It is amazing how misconceptions persist. First, the notion that there is a single thing called emotion. Second, on the modifiability of even automatic, genetic, universal reactions.  The second is a problem because of belief in the first. My previous post was trying to convince you that emotion is not a unitary state. You cannot attribute unitary operations to it. A number of you completely missed that point. Completely. So you argued with me by presenting me with examples that I agree with. It is just that the examples ignored the wide range of states we label as emotion: the examples applied to some of those states, not all of them.



==============================================

Executive summary. Emotion and aesthetics are very complex topics. They cannot be treated as unitary. There are different levels, different forms. To be aroused (anxious) or relaxed (non-anxious) is a low-level response, based upon the current state of the world. In one, the muscles tense, getting ready for fight or flee. In the others the muscles relax. These are all state dependent. No past history, no expectations. Just triggered by the current state. Note that no object is required: anxiety does not require an agent or an object.



To be worried, expectant, hopeful, fearful, is to have expectations about a future event. These are learned. After the event, one can be relieved if a negative expectation did not come to pass.  Etc. You have to be fearful of something, hopeful for something. Expectant of something. 



Note that none of the states I have just described have actors or causal agents.  When we introduce those, we reach a much higher level of emotional state. Guilt, pride, love, require objects and agents. You can't be in a state of love without an object of that love.

===================================================



Disgust, I argue is indeed automatic. But as I said in my post (and is more thoroughly discussed in my technical papers), what we call the reactive or visceral level responses can be modified. In the case of steel-workers, trapeze artists, and others who work on heights, they all faced fear at first, but it was gradually adapted out, suppressed. In the case of someone who works on anuses all year round, the same desensitization would take place.  Similarly, in the case of phobias (all of which are from the visceral layer), instead of desensitization, the body becomes sensitized and more susceptible with experience.



These phobias are very difficult to eradicate.



Many of our favorite foods are bitter and disliked at first taste. That is why we call them "acquired tastes." The repulsion of bitter (or spicy) foods has to be adapted out, suppressed. In the end, the food still tastes bitter or spicy, heights still are somewhat anxiety-provoking, but we learn to like these negative signs.



Visceral level affect is a function of the current state: it is not very context sensitive and slow to change by learning. It is not path-dependent (that is a technical term).



Behavioral level emotions are path dependent and sensitive to context. Reflective level emotions are culturally sensitive, path-dependent, and can be completely independent of the current state of the world. They can be triggered completely cognitively, by the imagination. And the impact is very context sensitive.



All levels of emotions can trigger the other levels. Visceral effects are fastest: reflective are slowest (which is why the James -Lange theory still applies -- automatic responses kick in before the cognitive level ones can react.)



Gavin Melles provided us all with a long list of citations to prove that emotions are context sensitive. Duh, of course the higher-level ones are. Alas, the list completely missed what I thought was my main point (as did Chris Rust in a private email). You cannot speak of "emotion" as if it is a single concept, where all emotions behave the same way.



I distinctly pointed out that there are a wide range of emotions and the different classes must be considered separately. Context does matter for the higher-level emotions. 



The studies below are all  consistent with my statements. 



Anyone know the James Lange theory of emotion? That we are afraid because we run? That is a theory that says that emotional responses  are triggered subconsciously, automatically. We notice the responses and from them infer the emotion. The alternative view is that emotions are triggered by conscious interpretation: we perceive something as dangerous, and so we get afraid and run. 



The current view is that both views are correct. Some emotional states are bottom-up,  automatically triggered. Some emotional states are top-down, cognitively triggered. 



Although I am not an emotion researcher, many of my colleagues and friends are. I read the primary literature. What I present is buttressed by a huge amount of evidence from experiments, from neuroscience, and from the accumulated wisdom of literally thousands of research papers. Do people dispute these things? Of course -- that is the way of science. Science is not a body of facts: it is a formal means for disputing claims through verifiable and repeatable operations (experiments). Over time consensus emerges.  What I am presenting here is the high-level consensus. Scientists will disagree about the details, but the major themes are pretty much standard. (Note that the terminology is still under debate: the word "emotion" is used narrowly by some emotion theorists, broadly by others. So in reading papers, it is important to know just how the person is using the term. In this (and my previous note) I use the term broadly.  One of my co-authors uses the term broadly in speaking to non-specialists, but is more careful when presenting papers: he recommends the general term "affect" for the lower-level "emotions." He would prefer to call the visceral responses "proto-affect." 



=======

   



Enough, I am going on far too long.



Don 



To the horrible list of titles below, for this post, I add:



Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Science. (Also Prof. of Computer Science)



Don Norman

Nielsen Norman Group

Breed Professor of Design, Northwestern University

Visiting Distinguished Professor. KAIST, Daejeon, Korea

[log in to unmask]

www.jnd.org/