4 ms·

While you have a point that they might sometimes be counter-productive, I think that emotions are decision drivers which operate on a higher abstraction level a

While you have a point that they might sometimes be counter-productive, I think that emotions are decision drivers which operate on a higher abstraction level and are a way for the mind to compile vasts amounts of experience and deliberation into a single really fast circuit able to perform split-second decisions. So I think that they are mostly correct. But it's really too bad that we cannot retoractively introspect them and quantify their grounds.

kbenson 9y ago
I agree, but possibly in a different way. The idea of interoception[1] (which I'm not sure how accepted it is) basically means that your feeling are just your body using a heuristic to assign a feeling to a physical state of your body (that is, there is no universal feeling for anger, just a physiological response you've trained your brain to think of as the concept of anger. Some culture's literally do not have certain feelings). Your body is changing physical states based on some subconscious reasoning (often remembered response), and your brain is then interpreting that physiological state broadly and assigning an emotion to it, and it doesn't always get it right (which is why we get angry or anxious sometimes and aren't exactly sure why). If that theory is true (not sure, I literally just learned about it this morning[1]), your emotions do have weight in something like this, but it's filtered through multiple lossy abstractions and has a propensity for false positives. That's a much less rosy interpretation of how useful they are, and if true, means we might be far better off trying to cultivate a better understanding of the nuances that are causing those reactions and assessing them rationally (to the degree possible) than to using the lossy abstraction itself with any significant weight. 1: http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/lab/index.php/research-themes-projects/interoception/ http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/lab/index.php/research-themes... 2: http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia

kbenson 9y ago

I agree, but possibly in a different way. The idea of interoception[1] (which I'm not sure how accepted it is) basically means that your feeling are just your body using a heuristic to assign a feeling to a physical state of your body (that is, there is no universal feeling for anger, just a physiological response you've trained your brain to think of as the concept of anger. Some culture's literally do not have certain feelings). Your body is changing physical states based on some subconscious reasoning (often remembered response), and your brain is then interpreting that physiological state broadly and assigning an emotion to it, and it doesn't always get it right (which is why we get angry or anxious sometimes and aren't exactly sure why). If that theory is true (not sure, I literally just learned about it this morning[1]), your emotions do have weight in something like this, but it's filtered through multiple lossy abstractions and has a propensity for false positives. That's a much less rosy interpretation of how useful they are, and if true, means we might be far better off trying to cultivate a better understanding of the nuances that are causing those reactions and assessing them rationally (to the degree possible) than to using the lossy abstraction itself with any significant weight. 1: http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/lab/index.php/research-themes-projects/interoception/ http://www.pc.rhul.ac.uk/sites/lab/index.php/research-themes... 2: http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510307/invisibilia