Okay, I know this is a journal, but the questions only allow like yes or no. So what do you think the evolutionary benefits of each emotion is? Anger, sadness,... Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
From the Journal of dalbix | mood: Good

What are the evolutionary benefits of emotions?

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 30)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 5:39:00 AM EST (GMT-5)
Okay, I know this is a journal, but the questions only allow like yes or no.
So what do you think the evolutionary benefits of each emotion is? Anger, sadness, devastation, happiness...etc.

10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 5:52:39 AM EST (GMT-5)
do your own homework
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 6:08:36 AM EST (GMT-5)
Are you serious, dalbix? That is a thesis paper, not a simple quesiton.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 6:48:29 AM EST (GMT-5)
survival
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 7:03:20 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 6:48:29 AM mysocks wrote:
survival


Pretty much this.

Anger helped us fight off the sabre tooth tiger and that other pesky tribe who were trying to steal our food and women.

Sadness helped us feel the loss of food or women more deeply and want avoid it in the future.

Happiness bonded us closer to our family units and tribes, making us more likely to act in the common good rather than selfishly, improving the survival odds of our species.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 12:06:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 6:08:36 AM lapislazuli wrote:
Are you serious, dalbix? That is a thesis paper, not a simple quesiton.


Since there's absolutely no way to test any of it, it'd be a pretty crappy thesis.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 1:31:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
[quote]On Friday 7/2/10 - 12:06:06 PM catchall wrote: Since there's absolutely no way to test any of it, it'd be a pretty crappy thesis. [/quote

Actually, it's not. Since it is a thesis on emotions, it falls under a soft science. What you are saying is that nobody could get a master's degree in sociology or social anthropology or psychology?

There have been published papers and books and thesis papers written on this very subject. Here's a couple, by a couple of different authors:

Evolutionary Explanations of Emotions

Evolutionary Analysis of Emotion
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 2:35:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 6:48:29 AM mysocks wrote:
survival

The answer to anything to do with evolution.

What is the evolutionary benefit to opposable thumbs? Survival.

What is the evolutionary benefit to forward set eyes? Survival.

Now HOW is an entirely different. But when you know the question and the answer it really isn't all that hard to think of the ways how they relate.... Unless you are not capable of anything but direct linear thought.

OMG point A and point B are not connected by a straight line!!! THE WORLD MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:00:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
Most interesting work in that field is not the one that focuses on past utility of emotions imo, sure you can brush up on how they helped us evolve to where we are and then maybe channel them to better use I guess.

But personally, I'm more akin to follow the works in positive psychology which focus more on how to live better now.

Anywho, the two fields are not separated completely, at all, there is a crossover between them and rarely will a researcher's main focus be on evolutionary aspects without considering practical applications.

Particularly fond of the works of Ronald de Sousa, Barbara Fredrickson, António Damásio, Richard Davidson, Paul Ekman. And if you veer towards more purely positive psy stuff, the inevitable Martin Seligman & C. R. Snyder.

If you're asking for my personal take, it's another story.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:12:03 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 1:31:04 PM lapislazuli wrote:
On Friday 7/2/10 - 12:06:06 PM catchall wrote:
Since there's absolutely no way to test any of it, it'd be a pretty crappy thesis.
Actually, it's not. Since it is a thesis on emotions, it falls under a soft science. What you are saying is that nobody could get a master's degree in sociology or social anthropology or psychology? There have been published papers and books and thesis papers written on this very subject. Here's a couple, by a couple of different authors: [link] [link]


I can't open the second link, but the first one holds up exactly what I said: it is untestable. I bunch of arm waiving. Well written, to be sure. But completely untestable.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:19:19 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:12:03 PM catchall wrote:
I can't open the second link, but the first one holds up exactly what I said: it is untestable. I bunch of arm waiving. Well written, to be sure. But completely untestable.


Are you saying cognitive science is BS?
help me out here
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:23:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
[I haven't checked the links, but I feel like tackling with someone]
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:26:35 PM EST (GMT-5)
Are you hitting on catchall?
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:30:06 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:19:19 PM le_berger wrote:
Are you saying cognitive science is BS? help me out here


Not in the least. I wouldn't want to make blanket statements like that.

