Affective Science, Learning and SItuations

[MonDie]

I purchased Paul Ekaman's Emotions Revealed, Revised Edition to understand others, but it also helped me to understand myself.  Moreover, this forum lacks the psychology experts who would otherwise provide far more information than I could.  Enjoy (criticizing) my theorizing that followed my reading this book.  Where else would I put it?

The Book I Read

The book began with Ekman's decades-old research that searched for universal emotions, or rather the universal facial expressions of emotions.  His 60's research on the isolated Guineans confirmed the universality of happiness (the smile), sadness, anger and disgust, but not surprise.  However, Ekman gradually adds other possibilities to the list, suggesting that they may be expressed vocally, or not at all.  Each emotions produces changes like involuntary contractions of facial muscles, increased blood flow to the legs or arms, muscle weakness, and/or the cognitive changes which are a recurring theme of his book.

Identifying Situations through Various Modes of Perception

Although Ekman relates emotion signalling to the senses, distinguishing vocal signals from facial signals (pg 60), he never relates triggers to the senses.  I wondered about the size of this over sight.  Emotions are responses to situations, but one has to identify that situation.  I hypothesized that emotional activation requires the activation of multiple perceptual triggers that through learning are linked to the situational trigger.  Moreover, like the "trigger" corresponds to emotions, might each mode of perception have a corresponding system for its processing?  Although the blind rely on Braille, their aptitude for seeing by feeling does not surpass the sighted's.  Paul Ekman distinguishes automatic appraisal from reflective appraisal (pg 31), which happens only after thoughtful reflection upon the occurrence.  Perhaps perceived information activates ideas, and these ideas can become associated with the emotions that would otherwise be activated by perceived triggers.

The Role of Priming

Ekman discusses the cognitive biases that emotions cause, and any psychology student would think that these emotional states might be primed states, i.e. that the angry person, for example, is primed toward observations and recollections of hostility that perpetuate his anger.  Moreover, perception can be affected by priming, and we all know that a fearful person can perceive fearful stimuli—stalkers, monsters, etc.—that are actually absent.   Ekman, who recommends taking a time out, sees that these biases can be problematic.  However, in the context of identifying situations, this bias might focus the emotional person's attention, making him primed for observations consistent with his emotional state so he might gather more information about the unfolding situation.

Moreover, priming and spreading activation could be thought to connect with learning and emotional development.  A simple description of how this might occur is easy.  Some perceivable phenomenon frequently presents alongside the relevant situation.  The perception, frequently activated alongside the emotion, develops a mutual association with the emotional network.  Each one activates the other, and the perception becomes a new, learned trigger.  Thereafter, the new trigger will prime the other triggers, and this will encourage a continual re-establishing of the new trigger's link to the network.  Moreover, despite its intensity no single perception will be a sufficient indicator of the situational trigger, so the mutual activation does not become a positive feedback loop of ever increasingly intense experiences.  However, the possibility of a positive feedback loop is interesting psychiatrically.

Priming Continued:  Sequence of Activation

For example, a panic episode can be worsened by the embarrassment of having a panic attack in public.  It seems an awful problem, the panic of fear combined with the fear of panicking.  Ekman suggests that embarrassment might be a universal emotion.  Fear and anger send blood to the legs and arms, respectively,  and embarrassment sends blood to the face.  This is a blush.  However, the muscular expressions for embarrassment, not unique in their own right, might present in a unique sequence (pg 235).  Moreover,—I struggled to find the page again—the duration varies from emotion to emotion.  Ekman notes that fear can be brief and that suprise, which often precedes fear, is usually very brief.  Relief (pg 193) is unique in that it often follows fear.  Therefore, a common progression would be to proceed from surprise to fear to relief.  However, the laughter of relief does not become associated with the fear response.  In my experience it is the opposite: laughter, related or unrelated, causes a cessation of fear.  Perhaps the new emotion merely diverts my attentional resources from the fearful to the delightful, ending the vicious cycle of self-perpetuating fear priming.  However, intravenous needles, which activate fear's theme of imminent pain, cause me to rapidly alternative between fear and laughter.

Lastly I will concede that the allocation of attentional resources that occurs with changes in blood flow might be a superior explanation at times.  Perhaps the difference between altered blood flow and priming will be related to Ekman's distinction of evolved triggers from learned triggers.

Realistic Scenarios and Recollections

In the second chapter, Ekman says that emotions can proceed from the imagining, remembering, or talking about a scene (pg 33-34).  Although he does not discuss the difference between memory and imagination, I would find it interesting.  I know that my emotions would be stronger if the imagined scenario seemed realistic or likely, and, likewise, the imitative facial expressions that accompany my imaginings of social affairs are not quite like the real emotions that occur in response to my perceived surroundings.  This distinction could be relevant to patients with psychotic delusions.

I appreciate all criticism, especially if you are better than me.  Thank you.  Thank you so much.