Oops, terry just asked me a direct question. Sigh

This whole debate going on in this forum, which I read with regret, is a perfect
example of the two cultures bridge.  I have not entered into it because my world
view -- which is that of science -- is so different, so much at odds, with the
framework of the discussion.  But now I have been asked a direct question.

But first, a comment on the two cultures.

There is a huge amount of sophisticated scientific theory on cognition and
emotion, but most of the contributors to this forum are from the humanities,
which approaches these issues quite differently than the sciences.  Some of the
contributors have read some science, but with a lay persons understanding
(that's OK -- I am a lay person in the humanities). So, alas, they read popular
accounts that are decades old, and often accounts by artists and philosophers,
which are in a different world from accounts by scientists. Attempts to do
theory by thinking about one's own behavior are fundamentally flawed. First of
all, most behavior is subconscious, so you don't have access to it, and
especially not to causes and explanations.  Second, this leads to idiosyncratic
accounts based on single observations.   One of the hallmarks of science is
replicability: that the findings can be repeated by others.  Single-person
accounts can't be repeated reliably.

Note that if you try to read the original sources of the scientific literature
-- the technical journals --  you will end up very confused.  First of all, most
of the writing is horrible.  Second, they are very detailed and it is often very
difficult to find the forest amongst all the details of the bark structure of
the trees.  And, finally, it is argumentative.  Every scientist seems to want to
show that all other scientists are wrong.  That's the scientific method. By
trying to find flaws in everyone's work, the theory is that eventually only the
truth shall prevail. (hah -- is there such a thing as "truth"?  No.  Science can
only prove things wrong -- it cannot prove things right. So what we have is
"current, accepted wisdom."  In a century -- or decade -- we might have a
different 'current accepted wisdom." )

Much of the popular belief about human cognition and emotion is flawed -- it
uses subjective introspection to try to explain phenomena that are inaccessible
to introspection.    We call this "folk science."  Not to be confused with real
science. As a trained psychologist, I will often know a lot more about "why" and
"how" you do something than you will.

I always train my students that it is permissible to ask a person "what" they
are doing, but never trust any answer that explains "why."   The person can say
"what" -- it  takes a psychologist -- and often careful, scientifically
controlled experimentation -- to say "why." (This is especially important for
think-aloud protocols -- and why focus groups are often  worthless -- worse --
they can be completely misleading.)

In addition, there is also the attempt to use a single word (e.g., emotion or
beauty) to cover a complex phenomenon that requires multiple levels of analysis.

And, finally, there is the common folk-science notion that we can determine how
our brains and bodies work by thought or introspection or by giving an anecdote
about a single experience.

So, let me turn to emotion, which is the question directly asked of me.

The word "emotion" is variously defined.  In my scientific writings, I
distinguish between "affect" and "emotion."  In my popular writings -- in the
design community -- I use "emotion" to cover both affect and emotion.

Affect is more general. (This is how Ortony, Revelle, and I have defined affect
and emotion -- some emotion theorists disagree.  There is not yet a commonly
agreed upon set of scientific vocabulary for these concepts.)

I also distinguish among three levels of processing: Visceral, Behavioral, and
Reflective. Note that saying there are only three levels is a simplification,
but a useful one.

At the Visceral level, we have the automatic generation of responses by the
affective system. This is the origin of some forms of beauty, of the
physiological underpinnings of apprehension and pleasure.  But the Visceral
level is completely subconscious, so there is no awareness.

My colleagues and I say that the "emotions" at this level are what we call
"proto-affect."   Because they are completely subconscious, responses at this
level cannot be characterized as emotions.  But when these responses are
detected by the Reflective level (the highest level) they lead to
perception-based emotions, such as pleasure or pain, "feeling good" or feeling
safe, or feeling ad or feeling dangerous.


At the Behavioral level, we have only awareness, but not consciousness (note the
distinction).  Here we do generate simple emotions -- expectation-based emotions
such as hope and fear.  Well-learned behaviors are at this level -- they are
subconscious.  Note that this includes most language behavior. (We seldom know,
consciously, what we are going to say until after we have said it and our
reflective mind listens and comments to itself "that's not what I meant" or
"that was well said.")

It is only at the Reflective level that we have full consciousness, and only
here that we have full-fledged emotions, which means  feelings, an assignment of
cause.  So here the emotions include pride and gratitude (assigning the causes
to one's self or to others), guilt and blame (assigning the causes to one's self
or others).  And other full-fledged emotions.

Note that when a person talks about Visceral and Behavioral level emotional (or
affective) responses, that talk always comes from the Reflective level, so the
report is not accurate -- it is the person's rationalization of what is
experienced.  Which is why we distrust people's verbal reports.

----

Now, I was asked:

Terry: "I'm  puzzled by your definition of emotion ( 'Emotion: refers to the
operations that judge and evaluate the world'). Most definitions I've come
across focus on the idea of emotion as automatic physiological responses
triggered either by direct interactions with and perceptions of  humans'
external environments, or by thinking about memories. 'Emotion' and 'visceral'
seem to overlap  in what you describe? I'm also wondering why you focus on
'judging' and 'evaluating', which I'm interpreting as referring to slower,
cognitive and typically conscious processes? "
I-----
Don: I was using the word "judge and evaluate" loosely.  I meant automatic
assessment by simple, pattern-driven circuits that are biologically innate.
Determining good, bad, danger, and safety -- but because they are pattern driven
and fast, they are also approximate and make errors.  These are automatic
circuits in the Visceral level.

More complex, cognitive analyses take place only at the Behavioral and
Reflective levels. These are indeed slower, and involve memories and judgments.
And these are thereby slow -- too slow for the immediacy that is often required.
But here is where we distinguish forms of beauty and appreciation.

Surface beauty comes from the Visceral level.  Deep, semantic and interpretive
beauty comes from the Reflective level.  The beauty of usage -- of that
wonderful, smooth feeling of a nice control and the powerful, positive
appreciation of  feeling in complete control -- comes from the Behavioral level.
The three levels can contradict one another. For example, the cover of my book
is Starck's "juicy salif" juicer. Most people find it menacing at the Visceral
level.  But some people find it very attractive at the Reflective level (some
still dislike it at the Reflective level). Some people hate the way it works
(Behavioral level responses) -- some have told me they love the way the juice
trickles down the sides.  I used it for the cover because the various levels can
evoke such disparate emotional responses -- some are subconscious, some are very
conscious.

I was also asked:

Terry: "I'm interested in how your affordance theory includes interactions
/affordances that are not conscious and not reflective. Memories spring to mind
of house remodellers absentmindedly opening beer bottles with whatever is at
hand, or guitarists in the middle of a complex riff  feelingly though
thoughtlessly using notes to hand (or rather finger). These seem to argue a case
for individual skill, unconsciously applied,  being a strong component of
affordance theory?"
--------------------------------------------
Don: Note that Emotions have nothing to do with affordances.  My  emotional
analysis, above comes from my scientific papers and from my book "Emotional
Design."  Affordances come from my book "The Design of Everyday things."

Terry's examples are pure behavioral responses -- which are sub conscious.
That's the home of skills.  And what do those examples have to do with
affordances?  Nothing.  They are the hallmark of a well-learned response.  Note,
by the way, that there is probably some conscious involvement.  You cannot find
out by asking -- you would have to do a careful experiment.

Affordances exist, independent of people's awareness of them. Perceived
affordances, are those of which we are aware (but not necessarily conscious).
But they have nothing to do with the question.

Perceived affordances will be used in conscious problem solving, when we need to
figure out how to do some novel task, so we look for clues as to possible
actions.

Consciousness is used for novel or incompletely learned actions or in impasses,
when something is in the way of a successful completion of an operation.

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 4:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Affordance and the meaning of coke bottles

Dear Don,

I'm  puzzled by your definition of emotion ( 'Emotion: refers to the operations
that judge and evaluate the world'). Most definitions I've come across focus on
the idea of emotion as automatic physiological responses triggered either by
direct interactions with and perceptions of  humans' external environments, or
by thinking about memories. 'Emotion' and 'visceral' seem to overlap  in what
you describe? I'm also wondering why you focus on 'judging' and 'evaluating',
which I'm interpreting as referring to slower, cognitive and typically conscious
processes?

I'm interested in how your affordance theory includes interactions /affordances
that are not conscious and not reflective. Memories spring to mind of house
remodellers absentmindedly opening beer bottles with whatever is at hand, or
guitarists in the middle of a complex riff  feelingly though thoughtlessly using
notes to hand (or rather finger). These seem to argue a case for individual
skill, unconsciously applied,  being a strong component of affordance theory?
Or am I missing something?

Best wishes,

Terry

===
Dr. Terence Love
Dept of Design
Curtin University
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]

Visiting researcher
IADE/UNIDCOM
Lisboa, Portugal
[log in to unmask]
===