurs when subjects combine and a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created. The terms 'more' and 'less' do not apply with 1stC. It is very important to clarify that with 1stC one does not say, "Happiness is the combination of subjects," but, "Happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation."
  • 2ndC - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here the extrinsic subject already exists. The terms 'more' and 'less' apply with 2ndC. Leverage and contentment exist because of 2ndC.
  • 3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.
  • Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.
  • Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relation. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Another term that applies here is "fashion". Fashion is the active form of contentment. Contentment happiness is personal and can be stronger than 1stC. Some sub-emotions of contentment are:
^Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment)
^Grief - not having what you want
Frustration - not getting what you want
Anger - excessive Frustration
^Distress - having what you don't want
^Relief - not having what you don't want
Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination.
Nervous - anticipation of a combination
Shy - excessive Nervousness
Worry - anticipation of a separation
Concern - mild Worry
Fear - excessive Worry
Terror - extreme Fear
Anxiety - general term for Nervous, Shy, Worry, Concern, Fear or Terror
Pride - above Contentment
Shame - below Contentment
Dignity - empathetic Pride
Arrogance, Conceit - excessive Dignity
Honor - the action toward Dignity
Jealousy - antipathetic Pride related to Contentment
Envy - the action toward Jealousy
Respect - antipathetic Pride related to Fashion
Admiration - the action toward Respect
Modesty - empathetic Shame
Humility - the action toward Modesty
Pity - antipathetic Shame
Pathetic, Pitiful, Contempt - excessive Pity
Disgust - the action toward Pity
Expectation - future Contentment
Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)
Standard - past Contentment
Surprise - empathetically or antipathetically above Standard or Expectation
Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation
Disappointment - antipathetically below Standard or Expectation
Elation, Ecstatic - excessive Surprise
Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment
Hate - excessive antipathy
Love - excessive empathy
Miss - absent empathy
^The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from
I. Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured theory. In P. Shaver (ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5: Emotions, relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.
Axiom - Extrinsic subjects can not be related to intrinsic subjects. If this occurs a new
extrinsic subject is instantly created.
Axiom - Related subjects can not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects can not
separate. This is a significant factor in morality.
Has there been any research using standard methods of psychology or sociology providing evidence for this scheme? If not, then I don't think it should be included, since I can come up with an alternative scheme, as could just about anyone else. Without scientific support such schemes are little more than diagrammed opinions. Also, Wikipedia has a policy of no original research. Without references to this scheme in previously published research, it appears this scheme does not pass the policy of no original research. User:Kc62301
Technically, the policy of Wikipedia:No_original_research does not apply to talk pages such as this. Also, the concept of subjects and relations goes all the way back to the middle ages. One can read more about that here:
Medieval Theories of Relations: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval/
In it one can see that philosophers debated about non-reductive and reductive relations for centuries. This is analagous to 1stC and 2ndC of the Subjations scheme. Another analogy is that of what they called a 'Cambridge Change' to what is in the Subjations as 'Leverage or Antipathetic Happiness'. Being from the foundations of philosophy, I believe this qualifies as previously published research.
You make the claim that you or anyone else can come up with an alternative scheme but this is not possible. This system is based on a philosophically provable foundation. Here is the proof. Relations exist. There is no such thing as a relation of a singular entity. These entities must be called subjects. Subject is the most general of all terms. A relation itself can be a subject. Therefore, the system is closed. It is impossible to 'not belong' in this system. All one can do is add to it. Adding to it brings forth emotion theory. Emotions such as pride, shame, jealousy, dignity, modesty or pity are relative. They must be based on the word relation. If you tried a similar term such as comparison or valence, this wouldn't work with family members. We refer to family members as relatives, not comparitives or valencives. Also, there is no such thing as a singular relation. Relations must be composed of something. If you tried a term other than subject such as unit or object, this wouldn't work with people. People don't refer to themselves as units or objects outside of the purpose of counting. The rest of this system is built on common sense. For example, pride is the opposite of shame so you have to diagram these opposing each other from contentment. Terms other than contentment could be used here, such as par, but one has to be chosen. Contentment is used because it is the most generic. Given this much jealousy can be included. Since it is impossible to be jealous of oneself, jealousy can be defined as antipathetic pride. This is common sense. The same goes for dignity. One can't be dignified of someone else so dignity can be defined as empathetic pride. The rest of this system is built in this way. Therefore, no other schemes are possible. Standard scientific methods are not necessary when it comes to common sense. Besides, emotions can't be measured. This is a non-empirical science. This leads to the question is emotion theory science or psuedoscience? Although emotions aren't tangible in themselves, they are caused by tangible events and they themselves cause tangible events. I suppose they would then fall into the category of psuedoscience that is actually real. Others claim to have made emotional models as well. There is a link to a table of them posted further down this page which I will copy here:
http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/basic%20emotions.htm
As you can see, this is a table of lists. What one does with lists is to try to prioritize them. That is why this table is organized into primary, secondary and tertiary sections. Lists have their purposes but they are different from models. In a model the items aren't in any sort of order, they are organized to fit. They are displayed in reference to each other. As I replied to someone above, I welcome other diagrams to be posted here. I'd like to see what they look like. If you think this is simply an opinion then show me an alternative. Let's see if it works. --JHuber 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warped definition

Opening:

Emotion, in its most general definition, is a neural impulse that moves an organism to action, prompting automatic reactive behavior that has been adapted through evolution as a survival mechanism to meet a survival need

Further down:

These universal emotions include anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness and surprise.

Nobody would say that the opening definition relates very well with their experiences with the list of emotions in the second part of the entry. Hackwrench 21:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good remark, not an easy solution. I agree ot seems contradcitory indeed. However both could follow Frijda's (1986) framework of action readiness. The problem may be that the definition of emotions has never been universally accepted even among emotion psychology. The first definition is more grouded in the (social) cognition literature, where emotion has a function. The second phrase seems to be related to the anthropoligic psychology of which Paul Ekman is the most important person. Perhaps we have to introduce the different approaches to emotions. This would greatly increase the length and depth of this article (the first not necessarily being good for an encyclopedia entry). Arnoutf 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur, and will go out on a limb and just state that, despite any "distinction" elaborated on by "Daniel Goleman, in his landmark book Emotional Intelligence" (should be italics) and used (apparently) in the language of psychology, the current form is improper for this context (Wikipedia). In cases like these, its not proper to simply say 'that very common usage of this term is wrong' and you should go over there to read about that. Just doesnt work. (And if that was the proper handling, some reasonable attention should be likewise made to that article too!). Im going to write my own "how to write an article, for 'experts' new to Wikipedia" which I can point to and people can criticise it or not, but the basic rule here (as Ive come to understand it during my hours spent here) is to start with disambiguation, meaning that where (as in this case) the subject is not sufficiently or commonly differentiated from the current one (where a simple otheruses tag would suffice), "disambiguation" means starting with the common definition:
In common [not "general"] usage, emotions are..." In psychology, the term is distinguished from "feeling"...
That's a basic starter. Im pleased to see the high level of writing, but the issue is understanding the organizational requirements (or constraints) of the context (ie. massively hyperlinked info platform). Before I go, I should state that its a bit tacky to use external links or ref numbers in the lede to refer to an individual, who, if they in fact belonged in the lede, would have an article about them. Red links are red for a reason: Wikipedians are trained by Pavlovian response to stub any red links! Dont ask what the carrot is, though - I dont know. -Ste|vertigo 23:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I also want to add that not all neural impulses that moves an organism to action are emotions. Physical pain is differentiated from emotional pain, and I don't recall anyone calling hunger an emotion. Nervousness? What about the neural impulses involved in bicycling or driving a car? No onw gets emotional over a Red or yellow light!Hackwrench 21:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I agree that emotion is certainly what drives living beings to action. Even something as simple as a red and yellow light boils down to the emotion of desire. A person will choose to stop their car at a red light because, above arriving upon their destination in a speedier manner, they desire to not get a ticket or to not place themselves at the risk of having a car accident. Emotion, however, is not required for life, as can be observed through the living sponge whom has no cognitive faculties. However, as an emotionless being, a sponge makes no decision and takes no action; the sponge simply sits there and fits into its ecosystem in whatever manner circumstance or other living beings will allow it to.

That said, much of the article still needs to be changed as it makes assertions about properties of emotions that are debateable and/or can never truly be proven, though they can be suggested. Take, for example, the statement "Emotions are mental states that arise spontaneously, rather than through conscious effort.". Anyone who powerlifts or bodybuilds could easily oppose that statement as the emotion of aggression is frequently consciously and deliberately created before the gym sessions and/or the competetions.![I have no user name] 2:35, 01 May 2006

[edit] Genery351's suggested additions

Genery351 added the following to the top of this article. I moved it here because in outline form it was too difficult to understand. Here it can be discussed in outline form. Genery351's comments above are copied here as well. sallison 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

emotions_

dna - code

emotion - frequency

much the way a computer processor / brain may be hardwired to receive a set of instructions / code that it then processes into a signal / working frequency that another processor interprets into code emotion is the energy level that governs the way humans behave / work

and to the "Relation to cultural and social factors" section:

there are many kinds of people / energy levels / frequencies / wavelengths that operate within emotion's general spectrum.

much can be likened to cellular activity.

-cells -tissues -cell growth and metabolism -viruses

by these can be seen social interactions.

-friendship -procreation -societies -war

we all know what these feel like, and each emotion or exchange has its own structure / fluctuation / frequency,although it is worked differently by everyone

emotion transcends many boundaries that other frequencies cannot

eg. people cannot see light of what is going on the other side of their country, yet still operate as a part of a whole, fitting into or separating from what is around them.

{ant colonies- workers change according to situations going on inside of their hive; although they are quite aways from it} emotion has many strong mediums {tv, radio,, people,,, nature...}

i added a brief few paragraphs to emotion and relation to social factors. just trying to condense a little and pull from sources around wikipedia to avoid any repetition. this is just a rough draft, please email w/ changes and opinions. Genery351

im sorry, this is not really my area of focus. it is of very deep interest to me, however, and i see it in a very condensed way; where broad generalizations become very similar. mainly i just wanted to use the vast network of wikipedia to help support a topic, rather than having the topic set its own roots. i dont know that i can do this article justice, but as a reader, i would really like to see it a little simpler.

