For my return to the network, a light post light.
Emotions have always been one of the topics of psychology, even the non-dynamic mold: what are they? as the evidence? Why?
About the third question we almost all agree: the emotions carry an evolutionary advantage because there are short, something that helps the survival of 'the individual and the species, and this nature has "chosen". This vision comes from the old uncle Darwin, God 's rest his soul now and forever, the fear makes us more inclined to defend ourselves from danger (each species with its unique mode), the disgust we feel that something is not good to eat or drink, the 'affection when we are "puppies" allows us to stay close to our parents who take care of our needs for protection and care and so on and on.
also on what is the definition can be shared, more or less by all those involved in the study of behavior and, in the case of men, of the psyche are changes in the nervous tone, accompanied by a series of vegetative and hormonal changes, the same, as we said before, are useful to deal with the events that cause the same emotions. In the case of men, of course, there is also the feeling, that is the psychological counterpart aware that trying to star on emotion.
It is exactly "how" generates this feeling that the trouble starts.
The first two theories (in chronological order) are in my opinion the most attractive, followed by a third, which is, in my opinion, the most convincing.
The first argues, in other words, do not tremble, we are stiff and have the skin of 'goose because we are afraid, but we are afraid because we are rigid, tremble and abbiamola' s skin goose, or the brain would read the state of activation autonomy of our organsimo and detected certain signs, tell us that we are afraid.
The problem with this theory is that a lot of different emotions to lead more or less the same forms of activity (one might say "shivers of pleasure", or have fast heartbeat because he saw the girl he likes, and not because they are afraid).
The second theory known as "central theory", saying instead that emotions are triggered when certain nerve centers (eg in 'hypothalamus) are encouraged to duty, we have seen Effective as if the cat is stimulated electrically to a certain area of \u200b\u200bthe' hypothalamus, these are all typical behaviors of a predatory response, towards an animal that does not exist.
The problem with this theory is that, for example, the anger of the cats in question is a "cold anger" or as soon as stimulation ceases, leaving no trail of activation, which instead would face a reaction to predation real prey, not only has been demonstrated several times that of the peripheral signals can actually change your emotions and in general the tone of 'mood: the old story that attitude, the side with a smile after a while you will feel happier is not entirely unfounded, as if the brain is "read" Members of muscle contractions and facial expressions to tell " Well ... if I'm smiling, there will be some fucking reason. "
As always (and it also says Casini) the truth lies somewhere in between, and this means that the theory could be considered 'of the cognitive label ": the quality of' emotion that we feel would be due to a cognitive re-reading that we give our autonomic activation status in relation to what 's caused (mind you that in this theory, however, the activation is above all' emotion): tremble, why? Before me is a snake c = fear, or my girlfriend kisses my neck (which I can do, is a fixed ...)= pleasure.
seems clear to me is not it? Perhaps a classic experiment can make the best 'idea: Two groups of subjects are injected of' adrenaline, one of the three groups are aware of the fact that is being administered adrenaline, and that some of the effects of this injection will be tremors, muscle rigidity , fast heart beat, etc.., all other group is told that this drug is a tonic and good night to the bucket. Then both groups are subjected to the tests completely useless, but in one case are praised for their work in 'the other investigator assumes a moderately oppositional attitude. Guess what happens? The group of "informed", then, does not indicate a change in the tone of 'mood, nor in the case of praise, nor in the case of frustration, while the "uninformed" show, and then show, in the case of strong euphoric feelings praise and anger and aggression in the case of the investigator "fafocchio. What happened?
E 'success has been rightly informed that the subjects attributed their changes to visceral' adrenaline, while disonformati attributed to praise them (or the fussiness of the investigator) drawing the consequence that they were happy and in one case in 'more angry . Why have I done
Tomelloso all this?
Because I've come up with a possibility that I find simply appalling, and if it were always like this? If we do always come before what we think, want, feel?
If it was not the fact that I'm falling in love made me do a lot of niceties, but they were the niceties that I myself made me fall in love?
If it was not the passion that drove me to study like crazy, but that was the studio like crazy to make that I feel passionate about a given subject?
If everything that we experience, feel and live was simply the result of conduct in place that we never know why?
Allegri, I'm back! :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment