Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#2human psyche rhymes in time
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#3> Emotions are coordination systems designed to refocus your entire cognitive architecture towards a specific task
This is a really powerful way of looking at emotion. Of course emotion serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's such a basic part of our lived experience that it's hard to view it critically like that.
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#4> Emotions are coordination systems designed to refocus your entire cognitive architecture towards a specific task This is a really powerful way of looking at emotion. Of course emotion serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's such a basic part of our lived experience that it's hard to view it critically like that.
No
Emotions do not serve any purpose. It's a abstract concept describing certain psychogical process in human that is not characterized by so-called rational thinking.
Most non artificial things are not serving any purpose, they are coincidents filtered through natural selection.
Most artificial things serve some purpose of its makers.
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#5> Emotions are coordination systems designed to refocus your entire cognitive architecture towards a specific task This is a really powerful way of looking at emotion. Of course emotion serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's such a basic part of our lived experience that it's hard to view it critically like that.
There have been studies that have associated emotion with decision making - people who, for some reason, lack an emotional state, find it basically impossible to make a decision.
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#6> Emotions are coordination systems designed to refocus your entire cognitive architecture towards a specific task This is a really powerful way of looking at emotion. Of course emotion serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's such a basic part of our lived experience that it's hard to view it critically like that.
> BUT: Your psychology was designed for a world of small-group aggression. Not a world of nukes. This mismatch means that your intuitions are not always optimal guides. Balancing emotions for group-aggression with cold reason is key over the next days and, possibly, years.
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#7> Risks associated with war will begin to look smaller. This is not a "cognitive bias" but a design feature of a mind shifting from navigating a prestige-based world to a dominance-based world.
That's absolutely a cognitive bias, and that's exactly the manner in which cognitive biases emerge over time. It being a "normal" biological or social adaptation does not mean it is not a cognitive bias: all cognitive biases are "normal" adaptations (although they are often maladaptive).
> Your psychology was designed for a world of small-group aggression. Not a world of nukes. This mismatch means that your intuitions are not always optimal guides. Balancing emotions for group-aggression with cold reason is key over the next days and, possibly, years.
Case in point.
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#8> Emotions are coordination systems designed to refocus your entire cognitive architecture towards a specific task This is a really powerful way of looking at emotion. Of course emotion serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's such a basic part of our lived experience that it's hard to view it critically like that.
No Emotions do not serve any purpose. It's a abstract concept describing certain psychogical process in human that is not characterized by so-called rational thinking. Most non artificial things are not serving any purpose, they are coincidents filtered through natural selection. Most artificial things serve some purpose of its makers.
I understand why you're being downvoted, but I do think there is value in your comment. It's perhaps not the most artful articulation of ideas, but it points to serious (afaik) philosophical questions. Whether emotions have a purpose is both a semantic and a philosophical question.
I would point anyone who thinks this comment is unreasonable to discussions about teleology and science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology#Science
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#9> Emotions are coordination systems designed to refocus your entire cognitive architecture towards a specific task This is a really powerful way of looking at emotion. Of course emotion serves an evolutionary purpose, but it's such a basic part of our lived experience that it's hard to view it critically like that.
No Emotions do not serve any purpose. It's a abstract concept describing certain psychogical process in human that is not characterized by so-called rational thinking. Most non artificial things are not serving any purpose, they are coincidents filtered through natural selection. Most artificial things serve some purpose of its makers.
They may certainly be counterproductive at times, but if they truly served no purpose it seems unlikely we'd have them? Also there's at least mixed evidence for the existence of similar states in animals[1].
Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
No Emotions do not serve any purpose. It's a abstract concept describing certain psychogical process in human that is not characterized by so-called rational thinking. Most non artificial things are not serving any purpose, they are coincidents filtered through natural selection. Most artificial things serve some purpose of its makers.
They may certainly be counterproductive at times, but if they truly served no purpose it seems unlikely we'd have them? Also there's at least mixed evidence for the existence of similar states in animals[1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals
An important part of the question is semantic: what do we mean when we say that something has a "purpose"?
This is very much a live (and possibly a dead-end) question in evolutionary biology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology