Recently? What are some that you would like to share?
Jean-Paul Sartre's "The Emotions: Outline of a Theory"
It was so long ago and I will not comment on this book.
I have collected some books on human emotions, applied psychology, close relationships but never get time to read them :uhh:
They are just awfully boring!
Me neither. I find human emotion best tested through practice. For example: make someone cry and then laugh and see if their opinion of you changes!
Sadly? I can't think of any reason I'd want to read such books. So, gleefully, no!
Haven't read any books on emotions...I just have them. Emotions, that is, not books on emotions.
Which emotions are you interested in?
I think applied psychology is really important in politics or businesses.
There are msn emotions too!
Joseph LeDoux investigates the neurobiology of emotions, particularly fear.
Hmm... Synaptic Self by Joseph LeDoux... is that more about neuroscience or psychology?
Interesting MiH, is there any research about the remarkable split in human behavior? On the one hand, being so careless about true high risks, like smoking, drugs, speeding, no safety belts, drinking & driving, gun handling and eight year old kids etc, while on the other hand panicking about non issues like depleted uranium ammunition and safety of nuclear plants, radiation from cell phones, ozone holes, etc, and that climate thinghy too.
Read Damasio's books.
I've read some books about consciousness which included a lot of science about emotions. Does that count?
I haven't read his book yet, but you'll probably see a very tight integration of both. I came across LeDoux in Scientific American Mind article a couple of years ago. ("Mastery of Emotions” February/March 2006 edition by David Dobbs.) I found what appears to be the text of the article here:
Note the comment:
Some LeDoux ideas on the problem of anxiety:
Perhaps for the reckless the paths from amygdala to the cortex are fewer/less functional, or the "damping controls" running back from the cortex to the amygdala are strong enough to quell the anxiety signals. I'd be surprised if someone has not investigated this in people with Antisocial Personality Disorder, who typically exhibit reckless behavior.
I was thinking how much governments depend upon these studies when they make policies or laws. Or do some leaders just implement whatever they think is rational or better through their own personal judgements/emotions.
As you can tell, none of the candidates actually answer questions directly.
Sorry, Andre, I did not respond to your question. You were asking about the dichotomy within a person. I don't know much about why some people choose rationalize some dangerous behaviors, but then overreact to things that might be considered minimal threats. In the case of smoking, drugs, and drinking, it seems to be primarily about addiction and satisfying an artificial but incredibly strong drive.
Some of the things that might be considered minimal risks can also be very perceptually salient (image of Chernobyl) and repeatedly presented (news stories about cell phone radiation) and this could alter our perception of the threat by making it more easily brought to mind. Check out the "availability heuristic": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic
An event can also be very salient because it's convenient. For instance, a smoker might remember hearing about a story about a person who lived to 100 and smoked every day of his life. Bias involves a lot cherry-picking -- see "confirmation bias":
"..confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs."
Separate names with a comma.