Talk:Emotion

arousal link

In the opening paragraph, the link labeled physiological arousal goes to the page for sexual arousal, which is not the kind of arousal indicated in this context. I think the page for arousal, which includes autonomic arousal and cognitive arousal, makes more sense.Genesyz (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)genesyz

Removal of Feeling theory

An anon user recently added a section on Feeling theory based on a 2010 book by Marc Jackson. Although the book may give an interesting perspective on emotions and feelings, neither Marc Jackson, nor the book received useful attention in secondary or tertiary sources (Marc Jackson can only be readily found on Google in direct relation to this single publication). Thus this theory is at this moment in time far from notable enough to warrant inclusion in the top level emotion article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The anon editor has re-added it, which sheds additional doubts per another WP:NOT category WP:NOTPROMOTION. Please discuss, supported by reliable sources before re-adding. Arnoutf (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And it was reverted again, while per WP:BRD discussion would be in place. Additionally the edit summary for reverting "the theory adds a perspective that is missing from the article, if it is missing wikipedia loses out on a broad perspective on emotions" does not give one single argument WHY the perspective is notable or even remotely relevant. This makes me wonder whether this might be classified as Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity. I still stand by my decision to remove, but leave it in for now, waiting for additional editors to have a look at. Arnoutf (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in Prefontal cortex

There seems to be a contraddiction in the "prefrontal cortex" paragraph.

First it says that "There is ample evidence that the left prefrontal cortex is activated by stimuli that cause positive approach." then, in the second part it says that "The Direction Model predicted that anger, an approach emotion, would activate the left prefrontal cortex. The second model was supported.". Maybe I don't get it, but it's unclear in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco b2 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Schacter

I notice Mandler says of Schacter: "The single most important contribution in the form of both direction-changing theory and innovative experiments was made by Stanley Schacter..." (in Gregory, Richard L. (ed) 1987. The Oxford Companion to the Mind. Oxford University Press. 'Emotion' p219). Yet, strangely, Schacter is not mentioned in the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see the link to Singer–Schacter theory. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Understanding emotions without language

Understanding emotions without language. I don't know but is emotion strictly a non-verbal language in a communicative sense? This article doesn't give more insights about this. Komitsuki (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"is emotion strictly a non-verbal language in a communicative sense"

I think your questions implies a number of problematic assumptions. (a) Emotions have an important communicative role. And while this is one of the approaches to emotions, it is not the dominant approach; and receives relatively little attention in the current article. (b) The fact that emotions can be understood without language, does not make them strictly non-verbal.

The emotion field is an incredibly complicated field of study, which means that in a top level article like this, many details will be ignored and many specific questions will remain unanswered. Of course if you think these ideas should be more central feel free to add them based on high quality sources (the actual research paper in Emotion mentioned in your link might be such a source). But even then make sure the article remains balanced across approaches. Arnoutf (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I asked here. Something is a bit missing in this article. I just can't figure it out. Sorry. I was slightly confused. Komitsuki (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

a situated perspective on emotion

Hi Wikipedia community. I'm interested in adding information to this page under the section on theories. I wanted to add information I recently read about a situated perspective on emotions written by Paul E. Griffiths and Andrea Scarantino from their paper "Emotions in the wild: a situated perspective on emotions." I am new to editing wikipedia and wanted to make sure that added this information would be alright. Retsasidenna (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retsasidenna (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be okay to include, but probably only a short section, since it's only the theory of a single set of researchers, and a relatively new one (2005) at that. I note that the paper has been cited a fair number of times, though I see some duplications in who is doing the citing. Do you know if this is a widely held theory? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! I added a small section under theories. Griffiths and Scarantino are the only researchers I have seen using the exact term of "situated perspective one emotion" but they draw largely upon transactional accounts of emotion proposed by some contemporary psychologists such as Fridlun, Parkinson, and Fischer. Do you think what I added is okay? Thanks again for your help. Retsasidenna (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it's only one group's theory, then it could be argued that the section shouldn't be there at all, as Wikipedia prefers information to come from secondary sources...but I don't know enough about the field to say if it's really fringe. I made some minor changes, but I think it's great the way it is! Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comparing Emotions

In light of a recent review I've read on emotions, I'm planning to add some information to the page currently called "List of Emotions" (and rename it to Contrasting and Categorization of Emotions). In doing so I'm also going to slightly adjust the paragraph starting "Robert Plutchik" and also include a pointer to LoE. Ultimâ (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The people maintaining this page have my respect, it is such an ambiguous and difficult topic to handle. Sorting the wheat from the chaff must be quite a delicate issue. The start of this page is really good, but it becomes a bit uncoordinated. Perhaps the section on theories could be reduced to those that are common fields of research at Universities and a second page created detailing theories in general (and sorted by date)... Ultimâ (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger of two paragraphs in Classification section

I think the first two paragraphs should be merged and the part about Robert Plutchik removed, since his wheel is described on the page "Contrasting and categorization of emotions". Ultimâ (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Also removed the line "Some have also argued for the existence of meta-emotions which are emotions about emotions" as it's unrelated to classification. Ultimâ (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article structure

Emotion is something that we can see and experience, but the explanation/origin is rather elusive. We should try to keep the page concise with solid facts rather than rambling over the multitude of theories presented by different researchers over the last 20 years. A history of theories holding sway up to that point would be useful (I suppose beginning from the ancient Greeks). Thus my suggestion for copying the theories section to a new page, and on this page reducing the theory sections to paragraphs.

I'm sure I read some wiki article about documenting contested theories, unless they were a widely held view at some point in the past, I'm fairly sure they shouldn't be on the main page. One example being the paragraph about Lövheim's theory and "Anger is, according to the model, for example produced by the combination of low serotonin, high dopamine and high noradrenaline."

(Not to mention emotions can occur practically instantaneously so there is insufficient time for chemical concentrations to be the cause, but rather a result) Ultimâ (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I second this. The current article is rambling and ineffective in its presentation. Presenting a laundry list of theories past to present does not accurately represent the state of the field. Armsbf11 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The 6 basic emotions (Paul Ekman)

Currently this page presents the Paul Ekman's basic emotions inaccurately both in location (sub-field) and in number.

1. Ekman's research was cross-cultural and modern. I believe that characterizing it as "evolutionary psychology" is misleading. The research has evolutionary implications, but it is more properly a survey of basic emotion recognition across cultures.
2. Ekman proposed 6 basic emotions not five.
3. Ekman's 6 basic emotions (evidenced by the ability of people across cultures to identify these emotions from photographs) are commonly given in psychology textbooks and widely accepted by psychologists.

I propose that the 6 basic emotions are not controversial in this field and should be a more prominent part of this article. In addition, I propose that the current picture "examples of basic emotions" be replaced by pictures of the 6 basic emotions. The empirical justification for the "examples of basic emotions" that are currently displayed eludes me.

Armsbf11 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)