Why emotions cannot be assigned numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avichal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Emotions Numbers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of quantifying emotions and whether it is possible to assign numerical values to subjective experiences such as love and hatred. Participants explore the implications of measurement in psychology and the limitations of existing scales.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that while emotions can be compared in terms of "more or less," assigning precise numerical values is problematic due to their subjective nature.
  • Others suggest that existing emotional scales, like pain scales, attempt to quantify subjective experiences but lack precision and standardization.
  • A participant notes that the Weber-Fechner law applies to perception but may not be relevant for quantifying emotions like love.
  • Some contributions highlight the irrationality of human memory regarding emotions, suggesting that individuals may inaccurately recall their feelings over time.
  • There is a discussion about the need for a universal unit of measurement for emotions, with some expressing skepticism about the feasibility of such a standard.
  • A participant proposes that advancements in non-invasive EEG technology could allow for the quantification of emotions based on neural activity, while another counters that emotions tied to relationships are too complex to be quantified meaningfully.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether emotions can be meaningfully quantified. Multiple competing views exist regarding the potential for measurement and the inherent subjectivity of emotional experiences.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the subjective nature of emotions, the lack of standardized measurement tools, and the variability of emotional experiences across individuals.

  • #31
Upon continued re-reading I keep coming to the conclusion this paper is asserting patient reports are reliable because they verified it with brain scans!

It does not say brain scans are unreliable. Brain scans are what they used to verify the reliability of patient reports.

The part you quoted in bold warns about generalizing over kinds of pain, while remaining confident about pain magnitude.

The title of the paper is, "Neural correlates of interindividual differences in the subjective experience of pain." They found those titular neural correlates. With brain scans. They got different brain scans for people reporting different levels of pain in response to the same stimulus. Certain brain areas were much more active in the individuals reporting more intense pain in response to the same stimulus.

If we're not in agreement about this basic point, that they confirmed the reliability of patient reports with brain scans, and by no other means, then there's no point in branching off into the other topics you introduced.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
Pythagorean said:
also, let's not forget that this report was for pain, which is much easier to characterize (both subjectively and objectively) than emotions.
But the OP is about emotions, not pain.

So we need to get back on topic please.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
7K