Talk:Emotion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Italic text'Italic text

This article is within the scope of Psychology WikiProject, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Core Topic

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B	Emotion has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

[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)

[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] Reverted edits

I reverted deletions made by previous anon user.

[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)

[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 shit 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

[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' S e miconscious • talk 08:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This diagram shows how emotions are related together. It is the system of subjects and relations. It is the highest of all possible systems. Everyone is subjected in this system. We should all have it memorized. I call it Subjations which is a blend of the words subjects and relations. A detailed description is posted at the top of the discussion page for happiness in the Wikipedia. I am the author. My name is John Huber. My e-mail is: jhn_hbr@yahoo.com. I welcome any feedback.

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. S e miconscious • 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 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

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

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 apathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are apathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.
Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Here the word "content" can be used interchangibly. Other terms that apply here are "feelings" and "fashion". This type of 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. Hate is excessive apathy.

Nervousness - anticipation of a combination

Worry - anticipation of a separation

Shyness - excessive Nervousness

Fear - excessive Worry

Anxiety - general term for Nervousness, Worry, Shyness or Fear

Pride - above Contentment

Shame - below Contentment

Dignity - empathetic Pride

Arrogance, Conceit - excessive Dignity

Honor - the action toward Dignity

Jealousy - apathetic Pride

Envy - the action toward Jealousy

Modesty - empathetic Shame

Humility - the action toward Modesty

Pity - apathetic 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 apathetically above Standard or Expectation

Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation

Disappointment - apathetically below Standard or Expectation

Elation - excessive Surprise

Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment

^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.

The name of this system is Subjations which is a blend of words subjects and relations. What is especially interesting is that even though it is a system of emotions it also conforms with evolution. After all, every living thing has relatives. One more thing I'd like to add is something I call the Base Rule. The Base Rule states that related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate. That doesn't sound like much but it is a significant factor with morality. I welcome any feedback. I'm the author. My name is John Huber and my email is jhn_hbr@yahoo.com

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 Apathetic 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. 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, this wouldn't work with family members. We refer to family members as relatives, not comparitives. 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 feeling, 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 apathetic pride. This is common sense. The same goes for dignity. One can't be dignified of someone else so dignity can defined as empathetic pride. The rest of this system is built in this way. So you see, 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...}

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.

[edit] Confusion

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

Right now, the closest article seems to be mental confusion. Rfrisbie^talk 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. Rfrisbie^talk 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.

Feeling is a synonym for contentment. When one's feelings get hurt their contentment level lowers. When one's contentment level is raised, their feelings are lifted. The changes are emotional. Without the changes, no emotional event is occurring. The feelings are still there however, they just aren't changing. This is something like should zero be considered to be a number? Even though zero has no value, it is still a number. Therefore, even though feelings without changes are static, feelings are still an emotion. I believe they should not be separated. JHuber 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/m/o/Talk%7EEmotion_26d9.html"