The Emotonomicon


william.scherk

Emotion  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Which are Basic Emotions?



Recommended Posts

Plotchik claims 8 (not 6) Primary Emotions

Acceptance: "The act of accepting; a receiving of something offered, with approbation, satisfaction, or acquiescence; especially, favorable reception; approval" -- This is not really an emotion. It's an evaluation. Nor is it the same thing as "trust", which is not really an emotion either.

So Plotchik is batting 7/8. In fact, I'm not so sure "surprise" is one either....the emotion comes an instant later when you decide if it's positive surprise or negative. It's commonly called an emotion: "an emotion excited by something happening suddenly and unexpectedly; astonishment; amazement." But I'm dubious about that.

Certainly both acceptance/trust and surprise are basic in the sense that each is a very broad 'grouping' and has a lot of shadings and spin offs. But that doesn't make them emotions - it's true of cognitive states as well. (Aside: emotions and cognitions are two kinds of mental states or results but they are not the only mental states.)

(So, if I'm correct on both..then Plotchik is 6/8 and "The Great Phil" is 6/6.....Coates wins! Coates wins! Coates wins!....I have no idea who the initials JS and PS stand for, but PS has a tie**.)

**tiebreaker between PS and PC: which is the objectively best flavor of ice cream?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I guess there were no takers on the origination of ...I Am Curious, (Yellow).

Here are some last hints. It was a movie. It was foreign. And...it was really bizarre!

Adam

some of us do not think about Swedish sex movies at 11 in the morning, you animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> And surely laughing at something funny must be basic to human nature. Where would this feeling fit in the chart? [Daunce]

Amusement is not an emotion or a cognition (purely). But it is a mental state or result or condition or "apperception".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> some of us do not think about Swedish sex movies at 11 in the morning, you animal.

11:45 tops. Before that it's French sex movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> And surely laughing at something funny must be basic to human nature. Where would this feeling fit in the chart? [Daunce]

Amusement is not an emotion or a cognition (purely). But it is a mental state or result or condition or "apperception".

???? Surely it is an immediate reaction to perceived reality. Maybe a combination of surprise and ...oh I think I see, surprise would come first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess there were no takers on the origination of ...I Am Curious, (Yellow).

Here are some last hints. It was a movie. It was foreign. And...it was really bizarre!

Adam

some of us do not think about Swedish sex movies at 11 in the morning, you animal.

Carol:

I am shocked that you would cast aspersions upon a brilliant, avant-garde film made during the cultural revolution of the '60's in Sweden!

I mean I only read one issue of Playboy and that was the one with the Rand interview!

Look at the artistry in the plot of the movie...

Director Vilgot Sjöman plans to make a social film starring his lover Lena Nyman, a young theater student who has little interest in social issues.

Lena's character, also named Lena, lives with her father in a small apartment in Stockholm and is driven by a burning passion for social justice and a need to understand the world, people and relationships. Her little room is filled with books, papers, and boxes full of clippings on topics such as "religion" and "men", and files on each of the 23 men with whom she has had sex. The walls are covered with pictures of concentration camps and a portrait of Francisco Franco, reminders of the crimes being perpetrated against humanity. She walks around Stockholm and interviews people about social classes in society, conscientious objection, gender equality, and the morality of vacationing in Franco's Spain. She and her friends also picket embassies and travel agencies. Lena's relationship with her father, who briefly went to Spain to fight Franco, is problematic, and she is distressed by the fact that he returned from Spain for unknown reasons after only a short period.

Through her father Lena meets the slick Bill (Börje in the original Swedish), who works at a menswear shop and voted for the Rightist Party. They begin a love affair, but Lena soon finds out from her father that Bill has another woman, Marie, and a young daughter. Lena is furious that Bill has not been open with her, and goes to the country on a bicycle holiday. Alone in a cabin in the woods, she attempts an ascetic lifestyle, meditating, studying non-violence and practicing yoga. Bill soon comes looking for her in his new car. She greets him with a shot gun, but they soon start to make love. Lena confronts Bill about Marie, and finds out about another of his lovers, Madeleine. They begin to fight and Bill leaves. Lena has strange dreams, in which she ties two teams of football players – she notes that they number 23 – to a tree, shoots Bill and cuts his penis off. She also dreams of being taunted by passing drivers as she cycles down a road, until finally Martin Luther King, Jr. drives up. She apologizes to him for not being strong enough to practice non-violence.

Lena returns home, destroys her room, and goes to the car showroom where Bill works to tell him she has scabies. They are treated at a clinic, and then go their separate ways. As the embedded story of Lena and Bill begins to resolve, the film crew and director Sjöman are featured more. The relationship between Lena the actress and Bill the actor has become intimate during the production of Vilgot's film, and Vilgot is jealous and clashes with Bill. The film concludes with Lena returning Vilgot's keys as he meets with another young female theater student.

In addition to the footage of King, the film also includes an interview with Minister of Transportation Olof Palme, who talks about the existence of class structure in Swedish society, and footage of Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Curious_%28Yellow%29

Look it even has Martin Luther King, Jr., Yoga, Soccer players and Francisco Franco!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am shocked that you would cast aspersions upon a brilliant, avant-garde film made during the cultural revolution of the '60's in Sweden!

Yeah, but did it have any catchy tunes on the soundtrack?

You're nothing till you've been covered by Muppets!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose eight and got eight without referring to anybody else's answers.

Four correct and four wrong.

I do think early takers were at a disadvantage and would have done better if informed of some previous resulters' aggregated results as I was for I asked myself why they hadn't done better?

We can go back and change our answers as many times as we want.

The table in the third illustration contains four correct answers -- Fear, Disgust, Sadness and Anger -- and your four correct answers overlap, don't they? Fear, Disgust, Sadness, Anticipation, Joy, Surprise. Brant, I think you could move into the lead.

If basic is a wrong word, maybe primary? To remember is that the first image had eight pie shapes, and the second had six faces.

So, the first were eight blanks waiting for labels, and the second were six faces showing distinct expressions. We most of us apparently see in these faces the expression of emotion. Inside ourselves, of course, we can feel these things. We feel something in our bodies when we rage, when we exult (someone has turned on the Hot Anger and Sheer Joy knobs high), when we grieve, when we are repulsed and sickened. The six or eight more common of these mutually-recognizable feeling-states are what I think of as primary/basic.

Michael names Paul Ekman. The pics in the second image are the six stereotyped facial expressions Ekman showed to folks around the world in his research (which folks he asked to pose in turn). What he found was that these six stereotypes were recognized and intelligible and sorted out across the earth -- in most cases local languages distinguished between these six expressions and in a few cases these were considered primary in the local emotion-or-something-like-it naming scheme (but see the exceptions in a ragged article with okay-ish lists).

This is where the story of emotion can get exciting for some of us. If there are six globally recognized facial expressions that strongly correspond to six feeling states that form part of things we call emotions/feelings, well, does that tell us anything that we need to know before we bloviate?

I actually think all emotions are basic and reactive--that "basic emotion" is a redundancy.

Reactive, responsive, yes, I think so, at least so far. Fear is like that, Anger is like that, Disgust is like that, Sadness is like that. Maybe the other 'basics' are like that, reactive in some way too. What about all six Ekman faces ?

Is Joy reactive? Is Sadness reactive? Sure, I guess, and both 'felt' in some way, I further guess. An interesting distinction, reactive, feeling. Emotions jolt the body, though not all. I think some of the lesser painful emotions can each grow strong and even monstrous. Think of things that propel murder, like sexual jealousy, a sense of anticipated painful loss, separated loins, thieves ravishing a captive..

The envy one feels for things that one does not have can have knock-on reagent effects, certainly, can provoke, can be felt. Envy may not be a primary emotion, it may not show in every face, and it may not be felt as such in a great many cultures, but its mixture of emotion can be just as volatile as that stirred into jealousy. We see this in the cold calculation of benefit of toddlers, the monkey-like sharp appreciation of unfairness, of Mine, and Not Yours and Me, and What I Get and Its My Doll, and Get Yer Mitts Off My Man. If in doubt on this point, consult Daunce and me on "Snake Eyes: Anne Of Green Gables VS Pollyanna."

So, regarding redundancy, nope. Not if we are thinking about Primary, Pure, Basic, Distinguishable mental and physical entities as we do with the simplest colour palettes. If this is not after all a poor way to sort emotion into strong and singular states (as with colour), then maybe primary or basic emotion is also not redundant after all?

Which brings me to another Illustration, Brant.

I am going to rip this one right out of the big book called Wikipedia. This gives the whole background information that I consider 'basic' to an understanding of emotional category schemes (advanced students only may wish to consult the extremely boring and patchy wiki at Contrasting and categorization of emotions to get oriented in the field).

Before I enter the classroom or torture learning centre, I must tuck my curls under the mexican wrestling mask of The Schoolmarm, and I put my real personality down backstage. This is serious business, the examination and torture learning business a la Coates. I take advantage of his deep knowledge of and pioneering techniques in online torture learning, the endlessness and horror of its recurrent Lesson Plans, its mad divagations, pain loops and drills.

Here's the summary I could have quoted at any time earlier, but the mask is sweaty, and irritating, the Lesson Plan is confusing, and I fear I may not be able to Control the Classroom any longer. We have no union, so I don't know who to call.

"I might have quoted this before, if you c**ts had not attacked me with Nuclear weapons."

For Geeks Only?

Robert Plutchik's psychoevolutionary theory of emotion is one of the most influential classification approaches for general emotional responses. He considered there to be eight primary emotions - anger, fear, sadness, disgust, surprise, anticipation, trust, and joy. Plutchik proposed that these 'basic' emotions are biologically primitive and have evolved in order to increase the reproductive fitness of the animal. Plutchik argues for the primacy of these emotions by showing each to be the trigger of behaviour with high survival value, such as the way fear inspires the fight-or-flight response.

Plutchik's psychoevolutionary theory of basic emotions has ten postulates.

  • The concept of emotion is applicable to all evolutionary levels and applies to animals as well as to humans.
  • Emotions have an evolutionary history and have evolved various forms of expression in different species.
  • Emotions served an adaptive role in helping organisms deal with key survival issues posed by the environment.
  • Despite different forms of expression of emotions in different species, there are certain common elements, or prototype patterns, that can be identified.
  • There is a small number of basic, primary, or prototype emotions.
  • All other emotions are mixed or derivative states; that is, they occur as combinations, mixtures, or compounds of the primary emotions.
  • Primary emotions are hypothethical constructs or idealized states whose properties and characteristics can only be inferred from various kinds of evidence.
  • Primary emotions can be conceptualized in terms of pairs of polar opposites.
  • All emotions vary in their degree of similarity to one another.
  • Each emotion can exist in varying degrees of intensity or levels of arousal.

So, yes, now the wheel might make sense, here is another representation. Please remember, this colour wheel and colour mixing and intensity scale and blending plausibility ratios in your mind are only Heuristics. When the Coates Code says Correct here on page 1183, I must still apply a heuristic to take the final judgement step of selecting punishments for the heretics and Degenerates. So, the law being, if Phil Is Right, You Are Wrong, how is it to be applied? That is when we get out our reckoning tools, Brant. If primaries can be mixed and result in blended primaries, do the resultant 'hybrids' make sense or correspond in a systematic way by using the heuristic of primaries?

3D can help.

e0w0.jpeg

You can generate an emotion merely by thinking about something a certain way. Actors--some, not all--do this all the time. It's called "The Method." There's your "basic." Now if someone sneaks up behind you and kicks you in the ass and you experience rage and anger why are they any less "basic"? You can twist this around and posit the opposite, that these so-called "basic" emotions are jejune compared to the existentially triggered and that the latter are really the true, hard, basic, emotions.

Oh ho, this is brave talk for someone who has yet to use better labels and schemes to organize for analysis these things we both call emotions, no? These true and hard and basic things need to come out from the shadows and declare themselves.

I mean, yes, you are right in most of these details. You, or an actor can generate things called emotions (OR expressions and feeling states and feelings). The expression can convince those on the Outside of him (Hat tip to Bob) that the expression they are looking at is actually experienced in the actor's body. In that sense we are all actors. The Method (which has like all cult-ish things a wet, stained, and curling edge of kooks) is pure rational psychology applied to the profession. Revolutionary yes, in opposition to Classical Training. The Method was a means to get the actor to feel emotions to then learn how to control their expression.

In most ways, every actor, even Classically Trained in every culture incorporates The Method in his. If one is to portray a grieving mother handing her last half-lifeless child to the last chopper out, and if the camera zeroes in on the actor as the credits roll, that actor had either better have learned to fake great emotion or to have worked herself into a state of great feeling for the camera.

Think of those experiments which compared physiology of actors and non-actors as they were either a) provoked into, b) pretended to evince emotion states.

Most of the great Method actors we have heard about went into the ditch early, anyway, I thought I should point out. Great actors can convince us. Something fucked Marlon Brando up in Apocalypse Now. James Dean was not a happy camper. Marilyn. Yikes, some of them certainly convinced me they felt emotion.

But some of this is but mimicry and display. Actors can make most of us accept the reality of what they display to us.

You are right and right and right so far, Brant, but you need also to be right and right and right and mostly right still.

It's interesting that envy is not on the list. Envy seems to be jealousy, a pure emotion, plus an intellectualization. I'm not running to reference material on this and would be curious to know what others' might think using only introspection.

Oh, I will say it: What if envy is a blend of feelings? If it is not markedly distinct on the face or easily distinguished from jealousy or other discomfort (except by an Ekman, perhaps), then although it might certainly be guessed or predicted, and most certainly implied, and felt as if a fit, but survey-sez it just does not show a unique face to the world.

And that is why it does not have a title in The Cabinet of emotions. They all certainly consult and email and lunch and follow each other's Twitter feeds, and routinely form power alliances, duos and triumvirates. When Anger acts in concert with Fear to signal a State Of Emergency, it in turn triggers Anticipation to join the emergency session. A big storm could involve four departments at once managing events. Anger turned to Rage by Fear can induce Anticipation to increase to Vigilance and even more. These are the struggles of the various ad hoc Jealousy Committees, usually.

Brant, good rambles. You are ever the sleeper agent, aren't you. For the Good.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious yellow!
Well, I guess there were no takers on the origination of ...I Am Curious, (Yellow).

I waited. I knew you would eventually tell the class. You are one of the pets here at Education by Torture.

I waited too because I hoped you would tell about the other film that year or the next (I must have read about Yellow in my Dad's Playboys, along with oh my Ayn Rand, though I remember her first on Johnny Carson), I am Curious (Blue). Both were in the newspapers, as I recall. Canada moved smoothly into the modern age of morals after Ayn Rand, I recall, and generally before America. If she Ayn said no to initial invasion of Vietnam, well then, Canada kept out of all that slaughter, moved the state out of the bedroom and the church out of the state, starting with disestablishment in Quebec in 1960 and ending with a yawn in our first year of coast-to-coast gay marriage.

All I remember further is being precocious enough to know about Yellow and Blue at twelve. That danged comprachico school, those fiendish educationalists (I thought Dewey was Good! I fell under the thrall, and frankly loved, the Dewey Decimal system, by twelve), somehow not all of it took on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> This is serious business, the examination and torture learning business a la Coates. I take advantage of his deep knowledge of and pioneering techniques in online torture learning, the endlessness and horror of its recurrent Lesson Plans, its mad divagations, pain loops and drills.

There's a good boy.

> the law being, if Phil Is Right, You Are Wrong, how is it to be applied?

Bow down and submit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

b) None (meaning, in particular, if you use one of your fucking little left-caret or 'left-angle' bracket things (circa Usenet 1996 and email lists since the dawn of time, I CANNOT SEE YOU.

> This is serious business, the examination and torture learning business a la Coates. I take advantage of his deep knowledge of and pioneering techniques in online torture learning, the endlessness and horror of its recurrent Lesson Plans, its mad divagations, pain loops and drills.

There's a good boy.

> the law being, if Phil Is Right, You Are Wrong, how is it to be applied?

Bow down and submit.

3194312e8kobdz1qt.gif

2750944jai7ufkz1c.jpg

3098038xpmrmoanf2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

b) None (meaning, in particular, if you use one of your fucking little left-caret or 'left-angle' bracket things (circa Usenet 1996 and email lists since the dawn of time, I CANNOT SEE YOU.

> This is serious business, the examination and torture learning business a la Coates. I take advantage of his deep knowledge of and pioneering techniques in online torture learning, the endlessness and horror of its recurrent Lesson Plans, its mad divagations, pain loops and drills.

There's a good boy.

> the law being, if Phil Is Right, You Are Wrong, how is it to be applied?

Bow down and submit.

3194312e8kobdz1qt.gif

Heh. The law is the law, blind and neutral, it is in the Application we have fun. I enjoy the visual witticisms. To return to my point, and to thrill the Phil (Hi Phil! I can't see you anymore), here is an image inspired by Michael's excursion in to tone scales. Seems okay, UNTIL you look at the next one, which made me instinctively look for the exits and the safety plan. Just for you, Adam,

tonea.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Herbert's Litany Against Fear:

I must not fear.

Fear is the mind-killer.

Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I will face my fear.

I will permit it to pass over me and through me.

And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.

Only I will remain

------------------------------

and above all else: The Spice must flow.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

toneb.jpg Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tsicon.jpg Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

The top of the tone scale should give you pause, too. (Say, starting with "Action.") That's when you get to be a full-fledged alien. (Seriously.)

And don't get me started on thetans, the evil warlord Xenu and the volcanos in Sciencefictiontology. :)

The interesting part of the tone scale is in the middle. Either Hubbard ripped it off from somewhere, or it actually does reflect some tendencies he noticed in "clearing" people during the pre-Scientology phase of his career (when his schtick was only Dianetics).

I think the overall idea is far more valuable than the details here. And, like I said before, if you use the Overton Window system on it, you have a useful tool that works fairly well depending on what you want to do. One great way to tweak such a tool (and one I am looking into) is to try to find actual research on long-term mood sequences--not pathology, but for normal people.

There's another thing that Scientology does well--Hubbard's system of learning--and they use it as great bait. It's obvious stuff, but it gets wonderful results from ADD people. (One ex-Scientologist and now anti-Scientology crusader, Tory Christman, aka Tory Magoo, who instructed John Travolta, says that this was an important factor in getting Tom Cruise on board.) Basically there are 3 parts:

1. Getting conceptual referents for the terms you read and use (Hubbard calls it "mass"). In other words, if you read or hear the term "Model A" and only have a vague idea of what that might be (say, "some kind of really old car" or something like that), it is a term without much sensory experience in your mind. So it's easy to forget it and forget what you read about it. According to Hubbard's idea, once you focus on the term, you are supposed to find a picture of a Model A. Or watch a movie where one is used. Or try to go to a car museum and see one if at all possible. Best of all, try to get into one and mess around with it. Do these things as much as possible and then you will really know what "Model A" means. Later, when you read more about it, you have something solid in your mind to anchor the knowledge to.

2. Learn at your own speed and do not skip over essential steps or knowledge. Trying to force yourself to go faster than your own understanding merely confuses you.

3. Use the dictionary. Look up words you don't understand as you read. When you leave a word that is totally without meaning dangling in your mind, but continue reading, it reduces your understanding of what follows next even if you know all the following words. In Objectivist terms, you could say your mind goes into blank-out mode without even realizing it.

All three of these are a lot easier to do now that we have the Internet. Back when Hubbard came up with them, you actually had to go to the library. They are, maybe, painfully obvious to you and me (well, to be honest, I had not thought much about this stuff when I first found a PDF on it on the Internet), but to scatterbrained people, these steps constitute a not-so-obvious method--and an easy one--that gets instant results. Suddenly they can concentrate long enough to actually learn something and not forget it soon after. This impresses them and is one of the hooks to get them to take another step deeper into the rabbit hole where the cult lies.