[edit] Additional Models

I have found the model prostulated by Parrott, W. (2001), Emotions in Social Psychology, Psychology Press, Philadelphia and shown at http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/basic%20emotions.htm to be helpful. As it is a table, I shall not try to post it here. But it does explain why we can react at a basic level, fear, to one event, and with a higher emotion, anxiety to a different experience.

I don't have the reference handy, but one model is that emotions are my inner reaction to my perception of what I am experiencing. So the emotions can be common through out humanity, but the actual response to eperiences is different.

A thought can be viewed as the comparing or contrasting of data items while a feeling is a visceral perception of the difference between the items. When a belief is attached, subconsciously or not, to the cause of, or reason for the difference and contains a strategy for resolving the difference, the perception is amplified or enhanced and takes on a specifically labeled quality assigned by experience and learning. It is this felt internal force that propels one to action or inaction or internal stress when suppressed.
Jiohdi 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how to include Parrot, let alone user POVs. Suggestions about Parrot? DCDuring 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

Confusion should most definately be added to the list of emotions and have a full article made of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.233.171.165 (talk • contribs)

Right now, the closest article seems to be mental confusion. Rfrisbietalk 03:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feeling

What do you think about merging Feeling into this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I definitely support merging the narrative paragraphs into this article so that the Feeling article can be the disambig page it says it is. Rfrisbietalk 02:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feelings and Emotions are sufficiently different - don't merge

I have seen some consensus that emotion is action oriented and feeling is information oriented. The two are therefore sufficiently different in nature and deserve their own space but with the existing link. Please leave them in their separate spaces.

I tend to agree with the option NOT to merge. However in the current state of the articles I would not object the merger. In my opinion both articles require significant improvements/editing. Arnoutf 18:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controlling emotions?

How does the concept of controlling emotions fit in anywhere? Hackwrench 00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger's syndrome and emotion

As an individual with Asperger's syndrome, I am going to have to disagree with the introduction that says people with Asperger's syndrome have no or perhaps reduced experience of emotion. This is not true! The main difference is in our ability to express emotion through facial expression, tone of voice, and the like (i.e., flat affect). I have worked on learning to express my emotional state of mind more openly in words and in body language and facial expression so that other people can "read" me better. This does not mean I've ever had a lack of emotion. In fact, I would say that underneath I am very emotionally sensitive.--NeantHumain 08:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the sentences about Asperger's syndrome since they don't really add information about the topic in the first place.--NeantHumain 03:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotions and feelings: keep separated

I'm researching emotions in neural nets, and have read that feelings are the cognitive (informational) aspect of emotions, the latter being more associated with physical arousal and other physiological changes. Feelings are much more specific (i.e., easily categorised by verbal report) than emotions, the latter having common features for a range of feelings, like increased heartbeat, sweating, etc. The literature always draws the distinction; hence I believe they should be separated, but they should be hyperlinked.

Hmm... it seems to me that "feeling" is just an everyday term for "emotion" which has received at least some level of technical definition in psychology and neuroscience, e.g. the ABC model, various theories of emotion. The wikipedia entries certainly don't distinguish between them very well. Fear is discussed as a "feeling" on the feeling page, but I'm quite confident that fear is an emotion. If, as the above post states, feelings are considered by some as more cognitive and informational, then this departs significantly from the traditional (partly false) dichotomy between feeling and thinking, heart and head. I'm leaning toward a merging emotion and feeling at this point, as I don't see a clear difference between them. --Jcbutler 07:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they are different, there are many more differences as well, I discuss the relationship between emotions, feelings and thoughts in my online book "The Psychology of Emotions, Feelings and Thoughts" it has many new advances in understanding what an emotion is, i suggest it as an external link? http://www.cnx.org/content/m14358/latest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.163.183 (talk)

[edit] Emotional Detachment

I know there's a seperate article for emotional detachment, also known as being numb, but I was wondering if maybe there could be a slight mention of it here? It seems as though it might fit somewhere along the way. I'm open to any other opinions/suggestions on this matter; it's just a suggestion. -WikiFiend90 01:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Reading the intro a few questions about accuracy come to my mind. Emotions are a neural impulse, but not all neural impulses are emotions. More correctly, emotions are described as collections of neural impulses. Most correctly, they are a type of patterned neural impulses that move an organism to action.

