Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nec209

new science proving there is no such thing as emotion

Recommended Posts

new science proving there is no such thing as emotion. She goes on to say there is no such thing as emotion.

She also say when we see emotion this is not emotion but a learnt behavior.

Does this mean there is no such thing as emotional disorders than?

 

You aren't at the mercy of your emotions -- your brain creates them | Lisa Feldman Barrett

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not listened to the talk (and it would help to post the name of the presenter; Lisa Feldman Barrett), but what you posit is not mutually exclusive. It would only mean that emotional responses are not universal, but dependent on learned contexts. What Barrett proposes differently to other theories is that emotions do not arise from dedicated pathways but constructs emotions on the fly. In other words, it is an interpretation of the brain of your current state. At least I think that was roughly the gist of the theory. It essentially shifts the mechanism from something basic to a higher function. The main challenge here, is (as almost always) that this higher functions still need a mechanism which such a higher level theory does not provide (or at least from my limited understanding).

The power, however is that it provides some explanation why some behavioural therapies work in emotional disorders. I.e. if folks understand their bodily feeling associated to, say, anxiety, it allows them to deconstruct the elements and try to disassociate themselves from going deeper into that emotion. I suspect within this theory, medication help not because they target anxiety, but because they change the bodily feeling and lifts one out of the context of it. 

What other research have shown, however, is that certain disorders might actually have biomarkers that distinguishes affected individuals, which could point to some underlying mechanisms (though as usual in this type of research, variability is very high and it is uncertain how reliable those markers are). As a whole, I think the interpretation that emotion is not real is not an accurate representation of the theory. It is more accurate to say that the proponents suspect a higher function activity connected to emotion.

Also I will note that most science is not in the business of proving things, outside of mathematics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.