tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post6605018233117125457..comments2024-03-27T03:22:41.073-07:00Comments on Psych Your Mind: Emotions: The Great Captains of Our LivesAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-57179245379658127282011-11-09T00:55:38.871-08:002011-11-09T00:55:38.871-08:00Well,honestly I saw your blog when I was searching...Well,honestly I saw your blog when I was searching for Vincent Van Gogh's quotes but after I saw the post I couldn't stop reading!!!I'm not into this subject but I enjoyed this informative post.Thank you Michael :)Milleyhttp://happyquotesblog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-16145944889462981842011-09-28T22:58:04.853-07:002011-09-28T22:58:04.853-07:00Thanks Audrey! When it comes down to the argument ...Thanks Audrey! When it comes down to the argument of physiological specificity, there has been difficulty replicating some of the early discrete emotion work, that's true (although disgust may be an exception). However, Panksepp, Izard, and Ekman would probably not concede this point.<br /><br />I would argue though, that there is plenty to study about what we feel beyond simply what the "functional primitives" of emotion are. The universal expression work on pride is a good example.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-54975513101504472702011-09-28T04:14:09.914-07:002011-09-28T04:14:09.914-07:00Although previously I agreed with many of basic em...Although previously I agreed with many of basic emotions theory arguments, recent debates between proponents of core affect (Barrett) and classics of basic emotions (Izard, Panskepp) has made me change my point of view. It seems that the core affect theories has their points, and that most of the evidences in favor of basic emotions are currently disqualified. <br /><br />Yet it should be noted that the core affect theory is fully compatible with "discrete feelings" through the notions of cognitive appraisal and the like, so the problem, in my opinion, is not "what we feel", but what are the psychological and functional primitives of emotions.Andreyhttp://chetvericov.runoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-27538585524313685492011-09-27T19:45:08.282-07:002011-09-27T19:45:08.282-07:00Thanks for the comment Ilmo! Indeed the only way t...Thanks for the comment Ilmo! Indeed the only way that the perspectives really differ -- in my view anyway -- is in the belief that discrete emotions are themselves the finest detail of analysis, or if they can be broken down into more fundamental parts. Clearly, whether or not you care about this distinction will determine where you focus your research, but won't effect whether or not people actually experience states that they can call fear, anxiety, sadness, etc...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-32423454629344492032011-09-27T01:46:32.141-07:002011-09-27T01:46:32.141-07:00I am going to echo Margaret and go with the safe a...I am going to echo Margaret and go with the safe and sound answer of "they're a little bit of both" as well. In addition, I do not think the two approaches are that dichotomous: they are both firmly rooted in the body as a product of evolution. Wundt particularly used the body and its processes as a starting point. As an area that brings these both approaches together is embodied emotion, and I think we are going to see even more interesting future research coming from that direction.<br /><br />Great van Gogh quote, by the way, and excellent writing as usual.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-82468255234026616422011-09-26T22:01:17.328-07:002011-09-26T22:01:17.328-07:00Thanks for your comment Margaret, and I couldn'...Thanks for your comment Margaret, and I couldn't agree more. I also think that most new emotion researchers tend to avoid this debate entirely. Instead, we like to study emotion phenomena as they exist, whether that means studying anger, or studying the underlying components of it. Both I think are worthwhile research ventures and no one "damages the field" by going in one direction or the other. Thanks again for reading!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08931064542755278772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6451967208270832502.post-38701677784267459932011-09-26T20:16:31.859-07:002011-09-26T20:16:31.859-07:00It's so tempting to make comments like 'em...It's so tempting to make comments like 'emotions run high in emotion research' but I will not. :)<br /><br />I am always suspicious of dichotomies. When both perspectives have obvious value, it seems more rational to research both and look for the meeting ground rather than waste time and energy (not to mention precious research funding!) arguing. Nature vs nurture. Particle vs. wave. Until we have all the answers, or at least enough answers, we can't prove either.<br />Collaboration and open minds are good things.Margaret K. Westfallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15920706327571834856noreply@blogger.com