Emotions

[Peter_J_Burke2]

[From Peter Burke (2002.10.29.930 PST)]

Bill Powers (2002.10.29.0622 MST)]

David Wolsk (2002, 10.28.23.00, PST) --

I'm very happy with the PCT explanation as just reiterated by Bill.

But,

I'm stubbornly holding on to my additional concept of "insufficient
information on which to act."

Exactly how does not having sufficient information on which to act lead

to

experiencing emotions? I'm not doubting you, but I have insufficient
information from which to understand what you mean. Doesn't bother me,

but

I'd sort of like to know.

Best,

Bill P.

Sufficient information is (to me) clearly a perception for which there
is a
standard or reference level. When the perception does not match the
reference level, there are some emotional consequences.

Peter

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.29.1330)]

Peter Burke (2002.10.29.930 PST)--

Sufficient information is (to me) clearly a perception for which there
is a standard or reference level. When the perception does not match
the reference level, there are some emotional consequences.

Yes. That's true for people (like you, and me) who are controlling for having
a certain level of information. When the information we get is persistently
less than the reference (or greater than the reference, for that matter) --
that is, when there is error -- there are emotional consequences. But this
is true when we fail to control _any_ perception, not just the perception of
information. For example, it is true of insufficient aesthetics, insufficient
love, insufficient kindness, insufficient sense of humor, insufficient heat,
insufficient gas in the tank, ... etc. That's the PCT model of emotion:
emotion is a consequence of an insufficientcy (or excess) of any controlled
perception. The perception of information has no special significance in the
PCT theory of emotion. And that seems right from my experience. I get just as
emotional when there is an insufficiency of information (which happens on
those rare occasions then they fail to deliver my paper in the morning) as
when there is an insufficiency of, say, aesthetics (which happens when I
haven't heard any Bach in several days).

Best regards

Rick

[Peter_J_Burke2]

[From Peter Burke (2002.10.29.1504)]

from Rick Marken (2002.10.29.1330)

Peter Burke (2002.10.29.930 PST)--

Sufficient information is (to me) clearly a perception for which there
is a standard or reference level. When the perception does not match
the reference level, there are some emotional consequences.

Yes. That's true for people (like you, and me) who are controlling for

having

a certain level of information. When the information we get is persistently
less than the reference (or greater than the reference, for that matter) --
that is, when there is error -- there are emotional consequences. But this
is true when we fail to control _any_ perception, not just the perception

of

information.

This is precisely my point. Perceptions of information are simply
perceptions and they are controlled in the same way that any perception is
controlled, and the consequences of failure at control (error) are the same.
So, emotional reactions to not having enough information is not something
that needs a new explanation. Just a small point.

Peter

[DAVID_WOLSK1]

from David Wolsk (2002.10.30.22.50PST)

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.29.0747)]

> Bill Powers (2002.10.29.0622 MST)
>
> David Wolsk (2002, 10.28.23.00, PST) --
>
> I'm very happy with the PCT explanation as just reiterated by Bill.

But,

> >I'm stubbornly holding on to my additional concept of "insufficient
> >information on which to act."
>
> Exactly how does not having sufficient information on which to act lead

to

> experiencing emotions?>
Good question. I'd like to know too.>
>
Rick

How would you analyse the following?: I'm sitting in a train at an
underground station, look out the window, see train on adjoining track
seemingly moving. It takes a while to figure out which one is really
moving. I do it very calmly with no emotion. Next day, driving car,
approaching intersection where will be turning, notice car beside me
seemingly moving slower than me and suddenly feel panic/fear as unsure of
own speed so apply brake. Reflecting on two experiences come to conclusion
that both were cases with initial insufficent info but in first case no
decision was called for, in 2nd, it was.

[Bill_Powers1]

[
From Bill Powers (2002.10.31.0529 MST)]

David Wolsk (2002.10.30.22.50PST)

>How would you analyse the following?: I'm sitting in a train at an

underground station, look out the window, see train on adjoining track
seemingly moving. It takes a while to figure out which one is really
moving. I do it very calmly with no emotion. Next day, driving car,
approaching intersection where will be turning, notice car beside me
seemingly moving slower than me and suddenly feel panic/fear as unsure of
own speed so apply brake. Reflecting on two experiences come to conclusion
that both were cases with initial insufficent info but in first case no
decision was called for, in 2nd, it was.

