Have you read any books on Human Emotion?

[avant-garde]

Recently? What are some that you would like to share?

 

[Helios]

I read
Jean-Paul Sartre's "The Emotions: Outline of a Theory"
It was so long ago and I will not comment on this book.

 

[tribdog]

Sadly, no.

 

[rootX]

I have collected some books on human emotions, applied psychology, close relationships but never get time to read them

They are just awfully boring!

 

[SticksandStones]

Sadly, no.

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!

 

[Moonbear]

Sadly, no.

Sadly? I can't think of any reason I'd want to read such books. So, gleefully, no!

 

[lisab]

Haven't read any books on emotions...I just have them. Emotions, that is, not books on emotions.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Which emotions are you interested in?

 

[rootX]

Sadly? I can't think of any reason I'd want to read such books. So, gleefully, no!

industrial psychology
I think applied psychology is really important in politics or businesses.

 

[rootX]

There are msn emotions too!

http://www.allemoticons.com/

 

[Math Is Hard]

Joseph LeDoux investigates the neurobiology of emotions, particularly fear.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/08/10-questions-for-joseph-ledoux.php

 

[avant-garde]

Hmm... Synaptic Self by Joseph LeDoux... is that more about neuroscience or psychology?

 

[Andre]

Joseph LeDoux investigates the neurobiology of emotions, particularly fear.
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/08/10-questions-for-joseph-ledoux.php

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.

 

[GCT]

Recently? What are some that you would like to share?

Read Damasio's books.

 

[Topher925]

I've read some books about consciousness which included a lot of science about emotions. Does that count?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Hmm... Synaptic Self by Joseph LeDoux... is that more about neuroscience or psychology?

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:

http://daviddobbs.net/page2/page10/ledoux.html

Note the comment:

“Consciousness may get all the focus,” LeDoux once told me. “But consciousness is a small part of what the brain does, and it's a slave to everything that works beneath it. I don’t think that’s what produces our selves.” Rather, says LeDoux, our identities arise from the singular arrays of learned fears, desires, associations, expectations that are ingrained most fundamentally and broadly in our unconscious. As he put it in his book The Synaptic Self, “You are your synapses.”

 

[Math Is Hard]

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.

Some LeDoux ideas on the problem of anxiety:

From a LeDouxian perspective, one can view anxiety as a mismatch in traffic capacity between pathways lying between the amygdala to and the centers of thought, imagination, and planning humans have so recently developed. LeDoux and others have found many more neural pathways running from the amygdala to the cortex than from cortex to amygdala. This may be why our anxieties often control our thoughts, while our thoughts have trouble quelling our anxieties. Our imagination easily amplifies and feeds the fears coming from the amygdala and hippocampus — we readily worry about what might be or what might have been — but we can’t send enough controls back from cortex to amygdala and hippocampus to dampen the resulting anxiety. That’s why we can seldom calm ourselves by telling ourselves to be calm.

http://daviddobbs.net/page2/page10/ledoux.html

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.

 

[rootX]

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.

 

[avant-garde]

As you can tell, none of the candidates actually answer questions directly.

 

[Math Is Hard]

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

For example, when asked to rate the probability of a variety of causes of death, people tend to rate more "newsworthy" events as more likely because they can more readily recall an example from memory. In fact, people often rate the chance of death by plane crash higher than the chance by car crash, and death by natural disaster as probable only because these unusual events are more often reported than more common causes of death. In actuality, death from car accidents is much more common than airline accidents. Additional rare forms of death are also seen as more common than they really are because of their inherent drama such as shark attacks, and lightning.

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":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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."

 

[Enuma_Elish]

Recently? What are some that you would like to share?

I haven't, and would like to. Any suggestions for the non-psychologist?

EnumaElish
___________________________________________
I would definitely have logged in as EnumaElish had PF administration awarded that account the privilege of posting replies, after I reset my e-mail address Tuesday, October 28, 2008.