3 ms·
> Chief among these misconceptions is the view that feelings are innate and universal, and can be consistently measured. So, anger, for example, is thought of a
by beshrkayali 6y ago
> Chief among these misconceptions is the view that feelings are innate and universal, and can be consistently measured. So, anger, for example, is thought of as a fundamental building block of human nature with a tell-tale physiological “fingerprint”; all we’ve done is gone and named it. But that idea is categorically untrue, Barrett says, and reams of scientific data now back her up.
What scientific data? Not a single link in this entire article for anything to support these (like many have said already) preposterous or obvious claims.
- watwut 6y agoIsn't it absurd to demand scientific evidence inside guardian article about book? Their articles never link to scientific articles and it is odd to expect this one to be exception.
- beshrkayali 6y agoI can’t tell if you’re being snarky or genuine. I rarely read “the guardian” but if you’re going to claim “reams of scientific data” exist, I’m going expect a link to something, or a quote from the book, or anything to back up this claim. Whether it a a tweet or a random book review.
- pdamoc 6y agoActually, there is scientific data in the form or the books and articles written by Jaak Panksepp. It documents the source of anger in the RAGE primary affect, complete with anatomical analysis of the nuclei involved. It just happens that the data from those articles supports a view that is the exact opposite of hers. ;)