Good example, because the difference is that in the first case you were not
controlling the perception (you couldn't) but in the second case you were.
In the second case there was a conflict due to lack of information, as you
say, or perhaps due to conflicting ways of interpreting the information you
did have. If your car was moving too fast, you should apply the brake, but
if it was moving normally you should not apply the brake. BOTH perceptions
were present for a moment, so (of course I'm guessing here) you tried to
apply and not apply the brake at the same time. By the time you were able
to actually apply the brake the conflict was over -- even if you picked the
wrong choice, you at least had been able to act.

Also, having experienced the same thing, I could suppose that the peak of
the emotion came quickly after the instant that the normal scene SUDDENLY
contained a large and dangerous-seeming error (you wouldn't want to go
shooting out through the intersection). Your example suggests to me that
transient emotions can arise any time we suddenly experience an error that
was not there at all, or was much smaller, before. My wallet!! Oh, there it
is.Of course it has to be a pretty important error that calls for immediate
action to correct it.

The feeling of "panic/fear" is of interest. Could you describe how it felt
in more detail? For example, in what parts of your body was there a
feeling, if any? Did your heart pound afterward, or was there a sudden
catch in your breath? Was there a moment when you couldn't act at all?

Your idea about insufficient information is very pertinent here, because
you happen to have picked the same example Einstein used to illustrate
special relativity. In fact, if all you can see is your own train and the
other train, and not the background, there is no way to tell whether your
train, the other train, or both are in uniform motion. There is, however,
information that could tell you whether your train had suddenly started
moving: you would feel the change in acceleration (called "jerk") and see
the other passengers suddenly sway forward or backward relative to your
coach, while the passengers you see through the windows of the other train
would not move relative to that train.

Another example of this sort of thing is the Ames Room, the distorted room
that looks OK when seen with one eye. When a person walks through that
room, or one person stands near the viewpoint while another stands far from
it, at first the people seem to change size of be a vastly different sizes,
until your perceptual system finally is able to see the people as normal
and the room as distorted. If you have a desire for your world to behave
only as you expect, you could well experience error and emotional
sensations from seeing these illusions.

It occurs to me that the "lack of information" explanation for an emotion
can be taken in two ways. One way is to say that the root cause of many
emotions arises from a lack of information. This is a generalization that
might be true, but it doesn't explain any particular emotion. The other way
is to say that the lack of information produces the emotion directly, as it
were, because the person strongly desires information and perceives too
little of it, so it is _specifically_ the feeling of lacking information
that is the immediate cause of the emotion (assuming that the information
is not immediately obtained).

I would say your example of driving in traffic is of the first sort. That
is, your reaction was not "Oh my god, I lack information," but "Oh my god,
my car is going too fast." The reason you thought this was that in looking
at the car next to you, you did not actually have enough information to
tell whether that car was slowing down or yours was speeding up. Until you
got a glimpse of the background street and buildings, either perception was
momentarily as valid as the other, and you happened to pick the wrong one
to control. In fact, you did not know that you lacked information: you
thought the excess speed was real! It was the speed error, not the
information error, that actually produced the emotion.

The "lack of information" explanation of an emotion would probably be
directly appropriate if you were asked your name, and suddenly realized you
didn't know it. "Oh my god, I don't know my own name!" Unless you did not
feel that this called for any corrective action, you would probably
experience a large error and the feeling of preparing for action, but of
course there would be no action that would quickly restore your memory.
Conflict is not _necessary_ for producing an emotion; it's just a likely
cause of large error signals. The cause of emotion that I propose is simply
large (sudden or persistent) errors, however they arise.

Best,

Bill P.

[Stephen_O_Shaughnes1]

You're not in control of the train. No action needed.
You are in control of the car. There is a disconnect between your control and your perception.

I have felt emotion in such situations, however. My visual perception tells me my train is moving, but other senses indicate I'm not moving ( no vibrations, sense of acceleration, etc). This causes confusion.

Steve O

···

-----Original Message-----
From: David Wolsk [mailto:davidwolsk@SHAW.CA]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:59 AM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU
Subject: Re: Emotions

from David Wolsk (2002.10.30.22.50PST)

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.29.0747)]

> Bill Powers (2002.10.29.0622 MST)
>
> David Wolsk (2002, 10.28.23.00, PST) --
>
> I'm very happy with the PCT explanation as just reiterated by Bill.

