Talk:Emotion: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:58, 14 September 2005

Latest revision as of 01:30, 13 July 2025

(632 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

Why is emotion defined as a decision and not a state? One can

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

legitimately argue about states and will, but this approach seems very unusual. [[User:CSTAR]]

{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Top }}

{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=High |mind=yes}}

{{WikiProject Sociology |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Neuroscience |importance=Mid}}

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Emotion/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Emotion/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 2

|minthreadsleft = 10

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(365d)

|archive = Talk:Emotion/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |auto=yes }}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

''"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? --[[User:Bradbeattie|Brad]] 20:59, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-04-20">20 April 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-07-20">20 July 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/BYUIdaho/Cognitive_Psychology_(Spring)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Joseph Tejada Vera|Joseph Tejada Vera]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (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. [[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 18:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-03-16">16 March 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-05-06">6 May 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Webster_University/Applied_Learning_Sciences_(Spring_2)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Amaryhaw21|Amaryhaw21]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (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. --[[User:Bradbeattie|Brad]] 20:59, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

==Introduce a new theory about emotions==

{{edit COI|d|No, sorry, we don't include new theories in Wikipedia; once it's been picked up and discussed in depth by a good number of independent academic sources we could consider it for evaluation.}}

Information to be added or removed: Emotional Theory of Rationality - ETR. An evolutionary approach to emotions as functional elements to optimizing brain functioning as a whole. It explores the structure and dynamics of emotional system, linking it with attention and cognition through a new architectural model. According to ETR theory, emotions are the mechanism to optimize the balance between the interdependent variables that define the quality of responses that living beings deploy before challenges, including survival and reproduction. The model sets a framework to scientifically define and better understand some psychological and behavioral phenomena.

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.

Explanation of issue: This is a new architectural and transversal approach to explain emotions, which integrates different casuistics into a more general model. It has already (recently) been published in a JCR journal and received more than 8.000 readings and almost 900 downloads.

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.[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 22:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

References supporting change: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2019.00011

[[User:Mario Garcés|Mario Garcés]] ([[User talk:Mario Garcés|talk]]) 08:12, 20 September 2019 (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}

===Reply 20-SEP-2019===

-----

# Although it wasn't stated in the request where this particular information is to be placed, the ''Theories'' section may be where the COI editor intends the information to be placed.

== This article is psychology-centric :) ==

# Looking at that section shows that more than one reference is given for each different theory offered. Nowhere in the article is there a particular theory offered with only one substantiating reference.

# I think a good idea might be to require additional sources for this theory before adding it to the article. But as the request was just made, I'll leave the request open so that other local editors more experienced in the article's subject can weigh in.

# I'd also note that the COI editor appears to have a connection to the offered reference based on their username being the same as the report's author — although the spelling and grammatic errors in their proposed text do raise questions about that connection.{{efn|If the COI editor were using a cellphone with predictive text to make their posting here, that ''might'' explain the issues with grammar in their request.}}

Regards, <span style="font-size:75%;border:2px solid red;border-radius:50px;font-color:#00008b">[[User talk:Spintendo|<span style="color:#00008b;">&nbsp;<b>Spintendo</b>&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 08:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

{{notelist-talk}}

=== thanks for the remarks===

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? :) &mdash; [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 16:01, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your remarks. I have corrected some expressions you pointed out. Please let me know any other change you think can improve the quality.

: Yes that should be included under something like [[physiology of emotion]]s. Sorry can't help you there :( [[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 16:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Mario Garcés|Mario Garcés]] ([[User talk:Mario Garcés|talk]]) 12:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

== Reverted edits ==

==Wiki Education assignment: Media Studies==

I reverted deletions made by previous anon user.