The relationship between emotions and feelings offered here is generally consistent with Goleman's description, but introduces a similar error by defining feelings only in the context of emotion. Feelings are generally proprioceptions or interpretations of proprioception. Only some proprioceptions convey emotional conditions. Pain, fatigue and hunger are feelings but not emotions. The relationship between feelings and emotions is mutual instructive -- we feel emotions and we emote in response to feelings. MoniqueRN 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Coincidence of Happen

This is something interesting concerning emotion theory and language. It is a consequence of the subjects and relations theory posted above under the heading "The System of Emotions." In it is the claim that one of the types of happiness is if a subject combines with an existing relation (2ndC). Also, nervousness is the anticipation of a combination and worry is the anticipation of a separation. Consider the example of someone walking on the ledge of a tall building. This person would naturally be nervous that he might fall. It could also be said that he would be worried that he might fall. He would be nervous of a future event and worried of separating himself from life. Time is a relation of events. Adding to a relation is one of the types of happiness (2ndC). This person's nervousness is caused by what might happen. The point here is that there is a coincidence between the emotion of happiness and the verb to happen. Does the verb, happen, come from happiness or is this just a coincidence? JHuber 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gut feeling

The idea that "gut feelings" relate to common sense is rather narrow. "Gut feelings" to my understanding are "hunches" that employ intuition that is linked to the so called "sixth sense". This is the ability to "know" somthing without recourse to the normal five senses. It can therefore be consider as a psychic ability which possibly involves both the pineal and pituitary glands which are recognised as the psychic sense organs of the human body. These organs when developed can respond to frequencies outside those employed by the other senses and hence information not available to the average person becomes cognised. I stand open to correction. Vince Staples

Euhm, let's not go to the 6th sencse. Yes Gut Feeling is linked to intuition and hunches; and you can argue these allow you to know things without conscious thought / deliberation. This is fairly hard to accept for many as the rationalistic decision making models for human consciousness have been dominant since Descartes. Since the mid 1980's the notion in Psychology/Neurology is swinging towards the acceptance of non-conscious though as an important decision making aid, in which emotions play an essential role (hence this article). Note this is not at all related to anything outside the 5 senses - and does not need esoteric glands that do not turn up in medical science (e.g. pineal gland whose soul-function was invented by Descartes to be allowed to study human physiology, as separation of body and mind left the Church the final word of the latter). Arnoutf 14:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotions are not feelings?!?

The entry for Emotion currently claims the following:

Growing consensus does agree that the distinction between emotion and feeling is important. Feeling can be seen as emotion that is filtered through the cognitive brain centers, specifically the frontal lobe, producing a physiological change in addition to the psycho-physiological change. Daniel Goleman, in his landmark book Emotional Intelligence, discusses this differentiation at length.

The notion that this is a consensus is untrue, and Goleman does nothing of the sort. In fact, like most theorists in this area, Goleman uses emotion and feeling interchangeably:

The lopsided scientific vision of an emotionally flat mental life... is gradually changing as psychology has begun to recognize the essential role of feeling in thinking... psychology is coming to appreciate the power and virtues of emotions in mental life... our humanity is most evident in our feelings. (from Emotional Intelligence, p. 41).

The Wikipedia entry claims that emotions are "filtered through our cognitive brain centers". This somehow implies that emotions are purely physical and unconscious until we "feel" them. The true consensus in psychology is that emotional experiences are subjective experiences, by definition. The common model given in most PSYC 101 texts is the ABC model. All emotions have Arousal, Behavioral expression, and Conscious experience.

The notion that "cognitive filtering" produces a "physiological change in addition to the psycho-physiological change" doesn't make any sense at all.

I'd like to do some editing on this page, and I think we need to consider the relationship between this page and Feeling, but I wanted to get some discussion going on this issue first. Are there any good reasons to make such a hard distinction between emotions and feelings? --Jcbutler 18:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Most scientists seem to think so, but most cannot agree how to relate them (LeDoux's opinion is but one of many). There are several models in Psych text books (besides the ABC idea), (Singer Schachter model etc) which may all be worthwhile to list.Arnoutf 20:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Singer and Schachter consider the subjective "labeling" experience to be a defining quality of emotions, and do not distinguish between feeling and emotion, as far as I know. It's also worth noting that the misattribution hypothesis has received poor to mixed empirical support in the research literature.

Here is how emotion is defined at biology-online.org: "a strong feeling, aroused mental state, or intense state of drive or unrest directed toward a definite object and evidenced in both behaviour and in psychologic changes, with accompanying autonomic nervous system manifestations."

And this is from AllPsych Online: "The mainstream definition of emotion refers to a feeling state involving thoughts, physiological changes, and an outward expression or behavior."

Emotions are feelings. --Jcbutler 21:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So the AllPsychOnline sees a difference as their emotion definition is more or less Feeling+Thoughts+Physiological Change+Expression in Behaviour Arnoutf 21:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The structure of the sentence is: E = F, which includes A, B, and C. Thus, emotions are feelings, and emotions/feelings include thoughts, physiology, and behavior (the ABC model).

Goleman gave a similar definition in Appendix A of Emotional Intelligence. On page 289 he states "I take emotion to refer to a feeling and its distinctive thoughts, psychological and biological states, and range of propensities to act" (emphasis mine). The ABC model is the consensus and should be highlighted in the Wikipedia entry.

Goleman also distinguishes moods and temperaments from emotion, but not feelings. As I said before, saying that Goleman discusses the diffentiation of emotions and feelings at length is nonsense.

