4 ms·

I remember reading about something related to perception (however unrelated to group dynamics) called "Wundt curve", an attempt to describe the relationship bet

I remember reading about something related to perception (however unrelated to group dynamics) called "Wundt curve", an attempt to describe the relationship between the intensity/novelty of a stimulus and its perceived "hedonic value" (roughly its pleasantness) [1]. I read (in the references here [2]) that the original source for this result dates back to 1874: "Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie" (Main Features of Physiological Psychology) by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt [3]. However, I could not find it in there from a quick look at the archive.org scans [4], so this might be wrong. BTW, the first paragraph of Wundt's wikipedia entry was pretty surprising to me: 'Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt {...} was a physician, physiologist, philosopher, and professor, known today as one of the founders of modern psychology. Wundt, who distinguished psychology as a science from philosophy and biology, was the first person ever to call himself a psychologist. He is widely regarded as the "father of experimental psychology". In 1879, at University of Leipzig, Wundt founded the first formal laboratory for psychological research. This marked psychology as an independent field of study. By creating this laboratory he was able to establish psychology as a separate science from other disciplines. He also formed the first academic journal for psychological research, Philosophische Studien (from 1881 to 1902), set up to publish the Institute's research.' [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Wundt-Curve-1874-left-shows-the-hedonic-function-used-to-calculate-interest-the_fig6_220851248 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Wundt-Curve-1874-lef... [2] https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6575/volumes/v13/NA-13 https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6575/volumes/v13/NA-13 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Wundt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Wundt [3] https://archive.org/details/grundzgederphys15wundgoog/page/n11/mode/thumb https://archive.org/details/grundzgederphys15wundgoog/page/n... also somewhat related: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03212593.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03212593.pdf

yesenadam 7y ago
Wundt's name pops up constantly in William James' extremely readable Principles of Psychology (1890). Most of it's what we'd think of as physiology - how our minds and bodies work together; reflexes, the senses etc. Stuff that can be measured and tested. A couple of quotes from it: Consciousness, then, does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as “chain” or “train” do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A “river” or a “stream” are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter, let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. (Vol. 1, p.239, coining of stream of consciousness) Our natural way of thinking about these coarser emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called the emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My theory, on the contrary, is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the emotion. Common-sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately induced by the other, that the bodily manifestations must first be interposed between, and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be. Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we should not actually feel afraid or angry. (Vol2 p449, this is now called the James-Lange theory of emotion)

yesenadam 7y ago

Wundt's name pops up constantly in William James' extremely readable Principles of Psychology (1890). Most of it's what we'd think of as physiology - how our minds and bodies work together; reflexes, the senses etc. Stuff that can be measured and tested. A couple of quotes from it: Consciousness, then, does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as “chain” or “train” do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A “river” or a “stream” are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter, let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. (Vol. 1, p.239, coining of stream of consciousness) Our natural way of thinking about these coarser emotions is that the mental perception of some fact excites the mental affection called the emotion, and that this latter state of mind gives rise to the bodily expression. My theory, on the contrary, is that the bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and that our feeling of the same changes as they occur IS the emotion. Common-sense says, we lose our fortune, are sorry and weep; we meet a bear, are frightened and run; we are insulted by a rival, are angry and strike. The hypothesis here to be defended says that this order of sequence is incorrect, that the one mental state is not immediately induced by the other, that the bodily manifestations must first be interposed between, and that the more rational statement is that we feel sorry because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and not that we cry, strike, or tremble, because we are sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be. Without the bodily states following on the perception, the latter would be purely cognitive in form, pale, colorless, destitute of emotional warmth. We might then see the bear, and judge it best to run, receive the insult and deem it right to strike, but we should not actually feel afraid or angry. (Vol2 p449, this is now called the James-Lange theory of emotion)