Category talk:Emotion

Comments
The Emotion template really ruins the layout of this page, and it's redundant. It should be merged into the category structure, and then everything will be nice and happy. --Beland 06:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OLD VERSION
(This is the state of page Category:Emotion on 2007-08-27. A new version below displays a suggested whole new organization of the same page.)

Category Emotion:

Subcategories:

[+] Anxiety disorders

[+] Appeals to emotion

[+] Attachment theory

[+] Emo

[+] Emotion psychologists

[+] Facial expressions

[+] Hate

[+] Love

[+] Mood disorders

[+] Motivation

[+] Pain

[+] Phobias

[+] Psychological attitude

[+] Psychological stress

[+] Shyness

Pages in category "Emotion":

List of emotions

Emotion

Acceptance Affect (psychology) Affect Control Theory Affect heuristic Affect theory Affection Affective Affective Events Theory Affective computing Affective design Affective filter Affective forecasting Affective marketing Affective neuroscience Affective science Aggression Agitation (emotion) Air rage Alexithymia Ambivalence Amusement Amygdala Anger Angst Animal loss Animal love Annoyance Anthropopathy Anticipation (emotion) Anticipatory grief Anxiety Anxiety disorder Anxiogenic Apathy Apprehension (understanding)

Banzo Beauty Ben Franklin Effect Bitterness (emotion) Borderline personality disorder Boredom

Calmness Cannon-Bard theory Certainty Charisma Clinical depression Cognitive distortion Cognitive restructuring Compassion Compassion fatigue Compersion Conceptual-act model of emotion Condolences Contempt Contentment Crystallization (love) Culture of fear Culture shock

Depression (mood) Dignity Disappointment Disenfranchised grief Disgust Doubt

Ecstasy (emotion) Embarrassment Emo (slang) Emotion and memory Emotion in animals Emotion work Emotional Freedom Techniques Emotional age Emotional bias Emotional clearing Emotional competence Emotional contagion Emotional detachment Emotional dissonance Emotional dysregulation Emotional inertia Emotional insecurity Emotional intelligence Emotional isolation Emotional labor Emotional reasoning Emotional stroop Emotionality Emotions Anonymous Emotivism Empathy Empathy gap Emptiness Enthusiasm Envy Epiphany (feeling) Equanimity Euphoria (emotion) Euthymia (medicine) Expressed emotion

Facial feedback hypothesis Fanaticism Fear Feeling Feeling rules Felicific calculus Forgiveness Frustration

Gloating Gratification Gratitude Greed Greed and fear Grief Guilt

Happiness Hate Homesickness Hope Horror (emotion) Hostility Hysteria I Idiot compassion

Inner peace

James-Lange theory Jealousy Jealousy definitions Jealousy in art Jealousy in religion Jealousy sociology

Kiss Kissing Traditions Kübler-Ross model

Limbic system Limerence List of rages Loneliness Love Lust

Malaise Mass hysteria Melancholia Memory inhibition Mood (psychology) Mood swing Moral panic Motivation Mourning sickness

Narcotization Negativity effect Night terror Nostalgia

Panic Papez circuit Passion (emotion) Passion Paradox Patience (character trait) Pet peeve Petting Phobia Pity Plant perception (paranormal) Pleasure Pleasure center Psychology of art Psychomotor agitation

Rage (emotion) Regret (emotion) Remorse Repentance Resentment Ressentiment Righteous indignation

SAD Saudade Self-compassion Self-efficacy Self-esteem Self-pity Sensitivity (human) Sexual arousal Sexual jealousy Shame Social defeat Social support Suffering Surprise (emotion) Sympathy

Tampo Template:Emotion Template:Emotion-footer Template:Positive emotions footer Temptation The Simulation Theory of Empathy Togetherness

Uncanny Valley User:Andres rojas22/My sandbox User:DashaKat User:EmpacherPuppet User:Guitarmankev1/Rage Archive

Vicarious arousal

Wikipedia:Template messages/Miscellaneous Worry

NEW VERSION (provisional)
(Category names are in italics, article names are in regular fonts.)

Category:Affective states and processes

This category includes topics related to emotion and other affective states and processes. Due to controverse in defining and using emotion as a concept, it is recommended to avoid that word for naming Wikipedia categories, and to use instead the more inclusive term affective. However there may be exceptions (ex. Appeals to emotions). You may have a look also at a page that is called Category:Emotion: it should be empty since it is kept only for the purpose of receiving and reclassifying pages that users might categorize under that name.

Category Affective states and processes: *List of affective terms *List of emotions Acceptance Affection Affective Affective filter Affective science Agitation (emotion) Aggression Alexithymia Ambivalence Amusement Anger Angst Annoyance Anthropopathy Anticipation (emotion) Anxiety Anxiogenic Apathy Banzo Bitterness (emotion) Boredom Calmness Certainty Charisma Compassion Condolences Compassion fatigue Contempt Depression (mood) Disappointment Disgust Doubt Embarrassment Empathy Emptiness Emotion Emotion in animals Emotion work Emotional Feeling Freedom Techniques Emotional age Emotional clearing Emotional competence Emotional detachment Emotional dissonance Emotional dysregulation Emotional inertia Emotional insecurity Emotional intelligence Emotional isolation Emotional stroop Emotions Anonymous Emotivism Enthusiasm Envy Epiphany (feeling) Equanimity Fanaticism Fear Forgiveness Frustration Gloating Gratification Gratitude Greed Grief Guilt Happiness Hate Homesickness Hope Hostility Hysteria Idiot compassion Inner peace Jealousy Loneliness Love Lust Melancholia Mood (psychology) Mood swing Motivation Nostalgia Pain Passion (emotion) Patience Pet peeve Phobia Pity Plant perception (paranormal) Pleasure Regret (emotion) Remorse Resentment Ressentiment Righteous indignation Saudade Self-compassion Self-esteem Self-pity Sensitivity (human) Sexual arousal Shame Shyness Suffering Surprise (emotion) Sympathy Tampo Togetherness Worry Subcategories:

[+] Affective body expressions: Emotionality Kiss Kissing traditions Petting Psychomotor agitation
 * [+] Facial expressions

[+] Affective neuroscience: Amygdala Limbic system Papez circuit Pleasure center

[+] Anger: Anger List of rages Rage (emotion)

[+] Anxiety disorders

[+] Art and culture (affective aspects): Affective fallacy Beauty Emo (music) Emo (rap) Emo (slang) Jealousy in art Psychology of art Screaming (music)

[+] Cognition (affective aspects): Certainty Cognitive distortion Cognitive restructuring Doubt Emotion and memory Emotional bias Emotional reasoning
 * [+] Appeals to emotion

[+] Fear: Fear Horror (emotion) Night terror Panic

[+] Grief: Animal loss Anticipatory grief Disenfranchised grief Grief

[+] Hate

[+] Jealousy: Jealousy Jealousy definitions Jealousy in art Jealousy in religion Jealousy sociology Sexual jealousy

[+] Love

[+] Mood disorders

[+] Motivation

[+] Phobias

[+] Pleasure: Contentment Delight Ecstasy (emotion) Enjoyment Euphoria (emotion) Euthymia (medicine) Happiness Joy Pleasure

[+] Psychological attitude

[+] Psychological stress

[+] Social psychology (affective aspects): Affective events theory Affective forecasting Affective marketing Ben Franklin effect Culture of fear Culture shock Emotional contagion Emotional labor Expressed emotion Feeling rules Greed and fear Jealousy sociology Mass hysteria Moral panic Mourning sickness Negativity effect Simulation theory of empathy Social defeat Social support Vicarious arousal

[+] Suffering: Depression (mood) Distress Malaise Pain Sadness Suffering Unpleasantness

[+] Shyness

[+] Technology (affective aspects): Affective computing Affective design Uncanny Valley

[+] Theories on affective states and processes: Cannon-Bard theory Conceptual-act model of emotion Facial feedback hypothesis Felicific calculus James-Lange theory Kübler-Ross model
 * [+] Attachment theory