Emotion is conceptually sloppy, but feeling is even more so. Attempting to make a scientific distinction between feeling and emotion is speculative and precarious. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but this is an important point. --Jcbutler 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I misread the sentence and hoped we could just plug it in.... I agree the definitions are practically impossible to get right; even a well renowned emotion researcher as Nico Frijda in his 1986 the Emotions never assumed to come up with more then a working definition of emotion. Arnoutf 22:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

AllPsych Online says"The mainstream definition of emotion refers to a feeling state involving thoughts, physiological changes, and an outward expression or behavior." I think it means that, according ot most of authors, a feeling is the cognitive component of an emotion. So every emotion features a feeling (thought related to the emotion), a physiological reaction and a behavior or expression. In other ways, Emotion = thought(feeling) + physiological change + behavior (it can be an expression)

Example:Fear is an emotion it features

  1. a Subjective bad feeling (thoughts)
  2. a physiological change (for example, it increases the heart rate)
  3. a behavior (for example, a fight or flight reaction)

So according to this definition, no, emotions are not feelings and feelings are parts of emotions.Frédérick Lacasse 23:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well there is some ambiguity then. Nevertheless, there is a traditional distinction between thoughts and feelings in psychology, and Goleman certainly distinguishes between emotions and feelings on the one side, and thoughts, cognitions, and information processing on the other. His point being, of course, that psychologists have placed too much emphasis on thinking and not enough on feeling.
I've done a bit of looking around, and it appears that Damasio is the main proponent of the feelings-are-not-emotions camp. I hesitate to comment further, as I have not studied his writing in any detail. For now, I'll continue to defend the main points of this post, a) there is not a consensus on the distinction between emotion and feeling, and b) Goleman does not take this position, much less discuss it at length. --Jcbutler 00:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, my first confusion about feelings and emotions arrived after reading Damasio, and he still seems to go against the flow. The strict division Thoughts; Cognition<->Emotions is attacked in much psych research (e.g. Damasio's Somatic marker) although recent stuff bij Dijksterhuis (unconscious thought) does not explicitly address emotions. So let's for now keep the division in this article as this is still the settled and commonly accepted pov in mainstream psychology (although personally I don't belief in such Black-White divisions). Arnoutf 09:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, this has been a very interesting discussion! I like LeDoux's (and Zajonc's) idea that emotion and cognition are separate but interacting brain systems. I suppose I would open to distinguishing feeling from emotion if we can define feeling as the subjective, inner experience of an emotion, rather than as thoughts or cognitions about emotion. I think this would be compatible with both LeDoux and Damasio, as well as the majority of Wikipedians. Emotions themselves are clearly complex and multifaceted, so we'll probably have to settle for some kind of "working" definition. --Jcbutler 17:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


A thought can be viewed as a comparing or contrasting of data items while a feeling is a visceral perception of the difference between the items. When a belief is attached, subconsciously or not, to the cause of, or reason for the difference and contains a strategy for resolving the difference, the perception takes on a specifically labeled quality assigned by experience called an emotion. It is this that propels one to action or inaction or internal stress when suppressed.

Emotion(s) ( Latin ex-, ex- + Latin mov re, to move)

Human reason only works when emotion is involved --David Concar Jiohdi 19:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Significant point, worth including. Reason is a tool. Use of tool requires evaluation, at many levels. Emotional is evaluation. Where does the point go? DCDuring 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sociology of emotions

I've read this section and noticed that it is one of the remaining issues in this article that needs to be addressed. There are no citations for this section and on the whole it seems to be a bit disorganized and unclear. The first few paragraphs talk about a few different perspectives but the last two paragraphs are kind of vague in terms of who to attribute the point of view to. I would suggest that whoever feels up to it, to perhaps organize this section in a similar way that the section Theoretical traditions is organized, and then follow with citing the statements that remain. I would, but I'm much more well-versed about the neurobiology of emotion than I am about the sociology of most of anything. --Ubiq 08:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protection

Hi all, I had to revert an anonymous vandal even after JCbutler semiprotected the page. Apparently something went wrong. Can someone truly protect the page (for now); or alternatively remove the protection template. Thanks Arnoutf 22:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be adviced that only administrators can truly semiprotect a page, and that merely placing the template on top of the page does not achieve the protection itself. Either do both, or neither Arnoutf 13:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased.

Though many studies show activities of emotion in the brain, no scientifical eveidence has proved that consciousness does not or does play a part in producing emotions. Merlot70 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Consciousness is still more of a philosopher's field of study. Attention is closer to what psychologists and cognitive scientists study. What do you propose? An empty article? This area is going to have to have many perspectives (with sources!!!). DCDuring 17:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New theory

This section is badly written and lacks reliable sources. Mainly though it is not very focussed and is hard to understand. A important problem is that the name 'new theory' is very vague and does not add any information. Furthermore, the theory is not that new as it has very close similarity to the 'common currency' idea of Michel Cabanac (1992) or the computational approach to hedonic tones of Victor Johnston (Why we feel - book: 1999). Arnoutf 07:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The "new theory" is described very poorly, and the only reference provided is to the personal page of Steven Harris, who is trained as an actor and clown but not as a psychologist or philosopher. Even if it was better-written, I'm not convinced that the theory it describes is prominent enough to deserve inclusion in a very general article on emotions. I'm deleting the section for now. Inhumandecency 18:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, my tag has been up for almost 2 months now, so improvement is not likely. Arnoutf 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
agree. thank you, sallison 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical traditions

This section says there are four main traditions, while only three are mentioned. After reading it very well, the theory of Walter Cannon is probably the fourth one (in the eyes of Cornelius)

In general, the way those theoretical perspectives on emotions are ordered on wikipedia is a real mess:

I suggest that only the Emotion article should contain a list of theories, or alternatively that a new article is started (something like Emotional theories).
All articles about specific theories can then refer to that page, instead of each of them giving an incomplete list.

Since I don't know much about this field (I just briefly studied it for a paper I was writing), I suggest someone more experienced in the field should commit the changes. I just added references to the Cannon-Bard and James-Lange articles. --Bernard François 10:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the fourth theory in the article (the cognitive perspective) might be the same as the Two factor theory. --Bernard François 10:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Generally the cognitive perspective is related to the Singer-Schachter theory which is indeed the 2-factor theory. In my experience the three most mentioned theories are
1 James-Lange
2 Cannon-Bard
3 Singer-Schachter (cognitive or 2 factor indeed)
Addition of the Darwinian perspective maybe a fouth. However I have not read Cornelius; so I am not sure what his 4 are. Actually this is one of the problems with this article, there is so much literature and research out there it is very hard to come to consensus which approaches to take up. PS I moved this down to the bottom of the page as it is customary to place new remarks at the end.Arnoutf 11:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Fairly rigorously rewrote the section. Please copyedit or ammend; this is just a first start. Arnoutf 14:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Props

To whoever made that bear analogy. xD Mightywayne 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear statement

"However, current research on the neural circuitry of emotion suggests that emotion is an essential part of human decision-making and planning, and that the famous distinction made by Descartes between reason and emotion is not as clear as it seems."

Could someone who is familiar with Descartes point out which distinction this sentence is referring to?Ziiv 01:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The core of Descartes ideas is that there is a body, which has animal like urges and needs (emotions) and a rational soul. These two are separate entities (only connected through the pineal gland). I.e. emotions are related to lower urges and animal like behaviour, where ratio is the domain of humanity. When emotion research shows the importance in decision-making (the core domain of the rational mind idea) this duality/distinction body-soul becomes impossible. Arnoutf 11:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotion is generally regarded by Western civilization as the antithesis of reason. This distinction stems from Western philosophy...

As of now, this article regards Cartesian dualism and Stoicism are the primary source of this tradition. Where I can see how Cartesian dualism would have contributed to this notion, Stoicism dealt with a somewhat different definition of passion, even though the current use of the word 'stoic' is used to describe someone who doesn't show their emotions. I changed the wording slightly from specifically stoic and Cartesian dualism approaches to Cartesian dualism and modern interpretations of Stoicism, although I am not certain as to whether or not this change is any more accurate. Is there currently any consensus as to the history of this distinction? 74.67.115.198 02:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good comment, thanks. Rereading the article I am again slightly shocked about the state it is in. This one will need a lot of work to get it up to any acceptable level; on more than such loose ends alone. Arnoutf 13:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcing categorization work on emotions

One goal of WikiProject Psychology is to "Construct a coherent framework for categorization of psychology articles". Articles on emotions especially need a more coherent categorization framework. Some participants in the WikiProject are presently focusing their attention on that. You are invited to have a look at Talk:List_of_emotions#Editing the emotions section of the Psychology Project, and to take part if you please. Robert Daoust 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

oi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.79.131.207 (talk) 00:01, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I am submitting a new Wikipedia categorization scheme for dealing with emotions, and more generally with all affective topics. I was using a section at the page Talk:List_of_emotions while I was working out that scheme, but then I realized that it would be more appropriate to create a new subpage at WikiProject Psychology. Interested people may have a look at the new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology/Emotion. Please note that the initiative, in order to go further, now requires that at least a person or two agree with the propositions made. Robert Daoust 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone agree? I suggest to reorganize Category:Emotion into Category:Affective states and processes: details of the new category and its provisionally proposed subcategories may be found here. If anyone agree, I will make a 'request for renaming' at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. Robert Daoust 18:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actors are able to produce different emotions on cue.

Interesting. I was looking for a place to note something like

Actors are able to produce different emotions on cue.

when I ran into

students acting as boarders in their own homes reported others' astonishment, bewilderment, shock, anxiety, embarrassment, and anger; family members accused the students of being mean, inconsiderate, selfish, nasty, or impolite. Actors who breach a norm themselves feel waves of emotion, including apprehension, panic, and despair.

Observations:

  1. My schoolboy paragraph belongs nowhere near such an erudite other paragraph.
  2. Even my simpleton meaning of actor is different too.