Obvious or not, and coming from a cult or not, I believe these three are great learning habits to acquire. In my research on cults, I'm glad I found this little process.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I cannot quite figure out any of the numbered, ranked tone scales, let alone L Ron's -- I don't grasp the criteria, nor what the tones are said to be: what is this scale, or any scale like it, actually measuring?).

But I do love the furry little creatures in the lists above. Good marketing tool ... who cares if any of it corresponds to anything. More on the Scientology torture learning approach later.

But, since you were the first to mention Paul Ekman, and most likely have read the <A HREF="http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11566&view=findpost&p=151620">statements in #68 above from Plutchik</A> (someone told me Phil spelked it "Plotchik" several times), here's a bit more explanation of Plutchik in the next post.

In the next table, the notion that primaries blend is explored further. I have taken this quote entirely from a lesson at a little writing blog called <A HREF="http://dragonscanbebeaten.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/plutchiks-eight-primary-emotions-and-how-to-use-them-part-2-of-2/">Dragons Can Be Beaten</A>. As a further explanation of Plutchik, it is good. It might be mostly or wholly wrong, but it is a good systematic elaboration on what was posted in #68.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<table style="height: 1488px; width: 716px;" border="1" cellpadding="2"

cellspacing="0">

<caption><strong><big><big>The 48 Emotions of Plutchik</big></big><br>

<br>

</strong></caption><tbody>

<tr bgcolor="#000000">

<th style="width: 131px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Emotion</span></th>

<th style="width: 46px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">LVL</span></th>

<th style="width: 151px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Composition</span></th>

<th style="width: 91px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Opposite</span></th>

<th style="width: 107px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Intense

Form</span></th>

<th style="width: 111px;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mild

Form</span></th>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#ff0000">

<td style="width: 131px;">Anger</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Fear</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Rage</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Annoyance</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#ff9900">

<td style="width: 131px;">Anticipation</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Surprise</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Vigilance</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Interest</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#6633cc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Disgust</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Trust</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Loathing</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Boredom</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#006600">

<td style="width: 131px;">Fear</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Anger</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Terror</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Apprehension</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#ffff00">

<td style="width: 131px;">Joy</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Sadness</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Ecstasy</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Serenity</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#0066ff">

<td style="width: 131px;">Sadness</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Joy</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Grief</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Pensiveness</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#00ffff">

<td style="width: 131px;">Surprise</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Anticipation</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Amazement</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Distraction</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#66ff00">

<td style="width: 131px;">Trust</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Basic</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Disgust</td>

<td style="width: 107px;">Admiration</td>

<td style="width: 111px;">Acceptance</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Aggressiveness</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Anger + Anticipation</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Alarm<sup>1</sup></td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Optimism</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Anticipation + Joy</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Disappointment</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Contempt</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Disgust + Anger</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Submission</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Alarm<sup>1</sup></td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Fear + Surprise</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Aggressiveness</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Love</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Joy + Trust</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Remorse</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><img style="width: 91px; height: 49px;"

alt="Unexpressed Resentment" src="http://i.imm.io/ebik.jpeg"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Remorse</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Sadness + Disgust</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Love</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Disappointment</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Surprise + Sadness</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Optimism</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="font-weight: bold; width: 131px;"><big>Submission**

<br>

</big></td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Primary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Trust + Fear</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Contempt</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Pride</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Anger + Joy</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Despair</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Hope<sup>2</sup></td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Anticipation + Trust</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Unbelief<sup>3</sup></td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Cynicism</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Disgust + Anticipation</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Curiosity</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Despair</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Fear + Sadness</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Pride</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Guilt</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Joy + Fear</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Envy</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="font-weight: bold; width: 131px;"><big>Envy**</big></td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Sadness + Anger</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Guilt</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Unbelief<sup>3</sup></td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Surprise + Disgust</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Hope<sup>2</sup></td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Curiosity</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Secondary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Trust + Surprise</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Cynicism</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Dominance</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Anger + Trust</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Shame</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><img style="width: 95px; height: 55px;"

alt="Covert Hostily?" src="http://i.imm.io/ebi9.jpeg"></td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Anxiety</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Anticipation + Fear</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Outrage</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Morbidness</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Disgust + Joy</td>

