Talk:Emotion classification/Archive 1

Primary and Secondary Emotions
As much as I have desired to maintain this section, it contains several dubious claims and absolutely no references. It is mainly describing an analogy with smell. I am copying the section here and deleting it on the main page, until such time as the author (or anyone else) can back up its claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

removed section
Primary emotions (i.e., innate emotions, such as fear) "depend on limbic system circuitry," with the amygdala and anterior cingulate gyrus being "key players".


 * Smell carries directly to limbic areas of the mammalian brain via nerves running from the olfactory bulbs to the septum, amygdala, and hippocampus. In the acquatic brain, olfaction was critical for detecting food, foes, and mates from a distance in murky waters. An emotional feeling, like an aroma, has a volatile or "thin-skinned" quality because sensory cells lie on the exposed exterior of the olfactory epithelium (i.e., on the bodily surface itself). A sudden scent, like a whiff of smelling salts, may jolt the mind. The force of a mood is reminiscent of a smell's intensity (e.g., soft and gentle, pungent, or overpowering), and similarly permeates and fades as well. The design of emotion cues, in tandem with the forebrain's olfactory prehistory, suggests that the sense of smell is the neurological model for our emotions.

Secondary emotions (i.e., feelings attached to objects [e.g., to dental drills], events, and situations through learning) require additional input, based largely on memory, from the prefrontal and somatosensory cortices. The stimulus may still be processed directly via the amygdala but is now also analyzed in the thought process. Thoughts and emotions are interwoven: every thought, however bland, almost always carries with it some emotional undertone, however subtle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomascochrane (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Excited Delirium
Should Excited Delirium perhaps be included in the list of culturally specific emotions? I realise it is heavily contested, but it does seem to resemble some of the other culturally specific emotions described. And I mean, emotions caused by being bitten by ghost are perhaps no less contestable than excited delirium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.158.14 (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Overlaps between this entry and other entries on emotions
This entry overlaps heavily with the entry titled, "Contrasting and categorizing of emotions," but it gives no link to that entry. Basically, this entry needs a "See Also" that references the other relevant items in Wikipedia. The entry on "Contrasting and categorizing of emotions," lists the following:

See also

List of virtues

Affect (psychology)

Emotion

Emotion classification

Emotional mood

Emotion and memory

Empathy

Basic emotions

In addition, the entry on "Emotions" has a number of others.

Finally I apologize that I am not able to follow through with my own suggestion about adding that "See Also" section but I lack the coding skills necessary to do so. DavidMorgan1950 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

More Ideas and Systems
I'm thankful someone put this together! Here are more rough ideas... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Emotion expressed in literary expressions
Trying to build a useful model of human emotions is indeed quite a challenge. Especially when you are looking for the proper granularity. To illustrate: See Grenville Kleiser 1868-1953 http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/k#a4071 He has e.g. 15,000 useful phrases. For example take his "LITERARY EXPRESSIONS" and use that as a base to search for a possible emotion. I.   USEFUL PHRASES II. SIGNIFICANT PHRASES III. FELICITOUS PHRASES IV. IMPRESSIVE PHRASES V.  PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES VI. BUSINESS PHRASES VII. LITERARY EXPRESSIONS VIII. STRIKING SIMILES IX. CONVERSATIONAL PHRASES X.  PUBLIC SPEAKING PHRASES XI. MISCELLANEOUS PHRASES

You can use multiple word search pick phrases that might carry the emotion you are examining. From there try to factor analyze out the UNIQUE human emotions for each expression. Example that expression is 10% emotion A, 20% emotion B, 70% emotion C... Some expressions are quite illusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

DSM 4 and 5 Cluster B revisions & emotional taxonomy
Take all the cluster B diagnoses and list all the facets from all of them as a single list. Extract the "emotional" component from each facet and then try to factor analyze those and/or reduce them to a reasonable hierarchy. Then, using that, go back and look back at the Cluster B diagnoses. Are they still "neat and tidy", cohesively atomic, and distinctly granular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Seven Affect System (Panksepp, Jaak, 1998)
I particularly like this one as they attempt to map it to neurology. Surely if emotions can indeed be felt, there must, at some level, be a biochemical component. Is there benefit from starting at that base biochemical level and working up? (Or regions of the brain activated?)

Sentry: Positive: security and safety Negative: fear (being vigilant for danger)

Nest Builder: Positive: bonding, security, affection, love, connection, and attachment Negative: separation – distress/panic, grief, sadness and loss

Explorer (seeking system): curiosity, joy of learning, exploration and adventure.

Commander-in-chief: Controlling: anger, hostility, rage, dominance, control and status Controlled: submission and helplessness

Sensualist: sensuality, sexuality and lust

Jester: play, fun, humor, amusement, laughter, and joy

Energy Czar: managing bodily needs concerned with energy, food, warmth, shelter, and so on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a relatively obvious problem here. If you start from the biochemical component -- or any component that isn't "directly" experienced -- then how do you define subjective affect on this basis unless the same biochemical components always produce the same affects? What if the same chemical makes two different people report feeling two different ways, or if two different chemicals make two different people report feeling roughly the same way? I sense that you are trying to avoid categorizing human experiences on the basis of human experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.154.163 (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Machine Perception Lab at UCSD
Emotions tied to facial expressions and sequences of muscle moves (i.e. ties the affect to the physical expression of it.)

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkpWCu1k0ZI

mplab.ucsd.edu "The goal of the MPLab is to develop systems that perceive and interact with humans in real time using natural communication channels." Natural communications include the conveyance of emotion.

mplab.ucsd.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Facial Action Coding System
See especially Facial Action Coding System — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

GERG - Geneva Emotion Research Group
See: http://www.unige.ch/cisa/gerg.html See in particular: Verbal labels describing major affect states - List of related terms in 5 languages http://www.affective-sciences.org/system/files/page/2636/FiveLangAffectTerms.pdf

Rick (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Culturally specific emotions
I would think that this line: "a number of cultures have terms for emotions that have no direct equivalent in the English language" would require a citation, especially since the section goes on to list a dozen such terms with their corresponding meanings in English. Perhaps it could be said that no single word exists in English, but might that disqualify other terms with multiple words such as  plaatsvervangende schaamte and Pena Ajena? It's certainly possible that some languages may be limited in what concepts they can express (e.g. Piraha); however, just because a language has a specific word for an emotion doesn't mean it cannot be exactly described in another language -- it may just take more words. Examples of this abound. Therefore, it seems that the phrase "no direct equivalent" should be qualified.

Additionally, "a number of emotion terms that have been deemed culturally specific" -- by whom, Prinz? Prinz actually argues from the point of perceptual theory, which is that bodily emotions are central to emotion. Since we all inhabit human bodies, one would think that feelings are therefore universal. Although a callous culture might prevent one from feeling a certain way, it doesn't mean the language used by that culture can't describe it. For instance, I might not "get" the feeling of utter despair when a waffle falls in the dirt -- an emotion alien to me -- but I can accurately and exactly describe it in English. This may not always be the case with certain words and concepts (e.g. no Chinese word for "logic" [source?!]), but given that the foreign terms are described very well in English with no ambiguity or sense of "approximation", I fail to see how the original statement ("no direct equivalent") holds water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.137.59 (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned's problem here is analogous to that of the Inuit languages which are agglutinative, and thus form new words or expressions easily. English, by contrast, is agglutinative, so that faced with the problem of describing, e.g., "black snow crystals found at the side of the road at the end of a long winter," English is likely to come up with a phrase like "black snow crystals found at the side of the road at the end of a long winter." The Inuit languages will easily render this as "black snow crystals found at the side of the road at the end of a long winter" in their various ways. So the difference is obvious.

Thus we can see that the poor Equimaux are better equipped than anyone. No doubt this comes from their use of snowmobiles, which blacken snow.

The poor Chinese, I sadly learn here, have no word for "logic." Thus, like English speakers, they are sure to be linguistic cripples, unable to cobble together any sort of civilization at all...

In fact Chinese has words for all the usual varieties of syllogistic, inductive, deductive, etc. logics, as well as, interestingly, the archaic 名学, míng xué, literally name study. This has the dictionary meaning "logic," and dates from times when the need for rectification of names was a frequent plaint of philosophers -- but it resonates nicely with 20th Century philosophical themes.

Clearly, one of the major problems that crops up in discussions of languages is the major contributions made by ignorant half-wits like "unsigned," above.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to delete "vergüenza ajena"/"Spanish shame" since it's a known false statement. HeffeQue (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Emotion classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://americanscientist.org/articles/01articles/Plutchik.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Develop lead more
Hi, The article does very well at explaining the differences between the two different ways that emotion is classified. It also does a great job at outlining the article in the lead. The sources are credible and reliable sources. I would suggest that the lead be developed more by adding more information about the two different ways that emotion is classified. Perhaps adding a brief definition and explanation of the two types and the subtopics that you talk about in the article. I feel like doing so would help the readers understand what they are going to be reading about, and they can refer back to the lead for a summary of what they have read. I feel like the most important change would be to add more material to the lead by defining the different classifications and the subtopics. I realize that we could incorporate how you outlined the paper in the lead into our own article that we are reviewing. We could also learn from this article about how to stay neutral between two different ways and just focus on giving the information rather than an opinion.--Ulenui760 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Contrasting and categorization of emotions
"Contrasting" here seems to mean differentiation, which is part the broader discussion on classification and categorization. Daask (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Just want to vote against moving or changing this page. It's a very useful resource for writers just as it is. Unless a specific benefit can be demonstrated, the page should be developed along its current lines. Seeing emotions distributed and discussed in this way is practically useful as you're zeroing in on a specific gradation of emotion you want to represent, and seeing them contrasted is creatively useful.Prenez (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)