Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#11

Post by meken »

roughly wrote: post #5
aluminum96 wrote: post #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.

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.

That’s interesting. Any chance you remember which study it was?

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#12

Post by roughly »

meken wrote: post #11
roughly wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s interesting. Any chance you remember which study it was?

I wish I did. I'll take a look later and see if I can dig them up.

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#13

Post by throwaway98797 »

bigcat123 wrote: post #4
aluminum96 wrote: post #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.

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.

emotions give reasons to live and reasons to end life.

there is no purpose without emotions.

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#14

Post by blacksmith_tb »

epgui wrote: post #10
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hmm, that feels a bit like the difference between verifiability and falsifiability to me. It doesn't seem like adaptations need to be goal-driven, but if they were flat-out bad/destructive/unhelpful to the species, I would tend to expect them to fade over time? Pointing to any specific trait and saying it's useless, though, opens you up to arguments that you just haven't found the use yet.

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#15

Post by Bayart »

bigcat123 wrote: post #4
aluminum96 wrote: post #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.

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.

From a purely rational point of view, isn't it safer to assume that by default every element of our species is purposeful unless proven otherwise ?

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#16

Post by nonameiguess »

meken wrote: post #11
roughly wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s interesting. Any chance you remember which study it was?

It's from a book by Antonio Damasio called Descartes' Error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

The first known case is Phineas Gage, but I'm pretty sure Damasio documented more contemporary patients he had studied live (been a while since I read this book).

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#17

Post by throwaway73838 »

aluminum96 wrote: post #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.

I think it’s problematic to reduce human emotions and the human experience to mere cause/effect. Is the Mona Lisa paint on a canvas, a representation of one man’s artistic expression? Or is it a window into the soul of humanity? It can be dangerous to overly simplify consciousness.

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#18

Post by austincheney »

As an interesting allude performing the following substitutions and the content reads exactly the same with exactly the same result, because it isn't about war but behavior.

    "war" => "writing JavaScript"
    "cold war" => "age of software"
    locations => JavaScript framework names

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#19

Post by epgui »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #14
epgui wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hmm, that feels a bit like the difference between verifiability and falsifiability to me. It doesn't seem like adaptations need to be goal-driven, but if they were flat-out bad/destructive/unhelpful to the species, I would tend to expect them to fade over time? Pointing to any specific trait and saying it's useless, though, opens you up to arguments that you just haven't found the use yet.

There are a lot of accidents of evolution that don't have a "purpose". The shape/trajectory of the vagus nerve, the appendix, the human tailbone, etc...

This goes to the root of what we mean when we say "purpose". Are we saying the trait is "helping" to "achieve" some "goal", or are we really just saying that there's some relationship between the trait and the individual's environment, or that the existence of the trait can be explained by properties of the environment? If the latter, then are we stretching the meaning of the word "purpose"?

It's a bit like how some people say "everything happens for a reason" (in this sense reason points to a purpose), whereas I'm more of the mind that no, most things more or less happen for no particular reason (ie.: serving no particular purpose).

I would argue that it's not exactly clear whether you could even say that evolution itself has a "purpose". It's just something that happens, given a bunch of organisms competing for resources.

Re: Anger and fear: ten years of research in the lab and field

#20

Post by epgui »

Bayart wrote: post #15
bigcat123 wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

From a purely rational point of view, isn't it safer to assume that by default every element of our species is purposeful unless proven otherwise ?

No more "purposeful" than a bag of chemicals, or molecules in a gas, bumping into each other at random, really.
Post reply on HN