<td

style="background-color: rgb(253, 253, 253); color: rgb(135, 4, 20); font-weight: bold; width: 91px;"><big>Sentimentality</big></td>

<td style="width: 107px; color: rgb(135, 4, 20);"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Shame</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Fear + Disgust</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Dominance</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Outrage</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Surprise + Anger</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Anxiety</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Sentimentality</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Trust + Sadness</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Morbidness</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><img style="width: 82px; height: 47px;"

alt="Some Emotion" src="http://i.imm.io/ebi3.jpeg"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Delight</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Joy + Surprise</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Pessimism</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td style="width: 131px;">Pessimism</td>

<td style="width: 46px;">Tertiary Blend</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Sadness + Anticipation</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">Delight</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#cccccc">

<td style="width: 131px;">Rest<sup>4</sup></td>

<td style="width: 46px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 151px;">Emotional Zero</td>

<td style="width: 91px;">N/A</td>

<td style="width: 107px;"><br>

</td>

<td style="width: 111px;"><br>

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>NOTES</p>

<p>The author of the blog posts gives notes and a Lesson Plan. I will post that next if I do not bleed to death from pulling my hair out on this post and the last. I am not an HTML expert, it seems.</p>

<div style="width:540px;border: thin red groove;padding:11px;font-family:serif;margin:5px;">

<p><em><sup>1</sup> – Plutchik gave “Awe” as the emotion for “Fear + Surprise”. I believe “Alarm” is a better choice since “Awe” has lost the connotation of fear over the years.<br /><sup>2</sup> – Plutchik used “Fatalism” for “Anticipation + Trust” but it has such negative connotations I have included the more objective term “Hope” instead.<br /><sup>3</sup> – Plutchik did not include an emotion for “Surprise + Disgust” by any list I could find. Therefore, I have included “Unbelief” to fill this space.<br /><sup>4</sup> – Plutchik did not include the state described as “Emotional Zero” in his list. However, I believe it is useful andhavetherefore included “Rest” to represent it.</em></p>

</div>

<!-- -->

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

The top of the tone scale should give you pause, too. (Say, starting with "Action.") That's when you get to be a full-fledged alien. (Seriously.)

And don't get me started on thetans, the evil warlord Xenu and the volcanos in Sciencefictiontology. :smile:

The interesting part of the tone scale is in the middle.

I agree -- if one is trying to grasp its messages. Here is the Scientology Tone Scale cleaned up of the furries, with the tone scores of the only two words that overlap with Ekman and Plutchik, Fear and Anger. I do not pretend to understand the Tone Scale in any way yet, so would be gratified to see your analysis.

Either Hubbard ripped it off from somewhere, or it actually does reflect some tendencies he noticed in "clearing" people during the pre-Scientology phase of his career (when his schtick was only Dianetics).

I still don't know what he was attempting to measure or to teach. If the tone scale suggests that Raw Meat (recruits) start somewhere near the bottom of the scale (as all results from Personality Tests render results that need Scientology badly), the the raw meat are being assessed, or being asked to self-assess. As a self-assessment tool it is entirely opaque.

And, of course, Michael, as you pointed out when you introduced Ekman's name, we need to know what the tools are designed to do. The Scientologists are the last to tell you the germination of any tool in their toolshed, so I will have to dig into the background of this and its history. As you know, L Ron's official histories are a bit Kim Jong Il.

I think the overall idea is far more valuable than the details here. And, like I said before, if you use the Overton Window system on it, you have a useful tool that works fairly well depending on what you want to do. One great way to tweak such a tool (and one I am looking into) is to try to find actual research on long-term mood sequences--not pathology, but for normal people.

I am not buying the overall idea of the tone scale, yet, since I do not get it, yet.

If you mean most people will not initially buy into a Tone Scale because its window (it Overton Window) of acceptability is so small, I agree. One cannot ignore what marks the top and the bottom, and what is in the middle does not make sense. I mean -- and this is but one example, why would Monotony be one tenth of a point further up the scale than Antagonism?

What is the thing being measured between those two very close items on the scale? The thing that is far far higher on the scale, some ten times more whatever than Antagonism or Monotony is Postulates. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Postulates.

eaYG.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one fun benefit from the kookiness of L Ron's tone scale. Free smilies/emoticons! I am going to introduce a new line in my posts, all from the kooky tone scale. Here are a couple. First is Sympathy(0.9), then Propitiation (0.8), then the big one, POSTULATES (30.0). I feel so good today, I bet I am very high on Postulates.

eb2R.jpegeb3n.jpegeb5b.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

I'll give you a more elaborate answer later, but a lot of it will be a repeat of the sense of life discussion.

Since that's the only place I recall discussing the tone scale recently and since you came out with it on this thread and mentioned me, I presumed you read that discussion.

Gimmee some time and I'll prepare something for you.

btw - Nothing, and that means NOTHING, in Scientology should be construed to have been created using the scientific method. I believe the numbers Hubbard assigned to the tone scale were to give the jargon a scientific-sounding feel. You should look at some videos on the Internet of recent defectors and see how they talk. ("You have to be careful with that guy. He's a "1.1.") I mentioned Tory Christman (Tory Magoo). Look her up on YouTube (see here) and you can see her interview some defectors.

She's a real sweetheart. I've never interacted with her. I've only seen a few of her videos and talks, but I feel like I've known her all my life. Probably because of same age group and she's an ex-hippie who turned out like I imagine a few I knew when I was young would be when they got older. From what I've seen so far, she's good people. Really good people.

She's also one of Scientology's worst nightmares.

btw - Are you a "1.1"?

:smile:

Michael

EDIT: For the record, Plutchik has been on my study list for a while. Since you are discussing him, I will probably move him up to near the top. I only want to comment about him after I have done more than a really fast skim. Also, if your thing is emotions in this thread, you might want to re-look up Steve Shmurak right here on OL (seel here--but you know that since you made the first comment on that thread). He bases his work on Silvan Tomkins, who has a very interesting theory and lots of documentation about affects in the young. (I added that last comment for the reader's benefit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Michael. I wonder if L Ron's insiders/escapees had anything to say about the Tone Scale in the exposés and biographies. It has been a while since I read them. I will go look that up too.

I do look forward to more Objectivish folks getting a grip on the fun and challenge of Emotion in their philosophy. Objectivism per se doesn't really make that much of an inquiry into emotion, beyond Rand's declarations. Post #68 is still a nice short jolt of the basics to orient you. I am NOT an expert in Plutchik's psychoevolutionary theory nor quite an adherent or fan, so it will be very interesting to see you chew on its good insights and its 'false friends.'

btw - Are you a "1.1"?

Let me check. Hmmm.

Like you, I avoid certain exams and polls (as I think you have never voted or showed your vote in formal bake-offs here), but I should let you know that I finally did one of those cheap Myers-Briggs things, and later I can harry Objective-ish people about that. For now, after my training, I will hoe close to the row, and if my obsessions and Lesson Plans are not interesting to others, at least they will be kept here in this thread (and on my OL blog).

OK. One point one on the old tone scale, under the B for Bogus, 1.1. That would be El Ron's Covert Hostility:

ebi9.jpeg

But of course, if Covert Hostility is 1.1, then howzabout Unexpressed Resentment at 1.15?

ebik.jpeg

And if those two are very very close, howzabout slightly below Cover Hostility on the crazy scale? That would be Anxiety at 1.02.

ebi3.jpeg

small-logo.png

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he is in part honouring one of the most infuential poems of the 20th century. I've just commented on it - adventitious much!

Gotcha.

423px-In_Flanders_fields_and_other_poems%2C_handwritten.png

ND. thanks for this. I don't think I've seen a holograph of IFF before.

I used to dabble in graphology (I know it isn't a real science) and some things come back to me l;ooking at this.

The handwriting shows self-discipline, high idealism, physical weakness and pessimism-- easy to see in hindsight, but it is there.

The words show the whole, greater than the sum of the parts.

Link to comment
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