I'm saying that that thesis amounts to one large, "just so" story: there is absolutely no data given to back up any of the assertions made, no tests done. One could just as easily write a very cogent thesis on intelligent design. It's still B.S.

In fact, the first paper linked to actually tried to use arguments of design to support an evolutionary role for emotions.

Don't get me wrong - I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just not in the habit of publishing speculation and calling it anything but speculation.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:34:18 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:26:35 PM JayY wrote:
Are you hitting on catchall?


dude, I want his micro-bio all up in my neuroscience so bad!

[read, he can f*ck my brains out]
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:40:25 PM EST (GMT-5)
@ catch

so, basically you're saying that it's unlikely an encompassing theory of the emotions' role in evolution would be testable or hold true. Fair 'nuff.

There is still, especially since the 80s, incredibly interesting research being done regarding the cognitive processes of emotions and often times they do key in on how an individual relates to his environment.

And I mean, I'll be darned if evolution ain't about how individuals relate to their environment. So, even if no grand unification theory comes up [it's not likely to] it still gives us tremendous clues as to how emotions play or may have played a part in our evolution.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:40:51 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 7:03:20 AM Brunnen_G wrote:
Pretty much this. Anger helped us fight off the sabre tooth tiger and that other pesky tribe who were trying to steal our food and women. Sadness helped us feel the loss of food or women more deeply and want avoid it in the future. .

So how did women's emotions evolve?
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:43:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
Evolutionary psychology is treated somewhat tentatively even by other fields in psychology, its pretty well acknowledged that a lot of armchair speculation goes on in the field. Not to say good work isn't done, and certainly evolutionarily/biologically plausible explanations are aimed for, but its certainly a lot more difficult to directly test an hypothesis concerning the evolutionary origins of a trait. Pretty much every experimental paper on how emotional state effects cognition will include at least a paragraph on how it might have been beneficial in our evolution.

(and the term soft science is bs in my opinion, either something is scientific or not, the term 'soft' seems more of a value judgment on the field than its methods).
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:45:23 PM EST (GMT-5)
"So how did women's emotions evolve? "

In a world full of predators, it was wise to be neurotic. Self preservation.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:45:48 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 7:03:20 AM Brunnen_G wrote:
Pretty much this. Anger helped us fight off the sabre tooth tiger and that other pesky tribe who were trying to steal our food and women. Sadness helped us feel the loss of food or women more deeply and want avoid it in the future. .
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:40:51 PM Mispelled wrote:
So how did women's emotions evolve?


Leave it to our baboon to only focus on the primitive aspects of evolution.

Fact of the matter is, survival of the fittest is often times reproduction of the fittest and survival of the specie. With primates and social mammals, it much more often means cooperative effort than sheer brute force.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:47:57 PM EST (GMT-5)
Cockroaches are doing just fine without moments of despair, ennui, oe ecstasy.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:49:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:47:57 PM Mispelled wrote:
Cockroaches are doing just fine without moments of despair, ennui, oe ecstasy.


And you know this how? Do you speak with them?
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:51:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:47:57 PM Mispelled wrote:
Cockroaches are doing just fine without moments of despair, ennui, oe ecstasy.


Insects, yeah...

But I mean, the brain stem is a remnant of the reptilian brain and it still plays a role in some functions that could almost be called 'emotions', like being startled by a noise and flinching.
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 3:51:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:47:57 PM Mispelled wrote:
Cockroaches are doing just fine without moments of despair, ennui, oe ecstasy.

Because all creatures survive and evolve the same way...
10 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Friday 7/2/10 - 4:14:55 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 7/2/10 - 3:40:25 PM le_berger wrote:
There is still, especially since the 80s, incredibly interesting research being done regarding the cognitive processes of emotions and often times they do key in on how an individual relates to his environment. And I mean, I'll be darned if evolution ain't about how individuals relate to their environment. So, even if no grand unification theory comes up [it's not likely to] it still gives us tremendous clues as to how emotions play or may have played a part in our evolution.


Sure. Clues. Hints. Suggestions. All untestable.

Prev 1 2 Next (showing 1-25 of 30)



This thread is locked (No new posts can be added)

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit