Tag Archives: emotion

sixteenfolds

Sixteen Emotions

Leave a comment

Emotions are also often divided into sixteen different types instead of the eight we saw in The Circumplex Model of Affect. The Geneva Emotion Wheel (1.0) used the same Valence and Arousal axes and produced the following 16 emotions:

(Circular Order) Anger, Contempt, Disgust, Envy, Guilt, Shame, Fear, Sadness, Surprise, Interest, Hope, Relief, Satisfaction, Joy, Elation, Pride

(Alphabetized) Anger, Contempt, Disgust, Elation, Envy, Fear, Guilt, Hope, Interest, Joy, Pride, Relief, Sadness, Satisfaction, Shame, Surprise

(But an updated GEW Version 3.0 has 20 emotions in a circle on Valence and Control axes. See below for details.)

Another study used a Deep Neural Network on a training set of emotional facial expressions. They used the algorithm to track instances of 16 facial expressions one tends to associate with amusement, anger, awe, concentration, confusion, contempt, contentment, desire, disappointment, doubt, elation, interest, pain, sadness, surprise and triumph. (See below for details.)

Further Reading:

Deep Neural Network Study:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/16-facial-expressions-most-common-emotional-situations-worldwide

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3037-7.epdf?sharing_token=HSJMoSVfY5o49OnJekiTadRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MoNbV4Dp3UAuVQXWMsVp072AXdB1TV9xrCOEfkEnu1VW_w0-pFu7hQYyeyo5A49FOV_5mAwoGr4xwHjXYpnJlyerbBlvPyRSZhs_kxs3D8hFdx2EHBSkEWMLArimiJwI0%3D

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3037-7?WT.ec_id=NATURE-202012&sap-outbound-id=9B32ED76494952DF4CA6556F00159EE7E7331DCE

GEW (Geneva Emotion Wheel, Version 1.0)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280880848_Geneva_Emotion_Wheel_Rating_Study

GEW Version 3.0, with 20 emotions on a Valence and Control wheel with 2 options per emotion (in Circular Order):

Irritation, Anger
Contempt, Scorn
Disgust, Repulsion
Envy, Jealousy
Disappointment, Regret

Guilt, Remorse
Embarrassment, Shame
Worry, Fear
Sadness, Despair
Pity, Compassion

Longing, Nostalgia
Astonishment, Surprise
Feeling Disburdened, Relief
Wonderment, Feeling Awe
Tenderness, Feeling Love

Enjoyment, Pleasure
Happiness, Joy
Pride, Elation
Amusement, Laughter
Involvement, Interest

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.662610/full

There are also several Classroom Charts available for Teachers and Students, for example (both in Alphabetical order):

Angry, Bored, Confused, Curious, Disappointed, Embarrassed, Excited, Grumpy, Happy, Nervous, Proud, Sad, Scared, Shy, Silly, Surprised

Angry, Afraid, Bored, Embarrassed, Excited, Guilty, Happy, Hopeful, Loved, Jealous, Proud, Sad, Shy, Sorry, Surprised, Tired

Images for Sixteen Emotions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=16+emotions&client=firefox-b-1-d&hl=en&tbm=isch

<>

eightfolds, fourfolds

The Circumplex Model of Affect

1 Comment

James Russell developed a circumplex model of emotion, not to be confused with the interpersonal circumplex. (There are a variety of circumplex models for various subjects, since they are merely circular and continuously scaled in nature.)

This model is also called Emotional Valence and Arousal, where Valence ranges from Negative to Positive (or Unpleasant to Pleasant) and Arousal ranges from Low to High (or Mild to Intense). We get the fourfold partitions of

  • Mildly Unpleasant
  • Mildly Pleasant
  • Intensely Unpleasant
  • Intensely Pleasant

or

  • Low & Negative
  • Low & Positive
  • High & Negative
  • High & Positive

There are several way to discretize this circumplex into eight parts, but here is one from Russell (1980).

  • Aroused
  • Excited
  • Pleased
  • Contented
  • Sleepy
  • Depressed
  • Miserable
  • Distressed

Compare with the concept of Flow, where the variables are challenge and skill, instead of arousal and valence.

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_classification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumplex_model_of_group_tasks

https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus5&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=circumplex

James Russell / A Circumplex Model of Affect, J. of Personality and Social Psychology 1980, Vol. 39, No. 6, 1161-1178

James A. Russell, Maria Lewicka, Toomas Niit / A Cross-Cultural Study of a Circumplex Model of Affect, J. of Personality and Social Psych. 1989, Vol. 57 No. 5, 848-856

Jonathan Posner, James A. Russell, Bradley S. Peterson / The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology
Dev. Psychopathol. 2005, 17(3), 715-734

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2367156/

<>

fourfolds, Philosophy

The Passions of the Stoics

4 Comments

I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

— From “The Waste Land”, by T. S. Eliot

The Stoics divided the passions into four parts, consisting of a two by two matrix of “good” or “bad” emotions versus whether they occur during the present or while thinking about the future.

  • Delight (or Pleasure): present and good
  • Distress: present and bad
  • Desire (or Appetite) : future and good
  • Dread (or Fear): future and bad

To Stoics all these passions were actually harmful, in the sense that they are irrational and instead should be thoughtfully managed. Instead one should have Three Good Feelings and but not Three Not-as-Good Feelings:

  • Joy (chara) instead of Pleasure
  • Wish (or Hope) (boulesis) instead of Appetite
  • Care (eulabeia) instead of Fear

What about Distress and its Stoic version (which might even be Calm or Ease)? And what of emotions for past memories? They might be  Relief (past and “bad”) and  Regret (past and “good”).

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_passions

http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/stoipass.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Passions

https://immoderatestoic.com/blog/2013/4/2/stoic-emotionsall-three-of-them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passions_(philosophy)

Stoic Ethics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion:_An_Essay_on_Personality

[*12.174]

<>

 

eightfolds, Psychology

Who Do You Love?

Leave a comment

Who do you love?
Who do you love?
Who do you love?
Who do you love?

— From Who Do You Love by Bo Diddley

The constituents of this list had pretty much congealed in my mind when I ran across information on the eight kinds of love. I thought that in this difficult time it might be useful to consider what is most important by examining all the people and all the things one can love as well as their myriad ramifications. Indeed, love may be the most considered and talked about emotion. Might one even say it is at the root of all of human action?

I know that in order to substantiate my claims I should justify these particular selections by comparing and contrasting them with each other, or to show their association to the eight kinds of love, and to do both would be a worthwhile effort. If I just show my diagram and my little list no one will think much of it. I could say I would return later but we all know how I tend to be distracted by the next bright shiny thing.

At the very least I could do some research, or do some hard thinking about why I’ve chosen these particular eight. I’m not sure if such diligence will reap any benefits but all one can do is try their best. So therefore I invite you to continue reading and perhaps you will be enlightened or perhaps you will be disappointed by what I say in the following analysis, if it even manages to appear at all.

I see that there are some modern analyses of love like Robert Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love, based on concepts of passion, intimacy, and commitment. This theory seems to be devoted to interpersonal relationships but maybe so is the Greek Eight types. But I’m thinking of love in a broader sense than just interpersonal, although maybe that doesn’t agree with certain definitions of love.

Love doesn’t have to reciprocated, of course, or directed towards another loving entity. For example, Agape is love of humanity in general, but humanity in general cannot return one’s love. One can also love negative things, like hate, or strife, or friction, and some even make a career out of it. But I’m going to leave that out for now. Alas, my interest has waned on this post and so I will have to try again at a later time.

  • Love of Self
  • Love of Leader
  • Love of Group
  • Love of Other
  • Love of Nature
  • Love of Ideas
  • Love of Gods
  • Love of Things

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Do_You_Love%3F_(Bo_Diddley_song)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_theory_of_love

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Love

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophy_of_love

[*11.76]

<>

 

 

fourfolds, Psychology

A Study in Synthesis

1 Comment

An early work (1934) in the study of fourfolds is James H. Cousins’ “A Study in Synthesis”, which is available for downloading at the link below.

Cousins’ key fourfold is

  • Intuition
  • Cognition
  • Emotion
  • Action

which is similar to Jung’s psychological types except Action replaces Sensation.

Each fourth also has two movements (passive and active), and two sub-movements (subjective and objective) (see Fig. 20):

  • Intuition:
    • Illumination
      • Cosmic
      • Individual
    • Inspiration
      • Creative Intention
      • Creative Imagination
  • Cognition:
    • Contemplation (Philosophy)
      • Metaphysical
      • Pragmatical
    • Observation (Science)
      • Pure
      • Applied
  • Emotion:
    • Aspiration (Religion)
      • Mystical
      • Cermonial
    • Creation (Art)
      • Idealistic
      • Realistic
  • Action:
    • Organization
      • Ideas
      • Materials
    • Execution
      • Subjective
      • Objective

Cousins was an influence to Patrick Geddes, renowned as a town planner, who had several fourfolds of his own.

Further Reading:

James H. Cousins / A Study in Synthesis

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.501469

James Cousins (22 Jul 1873 – 20 Feb 1956): An Effort of Synthesis

http://hodgers.com/mike/patrickgeddes/feature.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cousins

[*9.12]

<>

 

eightfolds, fourfolds, Psychology

Robert Plutchik’s Emotions

1 Comment

Robert Plutchik devised a schema for eight basic emotions, divided into four pairs of opposites. Each of these also has a weaker and a stronger version (but not shown here).

  • Trust vs. Disgust
  • Joy vs. Sadness
  • Fear vs. Anger
  • Surprise vs. Anticipation

In addition, emotions called dyads can be built by non-opposed combinations of the basic emotions, and each of these twelve dyads has a reverse or opposite emotion, making 24 total. Between any two opposite pairs, two dyads may be considered covariant, and the other two may be considered contravariant. So for the two pairs of opposites A + A’ and B + B’, we have covariant A*B and A’*B’, which are opposite, say C and C’, and contravariant A*B’ and A’*B, which are also opposite, say D and D’. These four dyads are labeled in the diagram as C:C’::D:D’, which I hope is not too confusing.

  • [L:R] Love (Joy * Trust) : Remorse (Sadness * Disgust)
  • [S:M] Sentimentality (Trust * Sadness) : Morbidness (Joy * Disgust)
  • [G:E] Guilt (Joy * Fear) : Envy (Sadness * Anger)
  • [D:Pr] Despair (Fear * Sadness) : Pride (Joy * Anger)
  • [C:C] Curiosity (Trust * Surprise) : Cynicism (Disgust * Anticipation)
  • [U:H] Unbelief (Surprise * Disgust) : Hope (Trust * Anticipation)
  • [A:A] Awe (Fear * Surprise) : Aggression (Anger * Anticipation)
  • [O:A] Outrage (Surprise * Anger) : Anxiety (Fear * Anticipation)
  • [D:P] Delight (Joy * Surprise) : Pessimism (Sadness * Anticipation)
  • [D:O] Disappointment (Surprise * Sadness) : Optimism (Joy * Anticipation)
  • [S:C] Submission (Trust * Fear) : Contempt (Disgust * Anger)
  • [S:D] Shame (Fear * Disgust) : Dominance (Trust * Anger)

Further Reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plutchik

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrasting_and_categorization_of_emotions#Plutchik.27s_wheel_of_emotions

http://www.personalityresearch.org/basicemotions.html

http://www.personalityresearch.org/basicemotions/plutchik.html

Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions

[*9.224, *9.225, *9.230, *9.231]

<>

 

fourfolds

The Six Thinking Hats of Edward de Bono

2 Comments

sq_six_hats

I know what you’re thinking (and not necessarily because I’m wearing a colored hat): this is about six things and not four. But wait, notice how the six thinking styles form three pairs of opposites:

Creative (Green) pairs with Process (Blue)

Positive (Yellow) pairs with Negative (Black)

Facts (White) pairs with Emotion (Read)

Then the three pairs of opposites can be arranged into a tetrahedron, where the opposite edges are the three pairs. A tetrahedron has four vertices and four faces, where each vertex is the opposite of its opposite face.

The vertices are Creative + Positive + Emotion, Creative + Negative + Facts, Process + Positive + Facts, and Process + Negative + Emotion. The faces are Creative + Positive + Facts, Creative + Negative + Emotion, Process + Positive + Emotion, and Process + Negative + Facts.

The first link below lists the same opposites for the Six Hats as I found. And there are also a huge number of links out there devoted to the Six Thinking Hats, so I can’t list or summarize them all, or even a small portion.

Further Reading:

http://www.draftymanor.com/bart/sixhats.htm

http://www.debonogroup.com/six_thinking_hats.php

Edward de Bono / Six Thinking Hats

… and many more.

[*9.216]

<+>

 

fourfolds, Philosophy, Psychology

Carl Jung’s Psychological Types

7 Comments

Carl Jung’s Psychological Types can be thought of as different mental states: Intuition, Sensation, Cognition, or Emotion, or as different events in the mind: Intuiting, Sensing, Thinking, and Feeling. I’m not sure why intuition and sensation is often paired with thinking and feeling, as it seems to mix tenses.

In Jung’s theory, intuition and sensation are considered perceiving or irrational functions, and thinking (cognition) and feeling (emotion) are considered judging or rational functions. In opposition to great quantities of scholarship, I believe that intuition is more rational than feeling, as well as intuition being a subjective choice as opposed to feeling being ordered choosing, or choice integrated over time. Similarly, thinking is sensing integrated. Thus perception is the substance of the form of judgment, and rationality and irrationality both bridge perception and judgment.

These distinctions are also the basis for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a psychological test and classification based on four dichotomies: extraversion-introversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judgment-perception, each choice of which determines a person’s attitude, perception, judgment, and lifestyle. There are thus sixteen different personalities measured by this assessment.

This is sixteenfold less than the 256 different philosophical personalities represented by the Archic Matrix. It would be interesting if someone would create a Myers-Briggs type test for philosophers that would serve the same function for the Archic Matrix. Initial question: can the 16 personalities encoded by the MBTI, the 256 philosophical personalities encoded by the Archic Matrix, and the 64 Hexagrams of the I Ching be linked?

Further Reading:

http://thezodiac.com/soul/elements/cornerstones.htm

http://malankazlev.com/kheper/topics/Jung/typology.html

http://www.personalitypage.com/four-prefs.html

http://www.mindstructures.com/2010/08/intuition-sensing-thinking-and-feeling/

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Types

[*5.189, *7.2]

<>