The Origin Of Emotions

TheManWho

This interesting paper by Mark Devon gives a scientific and almost darwinian examination of human emotions and sensations.

The origin of emotions

jumpguy

Was reading through the first pages of this (too much for 1 night) but I can see that the author has abit of a sense of humour but this is just abit outside the tone of the document:

"Grandmaternal grief is not triggered by a grandchild's death, whether the grandmother could've prevented it or not. This encourages grandmothers to treat all death as preventable. Grandmothers also want to know if power lines cause leukaemia."
Page 31/191 Under the title "Conceptual Trigger"

Like, what the fcuk is that about? Did someone write that into it before he published it as a joke or is it just some sudden off-the-wall bad joke making his research sound like abit of a joke too? I can appreciate a sense of humour but man...

Also, I'm not trying to be cynical but how can I find out the authenticity of his research? Some of the conclusions are pretty fascinating. I'd love to know what research he carried out on this and who, if any, experts in this field endorse this.

A Neurotic

jumpguy wrote: »

"Grandmaternal grief is not triggered by a grandchild's death, whether the grandmother could've prevented it or not. This encourages grandmothers to treat all death as preventable. Grandmothers also want to know if power lines cause leukaemia."
Page 31/191 Under the title "Conceptual Trigger"

Like, what the fcuk is that about? Did someone write that into it before he published it as a joke or is it just some sudden off-the-wall bad joke making his research sound like abit of a joke too? I can appreciate a sense of humour but man...

This is referring back to the statement a few pages earlier that "Maternal grief is triggered by a child's death, whether the mother could have prevented it or not. Mothers want to know if power lines cause leukemia". It means that grief punishes mothers and grandmothers even if they were at no fault for the child's death. Even if the child dies of leukemia, they'll wonder if they were somehow responsible, by exposing their child to power lines.

I think.

Ostrom

TheManWho wrote: »

This interesting paper by Mark Devon gives a scientific and almost darwinian examination of human emotions and sensations.

The origin of emotions

This isnt a very convincing piece - there is no evidence of any research, little evidence of reading, and some of the most basic misunderstandings of socialzation I have ever read, nevermind broader concepts in social psychology.

Qoute: "Conceptions begin to be triggered at month 24, when conceptual thought is possible. At this stage, children begin to feel the group conceptions: revenge, criminal guilt, compassion, selfish guilt, pride, humiliation, humor and envy. The onset of conceptions is the first of four reasons for the terrible twos. the other reasons are: the end of maternal love, the end of cute, and the onset of conceptual power".

If he had qualified it by social context, some of it may have been valid in the abstract

hoolio

haven't read the link just yet, but just throwing out my own one line theory given my thoughts and readings through the years

reciprocal altruism + evolution + the conscious brain = emotion

Ostrom

hoolio wrote: »

haven't read the link just yet, but just throwing out my own one line theory given my thoughts and readings through the years

reciprocal altruism + evolution + the conscious brain = emotion

Does that not imply variance by social context - particularly in the case of altruism, which is still a contested concept

Prof.Badass

TheManWho wrote: »

This interesting paper by Mark Devon gives a scientific and almost darwinian examination of human emotions and sensations.

The origin of emotions[/url]

This piece has no credibility. While in parts he may be onto something he seems too quick to jump to conclusions and parade his opinions as fact. It would take too long to go through the whole thing and list every inaccuracy so i will give an easy to spot example;

On his section on the evolution of human sexual attraction he uses the aquatic ape hypothesis as a basis for his assumptions, parading the aquatic ape hypothesis as fact when it is highly disputed (most in the field of evolutionary biology would disagree with it) and has lots of evidence against it.

hoolio wrote: »

haven't read the link just yet, but just throwing out my own one line theory given my thoughts and readings through the years

reciprocal altruism + evolution + the conscious brain = emotion

What has reciprocal altruism got to do with emotions? Do solitary animals not feel emotions?

I don't see how any animal faced with decisions could function properly unless it had some sort of basic reward system. Is this enough to count as emotion?
And if it doesn't count as true emotion, surely it is somewhere along the line? I'd be of the opinion that insects are further along this scale than the average person would give them credit for. For example, a clear change can be seen in the behaviour of this cockroach when the action of octopamine (a chemical thought to play a simmilar role in insects to that of dopamine in mammals) is disrupted in it's brain.

The way i would see it is the release of certain neurotransmitters gives rise to a narrow range of basic feelings (pleasure/pain/motivation ect) and it's combinations of these neurotransmitters coupled with the external context of their release and our concious interpretation/mememories/associations of these feelings that make up what we call emotion.

StevoTG

Good points there vinylmesh.
Science tends to avoid the discussion of emotions in other animals like the plague, but it's really an issue that needs more attention.