After 20 years of research, you'd think this researcher might be a little more decisive about the emotions of animals. In my experience with dogs, they've exhibited emotions that correlate directly to the SAME emotions that humans feel. They also love to play, and while in puppyhood makes them as playful as children, and if they could laugh, they certainly would- out of happiness.
Oh, OK. But if you want to understand human emotions, why not just study humans? What is the purpose of the experiment? To study human emotions in relation to animal emotions?
The researcher's whole perspective is skewed because he believes there's a great divide between the human animal and the four-legged animal. Human survival mechanisms include "sniffing" the motives of human strangers before relaxing suspicion, and readying oneself to pounce on a threatening-looking human when paths cross.
It's all too silly, I've met pigeons that were more intelligent than some folks these days. We like to think we are above non-humans because we have an ego, but in reality, we are the only species capable of lying to ourselves.
You won't find anything _not_ human that deludes itself with the illusions of grandeur that humans hold so sacrosanct.
Like Telekinetic, I find it strange that the author doesn't seem to tie his observations and descriptions in with those of some others that already seem to be providing a coherent understanding of what makes us tick. For example one major description of emotions per se is that they embody and manifest distinctive archetypal modes of quick response to major changes in our environment. In particular this means changes or the threat of changes to our fundamental life goals, and/or the people or things we need to achieve these goals.
Emotions as such are the instinctive patterns of orientation and response which happen way before we can think: anger- the self assertive inclination to fight back and refuse to submit; fear- the self preservative inclination to withdraw and avoid damage or death; joy- the self affirming recognition of good things happening; grief- expressing recognition of loss and its pain; surprise- expressing alertness to sudden change which is not obviously harmful.
@ A Paradox: You should also mention the twinge of jealousy when someone's articulated a point in a far more cogent manner than one's own meager attempt. Nice.
the twinge of jealousy when someone's articulated a point in a far more cogent manner
well bro, somebody did just that! But it was at least 10 years ago in an article in New Scientist magazine. And I have a sneaking suspicion this Le Doux character may have been one of the authors. Although maybe one or more of them was from Oxford ... memory fails me.
But yes! The idea is really coherent isn't it! And they went on to assert that while emotion as such is everything entailed in galvanising a body into fast reaction to deal with one of these archetypal threats or changes, _mood_ on the other hand is a lesser and protracted manifestation of the initial emotion. The reasoning given was that when such a major change has occurred, or been fended off as the case may be, it is important for the creature in question to accept and adapt to the new status quo. This ensures that the creature/person doesn't revert to the previous orientation which could restart the crisis.
Telekinetic
Feb 22, 2012