But,

> >I'm stubbornly holding on to my additional concept of "insufficient
> >information on which to act."
>
> Exactly how does not having sufficient information on which to act lead

to

> experiencing emotions?>
Good question. I'd like to know too.>
>
Rick

How would you analyse the following?: I'm sitting in a train at an
underground station, look out the window, see train on adjoining track
seemingly moving. It takes a while to figure out which one is really
moving. I do it very calmly with no emotion. Next day, driving car,
approaching intersection where will be turning, notice car beside me
seemingly moving slower than me and suddenly feel panic/fear as unsure of
own speed so apply brake. Reflecting on two experiences come to conclusion
that both were cases with initial insufficent info but in first case no
decision was called for, in 2nd, it was.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.31.0930)]

Stephen O'Shaughnessy wrote:

You're not in control of the train. No action needed.
You are in control of the car. There is a disconnect between your control and your perception.

Bill Powers (2002.10.31.0529 MST)--

Good example, because the difference is that in the first case
you were not controlling the perception (you couldn't) but in the
second case you were.

Well done, both of you. It's nice to see this kind of agreement. You can add me to the list; this is exactly what I would have said, too.

I have, on several occasions, had the experience of being in a car next to a truck that was (in fact) drifting forward so I had the visual impression of drifting backwards. Since I was controlling for not crashing
into the car behind me I would act to control the perception of motion by pressing the brake harder. Since this had no effect on the visual perception of backward motion, error would build up. That's when my
emotion would start to peak. After a few seconds, however, it would become apparent that I was _not_ crashing into the car behind me and I would realize that I was experiencing an illusion. So the fear and panic
would dissipate pretty quickly; the perception (of being stationary) that I was trying (without success) to bring under control was actually under control.

I've experienced the same illusion of relative motion in a plane (when the plane next to mine was pulling out of the gate) and train and felt no emotion at all because (as you both point out) I was not controlling
the motion of the vehicle in those cases.

In neither case was my emotion (or lack thereof) a result of my wanting more information about my situation. Indeed, in the case of the apparent car movement I'm not sure I would have been convinced if someone
informed me that it was the truck and not me who was moving. When I'm driving, I want to keep perceptions under control; I don't want information about the epistemological status of those perceptions. In the case
of the perception of motion, I felt emotion in one case because I wanted to control the motion of my vehicle and I felt no emotion in the other because I didn't. It's all about control.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[David_Goldstein1]

[From David Goldstein (2002.10.31.2140 EST)]

The point of view explained by Bruce Abbott, with the feeling/emotion
of fear, has been developed by Robert Plutchik. He wrote a book called
the Psychoevolutionary Theory of Emotions. I recommend this book
to my CSG listmates.

He hypothesizes eight basic emotions that are related to each other in a way
that he describes as a circumplex (a circle). There are opposite emotions.
Fear versus anger.
Happy versus Sad. Disgust versus acceptance. Surprise versus anticipation.
Each of
the basic eight emotions are present during infancy and show up in different
facial
expressions.

Each of the basic emotions can be thought of as a control system that
controls certain
experiences. Plutchik doesn't really understand the way a control system
works, but he comes close.
The emotion of fear controls for the perception of danger/no danger.
Each of the other emotions can be described in terms of the experience
controlled. We can identify
the components of the control system for each emotion. The action component
of fear is "run from it."
The reference level may be "I want no danger." The input component changes
over the course of one's
life. For an infant, the perception of a stranger may be a danger. For a
child, the failure to learn in
school may be a danger. For an adult, the perception of physical decline may
suggest the nearness
of death.

Any emotional experience can be described in terms of some combination of
the eight basic
emotions.

Frequent emotional states can lead to interpersonal personality traits. A
person who is afraid often
will develop different traits than a person who is angry often.

Why the basic emotions are related to each other in the way Plutchik
describes is an interesting
question which he really doesn't answer.

Just thought Bruce and the other might like to know about Robert Plutchik.
His work is very rich
clinically. I have only scratched the surface.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Abbott <abbott@IPFW.EDU>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Emotions

[From Bruce Abbott (2002.10.31.1630 EST)]

I've been more-or-less keeping up with the discussion of emotions and

agree

with Bill P. that emotions are control phenomena. However, I do have a
very different "take" on the subject. In my view, emotions as we
experience them are products of dedicated systems in the brain that

evolved

to deal with relatively specific challenges commonly encountered by

members

of a given species. These systems provide general, ready-made ways to

deal

with these situations. Consider fear. One circumstance in which fear is
experienced is when the individual has a perception that the individual
interprets as threatening, which is especially likely when the individual
has some uncertainty concerning their ability to neutralize the threat.

To

use William James' example, I see a bear in my path. There's nothing
between it and me, and I know that this animal is capable of tearing me
apart if it has a mind to. As I am not carrying any sort of weapon that
might help me to keep the bear at bay, my personal safety and well-being
appears to be under serious threat.

These conditions bring what I am calling the fear system into play. The
fear system is an inherited brain system that evolved via natural
selection; organisms whose brains included a mechanism for dealing with
such common threats in an effective manner tended to survive such
encounters better than those that lacked such a mechanism. Over the

course

of evolution, what evolved was a mechanism that is basically a rather
complex control system. This system has a reference of "zero
threat." Thus, when threat is perceived, an error develops that changes
the reference levels in a variety of lower-level control systems.

Activity

in the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system increases heart
rate and blood pressure, constricts blood flow to the digestive organs,
suspends digestion, increases blood flow to the muscles, increases muscle
tensions, and breathing rate goes up. Similar changes occur as the
pituitary gland dumps hormones into the bloodstream, resulting in the
release of corticosterones and adrenalin from the adrenal
glands. Perceptual filters are retuned and the cortex is brought to a
state of high alertness.

All of these changes prepare the organism for high levels of physical
exertion that may be necessary to support vigorous fight or flight. Other
control systems receive new reference values that involve such goals as
rapidly increasing the distance between the individual and the bear,
leading to further reference changes lower in the hierarchy to bring about
such activities as turning away from the bear and running as fast as one
can manage.

If these changes prove effective, the threat-control (fear) system reduces
the perceived threat back to zero, running ceases, and the supporting
physiological systems are rebalanced for a more leisurely existence.

This account is oversimplified and needs a considerable amount of fleshing
in (guided by good data), but this description should be enough to convey
the general idea.

Now, imagine that you are about to give an important speech and are not
used to public speaking. You are not confident in your ability to do this
job well. As you begin to deliver the speech, you find yourself fumbling
for words, and suddenly become convinced that the audience is going to
evaluate your performance in a very negative way. Your self-esteem is
threatened. So what happens? That ancient threat-control system in your
brain perceives a non-zero threat and begins to order changes to counter
the threat. Your hands begin to shake, your voice trembles, you feel as
though you can't get enough air. All the changes needed to get your body
ready to counter a physical threat are happening, but they are the wrong
actions for dealing with the particular threat you are now facing, and in
fact make matters worse. The system didn't evolve to deal with "threats"
of this type, but once the higher centers of the brain perceive this
situation as threatening, the threat-control system is going to act just
as if this were a physical threat that would require strenuous physical
activity to counter.

Other emotion-systems, including those involving the "positive" emotions
(e.g., love) evolved to deal with other kinds of problems common in the
life of the individual and the species.

Well, that's my two cents on the matter.

Bruce A.

[Abbott_Bruce]

[From Bruce Abbott (2002.10.31.1630 EST)]

I've been more-or-less keeping up with the discussion of emotions and agree
with Bill P. that emotions are control phenomena. However, I do have a
very different "take" on the subject. In my view, emotions as we
experience them are products of dedicated systems in the brain that evolved
to deal with relatively specific challenges commonly encountered by members
of a given species. These systems provide general, ready-made ways to deal
with these situations. Consider fear. One circumstance in which fear is
experienced is when the individual has a perception that the individual
interprets as threatening, which is especially likely when the individual
has some uncertainty concerning their ability to neutralize the threat. To
use William James' example, I see a bear in my path. There's nothing
between it and me, and I know that this animal is capable of tearing me
apart if it has a mind to. As I am not carrying any sort of weapon that
might help me to keep the bear at bay, my personal safety and well-being
appears to be under serious threat.

These conditions bring what I am calling the fear system into play. The
fear system is an inherited brain system that evolved via natural
selection; organisms whose brains included a mechanism for dealing with
such common threats in an effective manner tended to survive such
encounters better than those that lacked such a mechanism. Over the course
of evolution, what evolved was a mechanism that is basically a rather
complex control system. This system has a reference of "zero
threat." Thus, when threat is perceived, an error develops that changes
the reference levels in a variety of lower-level control systems. Activity
in the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system increases heart
rate and blood pressure, constricts blood flow to the digestive organs,
suspends digestion, increases blood flow to the muscles, increases muscle
tensions, and breathing rate goes up. Similar changes occur as the
pituitary gland dumps hormones into the bloodstream, resulting in the
release of corticosterones and adrenalin from the adrenal
glands. Perceptual filters are retuned and the cortex is brought to a
state of high alertness.