[+] Theorists on affective states and processes

Proposed modifications
I am proposing to reorganize category 'Emotion' into category 'Affective states and processes'. Sections here above, and, give an idea of the proposed changes. This matter has been of interest to three or four users until now, as can be seen on page WikiProject_Psychology/Emotion. It will be brought now to the attention of WikiProject_Categories, and then a request for renaming will probably be made at Categories_for_discussion. Robert Daoust 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that the terminology for categories that make sense to ordinary readers be retained. I am not sure who makes use of them and how, but I have seen a great deal of neglect of the needs of non-expert WP users, esp in psych. (My favorite was using Habituation for users who are clicking on "habit", but there are more.) I doubt that expert users will often be confused by the use of non-expert categories, though they may be annoyed. It would be possible to have more than one set of categories if necessary. DCDuring 03:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I, too, am concerned with new terms if they alienate the general public. With the added confusion from new terms, Wikipedia loses its usefulness as a general reference.  I would prefer outmoded terms be held in place and given historical value.  Within the historical text, links to new terms and ideas could be inserted.  Such a technique would allow the general public to start "where they are" and grow into new directions reflecting present beliefs of experts in the field. Jak1191540 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Make it clear that character disorders do not belong in this category
I suggest that you very be clear about the criteria for inclusion  in this category, as there are people unfamiliar with the situations adding categories. Regards, --Mattisse 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your involvement in bringing some order to the category emotion. I see that you are removing many articles from the category, but please remember that the present meaning of 'emotion' as a category is as a matter of fact 'anything closely related to affective states and processes'. As you must have seen, the category might soon be renamed, and several new subcategories might be created. So, your work could probably be more useful now if you would take part to the discussion going on about the category emotion, rather than removing inappropriate links: we need to create more appropriate ones, like perhaps Category:Religion (affective aspects), if you see what I mean.... Robert Daoust 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Daoust (talk • contribs)
 * There would be no problem if the Category:Emotion did not automatically dump articles into Psychology. Psychology is a recognized discipline and those articles are totally inappropriate. If the Category:Emotion were totally separate and left Psychology out of it, I would have no problem. "Emotion" is not a term used that often in Psychology anyway, but when it is used, it is very specific. --Mattisse 23:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Working psychologists almost never use the word "emotion" (which is considered subjective) and use the term "affective" (which is observable) instead. So there probably is no need for a Category:Emotion under Psychology. --Mattisse 23:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

New version seems just as bad
From my point of view, the new version proposed above is just as bad and includes terms that are behaviors that are not within the realm of Psychology, like Condolences -- that is more Etiquette or something -- not a term I have ever heard used in Psychology. Can you not come up with some other category for all the non psychologists to use? Engineering would never put up with that sort of thing, people throwing junk articles in, nor would Architecture, Mathematics, or most other fields of study. --Mattisse 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we need category Psychology science or Psychological science... as well as category Psychology! Robert Daoust 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This category needs to be removed from Psychology
It really has no business in Psychology anyway. And from what you are saying, there is no way to keep junk out. You seem to be advocating junking up Psychology. You do not take Psychology seriously, as noted in your comment above. And I will add the appropriate !!!!! just to show you I am serious. --Mattisse 00:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are making Psychology into junk - do not remove my comments just because you don't like them
Why do other disciplines get to maintain the structure and dignity of their subject matter, but for some reason everyone thinks Psychology is up for grabs? Psychology and Psychiatry are distinctly different. The similarity lies in the DSM system which both psychiatrists and psychologists must follow. Why do you ask me to join in when you have already decided on a list that has nothing to do with Psychology? I will do everything I can to get around being forced to do things your way. --Mattisse 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some way to influence the categories used by the WP Psychology Project rather than introducing a non-WP-like control over the categorization process? Also, there are a couple of worthwhile exercises to be done in the emotions area to support the categorization effort:

Does anyone have thoughts as to which article would be the right home for each of these? DCDuring 17:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * documenting (in a table, say) the basic emotions according to the various authorities (psychologists, psychotherapists, philosophers, neuroscientists, pharmacologists)
 * documenting the criteria used (where explicit)
 * fitting all the popular and literary emotion words (e.g. petulance, rage) into one or more basic emotion categories
 * Over on the Talk:Emotion page, it seems as if many are making a philosophical argument. My objection is to its use in Clinical Psychology because it is not a formal term there. Its use in that context confuses people. Terms in Clinical should relate to diagnostic categories to be useful. If Research Psychology or Philosophy or some interdisciplinary forum is interested, that would be great. --Mattisse 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusion between cognitions and affective states - also Religion does not belong in Psychology
There seems to be a basic confusion between cognitions and affective states in the articles in Category:Emotion. Perhaps a category such as Category:Emotion (non psychology). Also, descriptions of religious practices, religious states etc. belong in Psychology only if they have been the subject of research, not as a subject to describe religious practices outside of a neutral examination. --Mattisse 14:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mind and behavior do not belong exclusively to psychologists. Others, like philosophers, religious authors, artists, specialist in computers or marketing, may write about them in a way that is worth of inclusion in Wikipedia. In other words, the word psychology has a universal meaning beyond that of psychology science. This being said, I am all in favor of making specific categories for distinguishing between psychological science approach and other approaches to psychological matters, especially if psychologists here can offer at last a more coherent categorization. I agree with you on an important point, Mattisse, despite your impoliteness and your intempestive editing: emotion is a small section of affective states, and it should not constitute a major category of psychology. On another hand, I disagree strongly with your statements such as the followings: (1) "Working psychologists almost never use the word 'emotion'" (cf. for instance the expression 'Emotion research' which is quite common), (2) "the article mood should not be under psychology", (3) "pain is not an emotion" (cf. definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain: pain is an emotional experience), (4) "Emotions are subjective states and therefore, for the most part, not in the realm of Psychology as a scientific field" (imho many psychologists define the subject of their science as subjective states). By contrast, I agree with what DC says above, and with his-her initiative at article Habit. --Robert Daoust 17:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. So put it someplace else, like Philosophy. --Mattisse 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum&mdash;Sorry. I should have said Clinical Psychologists do not use it in reports, courtroom testimony, clinical notes in medical records, journal articles, academic books, etc. Research psychologists (experimental psychologist) can use the term however they want. They do not have to follow diagnostic manuals and such.  --Mattisse 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And so we do, as emotions are seen as very important drivers for human behaviour; figuring out how this relates to cognitive functions is currently one of the topics in Social and Cognitive experimental psychology.
 * Nevertheless I agree with much over your comments, as the category seems to be put together without a clear framework of the field of psychology and being based on the ideas of one or a few editors. Arnoutf 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Mattisse 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, there's much agreement around, though I am not quite sure about what! Two things for me are sure. (1) There is no clear framework of the field of psychology anywhere (on "the problem of psychology", see the excellent work of professor Henriques Tree_of_Knowledge_System). (2) Putting the Emotion or Affective category out of psychology as Mattisse has suggested, and has done in fact, is by all reasonable standards impossible!!! Anyways, I will right now propose the renaming at Categories_for_discussion, and we'll see what happens. --Robert Daoust 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, categories do not work as trees, a common misperception, so the Tree_of_Knowledge_System is irrelevant. --Mattisse 02:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no agreement to change Category:Emotion to your Affective tree with your emotion template of Petting, Kissing, and other non emotions
The people who have commented are against it. You have not notified the general psychology community that you are about to inflict massive change. It is not right for you to do this single handedly. --Mattisse 02:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, I have been able to see that your are a most valuable editors in WP. Your comments about my initiative, however, are off the mark since the beginning. My goal is to bring better categories in the area of the emotional or the affective. Which articles will go or will not go under these categories is not my business at all at this time! I have put articles names under categories to give a better idea of the proposed changes, but I could as well have left the proposed categories empty. And anyways, all this scheme of categories that I propose is quite 'provisional', mere suggestions. The important change for me is to have a better name than emotion to refer to the whole area of psychology that deals with feelings, moods, emotions, sentiments, etc. About this very renaming proposal, I have notified my proposal many times since two weeks on WikiProject Psychology talk page, on Category emotion talk page, on emotion talk page, and on list of emotion talk page. I think I can say there has been support (if not complete, at least 'sufficient') for my renaming proposal from Arnoutf, Empacher, DCDuring, at least. Finally, please have a look to Tree_of_Knowledge_System, you will see that it has nothing to do with category trees in Wikipedia, but with a quite interesting novel, theoretical approach to the unification of psychology developed by professor Gregg Henriques... --Robert Daoust
 * Whatever the person you reference has contributed, massive change in Categories in Psychology should not be based on one person's theory. As for advertising your proposed change, I have only see the notice in one place, on the Category:Emotion page, which is not a page psychologists would read. You need to get 10 to 20 people at least to comment favorably on your proposal before you should go forward. --Mattisse 12:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I like Gregg and admire his work, I agree with Mattisse: "massive change in Categories in Psychology should not be based on one person's theory." Changes will be accepted if they provide some new utility to those using the terms.  It's like cell phones.  Their benefit was intuitively obvious, and they have spread like wildfire across the globe.  For a wholesale change and acceptance of the Tree_of_Knowledge_System, a similar and striking benefit must be touted.  In my opinion, the key for Gregg may be his ability to define psychological terms within the terminology of the hard sciences (like physics - and I know he can).  Let's take "energy" for instance.  Over 50 years ago, Elizabeth Duffy said that living organisms are "energy systems".  Taking that into the realm of emotions and/or feelings, if one emotion/feeling differs from another, then the distribution of energy (resources) within the living organism must differ.  In other words, the distribution of energy and resources during fear (fight or flight) must be distinctly different from the distribution during relaxation (rest & digest).  And we all know that it is.  Fear kicks in the sympathetic nervous system, and relaxation kicks in the parasympathetic nervous system.  Further, once you start talking energy and the nervous system, biology and metabolic rate come into play.  Thus, if Gregg creates a language allowing physicists, biologists, and psychologists to talk to each other using a common language understood by all, then maybe he'll have a "cell phone" that sells.  Personally, I vote for terms based in physics. Jak1191540 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Failure to agree
Finally, a request for renaming Category:Emotion to Category:Affective states and processes has been made at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12. It appears that such a renaming is unacceptable. People want to keep the term emotion as a category. Then, this means one of two alternatives: (1) category emotion includes all affective topics, (2) category emotion is reserved for 'strong' feelings. Alternative (1) is the present problematic situation. Alternative (2) seems to me the way to go for a solution, but the problem of naming and organizing the category 'all affective topics' will require another initiative than mine. For now, I must declare a failure. My call resulted in no commitment from other Wikipedians to "construct a coherent framework for psychology articles", beginning with affective topics. I still believe that with appropriate collaboration, we could settle the whole matter in a few weeks, in spite of 'the problem of psychology', as described in Tree of Knowledge System, a novel, theoretical approach to the unification of psychology developed by professor Gregg Henriques. I hope someone else will know how to proceed more successfully than me. --Robert Daoust 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Emotion and Category:Emotions
Hi, I'm trying to figure out why there's two category, Emotion and Emotions, since I'm trying to interwiki one of them to id:Kategori:Emosi. Any informasion would be helpful. Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As best I can make it out, this category is for all articles related to the general subject of emotion, while Category:Emotions is for articles about specific feelings or emotional states. I've added some description for each to clarify this, and I'm moving several articles to the sub-category. --RL0919 (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Standardized Templates for Each Emotion Article?
I am wondering/suggesting that for each emotion under the emotions category, that there should be some consensus/agreed-upon standardized template for the subtopics (but also adding extra topics for variation/nuances, as well). I believe that if we (the wiki community) can create a standardized template approach for each emotion, than one day natural language processing is going to be a lot easier for the emotions wiki-content (and maybe easier for viewers to expect as well). Mr Robot 2020 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)