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Rhode_Island/Media_Studies_(Fall_2022) | assignments = [[User:Chloekesssler|Chloekesssler]] | start_date = 2022-09-06 | end_date = 2022-12-13 }}

<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Chloekesssler|Chloekesssler]] ([[User talk:Chloekesssler|talk]]) 19:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)</span>

== Lead paragraph ==

== Should short footnotes be banned in this article? ==

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. [[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 16:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of the editors opposes use of a particular template (SFN) in this article. Is there consensus for a ban on using this template? It has been used in this article for the last 11 years. [[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 04:34, 6 March 2023 (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. --[[User:SethTisue|SethTisue]] 14:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:What a strange way to frame the question. This is not about a 'ban' on a template, but about consistently using the inline style of citations already used by ~98.7% of the existing cites. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 04:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

::Did I misunderstand? You do not want Sfn to be used in this article any longer, although it has been used for the last 11 years. Does anyone else support your proposed change of practice? I don't. Is there some benefit to having all inline references that users see? If so what are they? [[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 05:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

:::It's not a "change of practice". Adding more {{tl|sfn}}s would make the article's citation style less consistent. Changing ''all'' the citations to {{tl|sfn}}s, as you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion&diff=1143100228&oldid=1143093626 propose to do], would be a unilateral imposition that clearly violates [[WP:CITEVAR|the relevant community standard]]. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 15:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

::::I agree the article should move towards a consistent style, regardless of which style individual editors prefer and that there should be consensus about what that style is. Where is the decision what that style should be? [[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 19:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

:::: [[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 19:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

:::Meanwhile, upon a quick examination I found a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion&diff=prev&oldid=1143227175 crackpot] source, a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion&diff=prev&oldid=1143249076 misrepresented and misplaced] source, a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emotion&diff=1143242923&oldid=1143241721 reference with broken formatting and missing authors], and multiple failures of text-source integrity. The introduction was full of incomprehensible phrasing, like {{tq|The content states are established by verbal explanations of experiences, describing an internal state}}. What does {{tq|established}} mean here? Is this saying that {{tq|verbal explanations}} are necessary to ''create'' a {{tq|content state}} within a person's mind? No, it's taking a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1934613/ typically dry and academic description of self-report studies] and making it even worse, stripping out any detail. It's just a well-nigh impenetrable way of saying, "If you want to know how someone feels, you can try asking". [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 19:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

::::I agree that there is a lot of cruft in the refs which are difficult to identify without rigorous examination. If the article moved instead towards a central repository of sources, identification of dubious material would be simpler. By scanning the alphabetized list of sources, a subject matter expert can easily spot authors they do not recognize or who are widely considered to be promoting discredited theories. An unsorted sources list makes it easier to hide such shenanigan's.[[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 19:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::"Rigorous examination" means looking them up and reading what they say. One can do that in the order that they appear. Alphabetizing a list of sources before deciding ''which ones are worth including at all'' would be doing things the wrong way around even if Wikipedia's community standards looked kindly upon wholesale changes of citation style, which they don't. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 19:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

::::::Ahem. Rigor means being careful to understand what you are doing. This includes not deleting page numbers which you did when you removed the sfn. I strongly recommend you revert that edit.

::::::To your continued theme about "wholesale changes" Once again, let me emphasize I am not proposing wholesale changes without reaching consensus with the community of regular contributors to this article.

::::::You think the article is now more consistent by banning SFNs. But you in fact erred when you removed the SFN and the well regarded textbook from the further reading section. The style of many articles is to mix both inline and end of article citations. To your way of thinking, that makes an article inconsistent. Presumably for all articles with such mixtures, both you and Mr. Ollie you would remove the lower frequency sfns in a similar fashion you did the when you moved the fox reference inline. Yet you have not understood the structure. It is common for many articles to list a core set of authoritative texts variously described as "Further reading" eg: [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], "Recommended reading", or "Bibliography".

::::::Consider the Wittenstein article, both sfns and inline <ref>s are mixed in the article. But consider how they are being used. It would be incorrect to conclude that the contributors are being inconsistent. In that article, when a contributor makes a reference to an authoritative source in the Further reading section, they use an sfn. When they make a reference to a newspaper, journal article or any other reference to a source not in this section, they use inline ref. The style insures that a readers do not infer a false equivalency, which can be the case when mixing all sources in the same section. As far as I can see, contributors to this [[Emotion]] article hold the sources in the further reading section in high regard and would remove any new sources added to the section which are not of the highest caliber. So consider the situation when a contributor cites from one of those sources. As recommended in the guidelines, rather than redundantly copy the same citation inline, they used an sfn, they could have used an alternative template like rp or harv but the point is that the former contributors wanted to have an end of article list of sources.