So someone please stick my idea in edgewise somewhere. Thanks. Jidanni 02:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference between expression of emotion and emotions should be noted, although it is not as separable as it seems. Also indeed the difference between the word actor (i.e. someone who partakes in whatever action) in psychology is different from that in daily use. Arnoutf 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have created an article on Affect display to provide a focal point for things like interpersonal deception, cultural differences in expressions of emotion, "poker faces", "acting" theater and everyday, even malingering, flat affect. "Affect display" is what the APA Dictionary uses for the display of affect or emotion. That dictionary is my candidate for an authoritative, modern source of definitions for psychological terms. DCDuring 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure

I did some restructuring as there were several issues that were dealt with in different sections. As a result some leader 3 headers have appeared. I agree this is not a good idea, but please do not create any more level 1 headers. With 15 I think this article already has to many chapters. We need to prune down to the core and perhaps start writing sub articles rather then making this even harder to read. Arnoutf 11:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My impatience with this article has gotten the better of me. I should have discussed my thoughts more before beginning edits. I have bitten off more than I can chew, but really want to make this better. I actually think it may be too much for most experts because so much of human experience is involved. I hope the definitional efforts in the lead are an acceptable beginning. DCDuring 17:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcing a request for renaming category emotion

I made a request, after gathering a bit of support, for renaming Category:Emotion to Category:Affective states and processes. You are invited to share your thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12 --Robert Daoust 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that such a renaming is unacceptable. People want to keep the term emotion as a category. Then, this means one of two alternatives: (1) category emotion includes all affective topics, (2) category emotion is reserved for 'strong' feelings. Alternative (1) is the present problematic situation. Alternative (2) seems to me the way to go for a solution, but the problem of naming and organizing the category 'all affective topics' will require another initiative than mine. --Robert Daoust 18:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be fairly subjective though, strong feeling. What is strong, what is weak???Arnoutf 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Your're right, and moreover a strong affective state is not necessarily only an emotion, it can be much more than that (I was qualifying emotions as strong feelings to make a long story short)! That's why the all-inclusive parent category 'affective' (or perhaps 'feeling' if the word affective is too problematic) is needed: (sub)category 'emotion' could perhaps be reserved for what is clearly considered as an emotion by almost everybody. --Robert Daoust 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment

Just in case anybody here wanted it, you might want to know disappointment was recently deleted as something that can't possibly be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Chubbles 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappointment can be defined as antipathetically below standard or expectation.
This is similar to embarrassment which is empathetically below standard or expectation.
Sadness, by the way, is excessive disappointment or embarrassment. An argument could be
made that disappointment isn't an antipathetic emotion because one could be disappointed in
oneself. However, being disappointed in oneself is looking at yourself from a second or third
person point of view. Whoever deleted it better put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Huber (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
First we need good definitions in Wiktionary for the words describing individual emotions. Then we need good articles, from multiple perspectives on the basic emotions (lists of basic emotions include from 2 to 12 or so different emotions). More subtle emotions will probably only have literary references and references to one or more basic emotions. If no one wants to actually write a good-enough-to-keep article on a subject, then we won't have an article, unless some portal puts it on some list of must-have articles. DCDuring 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mood disorder is a major category of mental disorders

A Mood disorder is a major category of mental disorders. For example, Bipolar disorder (manic depressive psychosis), Clinical depression (major depressive disorder) and Schizoaffective disorder are considered mood disorders. Or is this article going to be divorced from professional definitions? --Mattisse 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a run at some improvements here. I'm usiing the APA Dictionary (2006) as a start for terms. I'll try to make sure that there are links to good articles in appropriate contexts. DCDuring 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems is the Emotions template. I notice the Emotions article features William Glasser's theory, along with those of other people. Is there any evidence that these theorists agree on what emotion is? I looked in the Glasser article and it is not defined. And if you had the definition of emotion from each of the people mentioned in the article, would it agree with the Emotions template? I'm thinking, perhaps you should get as many different definitions as you can from theorists and then summarize them, unless they all agree - then you have it made! Especially if they agreed with those listed in the template! --Mattisse 18:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotions

You probably know this already, but APA has a journal Emotion[3]

  • [4] - This link pretty much nails down the diferent definitions and the problems therein. Perhaps you could use that article as a rough outline as it looks fairly good. --Mattisse 18:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • [5] William James's definition/explanation. --Mattisse 18:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have access to Emotion. I own James in (supposedly superior) 1982 edition. (Interesting how often James is a good starting point. Not so much conceptual progress that helps at the phenomenological level, I guess.) I wonder whether his order of presentation is useful, even if his theory is not up to date. He was a great writer. I will look at the Stanford article. Thanks. DCDuring 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories of Emotions

Organizing emotions into categories might look something like this:

  • Anxiety Emotions
    • + Nervous, Shy
    • - Concern, Worry, Fear, Terror
  • Empathetic Emotions
    • + Dignity, Honor, Arrogance
    • - Modesty, Humility, Embarrassment
  • Antipathetic Emotions
    • + Jealousy, Envy, Respect, Admiration
    • - Pity, Disgust, Contempt, Disappointment
  • Excessive Emotions
    • + Shy, Arrogance, Ecstatic, Love
    • - Fear, Terror, Contempt, Sad, Hate, Horror
  • Performance Assessors
    • + Surprise, Ecstatic
    • - Disappointment, Embarrassment, Sad
  • Static Emotions
    • + Pride, Jealousy, Respect, Dignity
    • - Shame, Pity, Modesty
  • Action Emotions
    • + Envy, Honor, Admiration
    • - Disgust, Humility

JHuber 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This idea has similarity with Russell's circumplex or Mehrabians PAD model, or the PANAS models, or Frijda Kuipers and ter Schure (1989) appraisal model. If we go there I would say to start from such a scholarly source. Arnoutf (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emotions in Philosophy

Where this may just be my interpretation, it seems as though the following section is not all that encyclopedic in nature, and in fact consists almost exclusively of the personal beliefs of whomever wrote it:

Emotions in Philosophy
What is the relationship between reason and emotion?
Only by controlling one's emotion and physical desire, Zeno of Citium (333 BC - 264 BC) argued, could we develop wisdom and the ability to apply thereof. By developing an indifference to pain and pleasure through meditation, the practicing Stoic will develop a wisdom stemming from suppressing the influence of passions, and ultimately, will attain wisdom.
4 Maccabees [7] echoes nearly the same idea, and "philosophically" discusses the reason versus emotion in an argument that if reason rules the emotions that prevent self-control, then it may rule the emotions that stop people from acting justly (malice) and courageously (anger, fear and pain), and describes primary emotions using a branching and farming analogy. In short:
The two primary emotions are pleasure and pain, which can affect body or soul, and cause many effects. Pleasure can be preceded by desire and followed by delight. Pain can be preceded by fear and followed by grief. Anger embraces pleasure and pain. In pleasure is a malevolent tendency, causing complexity; in the soul it boasts, covets and craves honor, rivalry, and malice; in the body it causes careless eating, gluttony, and the greedy consumption of food.
Summary: Pleasure and Pain are two plants growing from the body and the soul, and have many offshoots, each of which Reason weeds, prunes, ties up, waters, irrigates, and so tames the jungle of habits and emotions.
Such basic views of emotions have seen the world through thousands of years, leading to ideas like the age of reason, age of enlightenment (ironically scorned by many Christians) and logical positivism, and affecting the history of logic, reason and science from its roots to its latest stems. Conversely, emotional people experience reason as cold, irrational and evil, despite its benefits. There is no use to proving wrong such meaningless, logic-eschewing beliefs that don't want to or claim to be reasonable.

Where I am inclined to believe that if such a section were elaborated upon, it may be quite useful to this article, at the time being it seems to be in need of revision, citation, and a good deal of change in tone. By no means am I trying to form a personal attack against the writer or writers of this section, and I apologize if this comment comes across as such, however I do wish to bring into question whether or not this section is up to the standards of wikipedia. 24.24.90.148 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph is from Zeno. The (cited) middle is chronologically middle and related (by influence) to the previous and next examples. The last paragraph is influenced by the book "Fundamentals of Reasoning" by Robert M. Johnson. None of it is my personal belief. Emotions in Philosophy (as a section) might be a good idea, but my execution ignores all rules. Wikipedia is the main source. Thanks for bringing it up. Is it up to the standards of Wikipedia? Maybe not now, but it could fill in more of this broad topic of emotion, because the article seems strait. Erudecorp 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Build the web rule. Applying this idea to this article could replace what I wrote. Erudecorp 10:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sadness

I think that link to Sadness in Emotion's table is incorrect, because Depression mood is a state that is defined like "extreme sadness". Hence, sadness and depression are not the same. I think I'd better to link Sadness with sadness article in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.161.231 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] One at a time or not

Can you have multiple emotions at once or do they occur in sequence? Renegadeviking 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would answer that this depends on the capacity and capabilities of the person experiencing the emotions, and that we (hopefully) develop the ability to hold multiple emotions in mind as we grow. Whitespace (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That depends on the model of emotions you adopt. If you adopt emotions as functional states that maybe located in different brainparts; then yes, you can have two emotions at the same time (although you may consciously experience only one, or a single "mixed feeling"), if you adopt emotions as the result of a cognitive decision process / position in a multidimensional space (e.g. circumplex-Russell / PANAS, Watson et al) then you would not expect more emotions at the same time.
Personal capactiy has more to do with things like emotional intelligence I guess, and I don;t think that is very relevant in this context. Arnoutf (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Related to the above discussion (about emotions being discussed from a scientific stance), it is surely false to open the article/overview with "emotions are an evolutionary adaption". It would make much more sense to start "emotion is a mental state"... you see. As certainly the factual accuracy of evolution is disputable, and linking emotions to it is quite tenuous indeed, I suggest a rewrite of the intro in line with the dictionary definition: a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others, and have provided what I believe to be an adequate first sentence to the article. --Osndok (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comment has some merit. However, in the light of the state of the whole article, that single sentence can hardly push the whole of the mess towards NPOV. However I also think your argument is flawed as in science evolution is not disputed (but that is not a discussion for this talk page). Arnoutf (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely rewrote the introduction to be a summary of the article (for what it's worth) WP:LEAD. Arnoutf (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Would also like to see the subjective, experiential, non-empirical, event-in-consciousness nature of emotions made explicit. SmithBlue (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Euhm, there is a lot of empirical evidence for the subjectivity, experiential nature of emotions; so yes please add it somewhere, but to make sure to provide a reference. Arnoutf (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)