::::::You seem to be ok with contributors elevating the quality of some sources above others. Yet if anyone actually cites from one of them, you insist the reference must be removed from the recommended reading list.

::::::So let's step back and consider the damage you have done to this article. Setting aside the trivial errors with page numbers and dates of publications, on what basis have you demoted the well regarded text "Emotion Science: An Integration of Cognitive and Neuroscientific Approaches" from the recommended reading section? [[User:J JMesserly|J JMesserly]] ([[User talk:J JMesserly|talk]]) 04:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I don't see why this discussion is still ongoing; it's about the most clear-cut case of going against [[WP:CITEVAR]] that I have ever seen. {{pb}} On Wikipedia, items listed in "Further reading" are supposed to be ''further'' reading. They are not references. {{tq|Making a reference to an authoritative source in the Further reading section}} is bad practice. [[MOS:FURTHER|Any item in a "Further reading" section that is actually cited needs to be promoted to being an actual reference]]. I haven't {{tq|demoted}} anything or {{tq|damage}}d anything, just brought the article closer to compliance with community standards. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 12:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::::It's also hard for me to say that {{tq|contributors to this Emotion article hold the sources in the further reading section in high regard}} when they haven't even bothered to provide ISBNs for all of them. The default state of a "Further reading" section is an unmaintained pile that attracts self-promotion and other drive-by additions of dubious merit. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 14:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

== No Baruch? ==

: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.

Hi, I think it's incredible that one can omit Spinoza in the history section. His 'Ethics' contain a study of emotion ('Part III: Of the Origin & Nature of Emotions'), and the names in the 'Reception' section is impressive; re influence. Perhaps even Aristotle might merit a mention ('On the Soul', 'Rhetoric Book II').

: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.

I realize that the section would be swamped by including everyone who wrote something on emotion, but Aristotle and Spinoza are, well, important enough, IMO. T [[Special:Contributions/2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:1568:8C48:36E0:2B78|2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:1568:8C48:36E0:2B78]] ([[User talk:2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:1568:8C48:36E0:2B78|talk]]) 13:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

== Links to the arousal emotion seem wrong ==

:Emotion is a very interesting subject. Please add neurological definitions or links to these. (all three above paragraphs by anonymous user)

The arousal emotion mentioned in the cards are pointing to the article [[Arousal]], but I believe they should be pointing to the [[Sexual arousal]] article instead. The wikimedia category 'Category:Emotions' actually seems to be pointing to the correct one.

== song lyrics useless? ==

The fact I'm mentioning this instead of applying the changes myself, is that I can't seem to be able to edit the 'cards' that have the links. The section in question seems to be [[:Category:Emotions]]. [[User:J. Afonso Alves|J. Afonso Alves]] ([[User talk:J. Afonso Alves|talk]]) 01:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

== Evolutionary views ==

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

== 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? [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] 04:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Introduction ==

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

== Overall ==

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

== Deleted Links ==

I deleted this [http://psychology.rutgers.edu/~mfc/]. It is a link to an individual researcher on emotion and contains nothing that would serve someone looking for general information on emotion. --[[User:Kzollman|Kzollman]] 02:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Is emotion simply are response?

== 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?

[[User:Sallison|sallison]] 08:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

== 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. [[User:WMMartin|WMMartin]] 19:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

==Men and women==

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 rhythym, but I've never met

one where the music could kill them. Where

the music was EVERYTING. 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 aguish in this idiotic world where men can't cry. [http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/women.html]

It might also be interesting to compare the views of [[John Gray]], author of the ''[[Men Are From Mars]]'' series. [[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Sallison|sallison]] 02:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)