All of these changes prepare the organism for high levels of physical
exertion that may be necessary to support vigorous fight or flight. Other
control systems receive new reference values that involve such goals as
rapidly increasing the distance between the individual and the bear,
leading to further reference changes lower in the hierarchy to bring about
such activities as turning away from the bear and running as fast as one
can manage.

If these changes prove effective, the threat-control (fear) system reduces
the perceived threat back to zero, running ceases, and the supporting
physiological systems are rebalanced for a more leisurely existence.

This account is oversimplified and needs a considerable amount of fleshing
in (guided by good data), but this description should be enough to convey
the general idea.

Now, imagine that you are about to give an important speech and are not
used to public speaking. You are not confident in your ability to do this
job well. As you begin to deliver the speech, you find yourself fumbling
for words, and suddenly become convinced that the audience is going to
evaluate your performance in a very negative way. Your self-esteem is
threatened. So what happens? That ancient threat-control system in your
brain perceives a non-zero threat and begins to order changes to counter
the threat. Your hands begin to shake, your voice trembles, you feel as
though you can't get enough air. All the changes needed to get your body
ready to counter a physical threat are happening, but they are the wrong
actions for dealing with the particular threat you are now facing, and in
fact make matters worse. The system didn't evolve to deal with "threats"
of this type, but once the higher centers of the brain perceive this
situation as threatening, the threat-control system is going to act just
as if this were a physical threat that would require strenuous physical
activity to counter.

Other emotion-systems, including those involving the "positive" emotions
(e.g., love) evolved to deal with other kinds of problems common in the
life of the individual and the species.

Well, that's my two cents on the matter.

Bruce A.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.31.1640)]

Marc Abrams (2002.10.31.1730) --

I think emotion is nothing more or less then conflict...I like Bill P's
formulation.

I think that in Bill's formulation emotion is something more than conflict
inasmuch as emotion can occur even when there is no conflict. All there has to be
is a failure of control. Conflict is one cause of loss of control, but there are
other causes, such as insuperable disturbance. One familiar example of an
insuperable disturbance is the death of a loved one. The emotion that occurs when
we lose a loved one is not the result of conflict: we don't both want and not want
to do something and, by so wanting, prevent ourselves from taking actions that let
us see the loved one again. The emotion occurs because there is simply no way to
bring the loved one back to life. So there is uncorrectable error causing
physiological preparation to act but there is no action that will correct the
error. So we feel grief. And we continue to feel grief until we can reorganize and
stop wanting to see the loved one again. That reorganization process is called
"mourning" and it can take one heck of a long time.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[Marc_Abrams1]

from [ Marc Abrams (2002.10.31.1730) ]

Nice to see your still with us Bruce.

I think emotion is nothing more or less then conflict. When we have conflict
we have "anxiety". This gets the glands going and the "feeling" of
"anxiousness". We can be "happy anxious", "sad anxious", angry or any degree
in between.

I like Bill P's formulation.

Marc

[From Bruce Abbott (2002.10.31.1630 EST)]

I've been more-or-less keeping up with the discussion of emotions and

agree

with Bill P. that emotions are control phenomena. However, I do have a
very different "take" on the subject. In my view, emotions as we
experience them are products of dedicated systems in the brain that

evolved

to deal with relatively specific challenges commonly encountered by

members

of a given species. These systems provide general, ready-made ways to

deal

with these situations. Consider fear. One circumstance in which fear is
experienced is when the individual has a perception that the individual
interprets as threatening, which is especially likely when the individual
has some uncertainty concerning their ability to neutralize the threat.

To

use William James' example, I see a bear in my path. There's nothing
between it and me, and I know that this animal is capable of tearing me
apart if it has a mind to. As I am not carrying any sort of weapon that
might help me to keep the bear at bay, my personal safety and well-being
appears to be under serious threat.

These conditions bring what I am calling the fear system into play. The
fear system is an inherited brain system that evolved via natural
selection; organisms whose brains included a mechanism for dealing with
such common threats in an effective manner tended to survive such
encounters better than those that lacked such a mechanism. Over the

course

of evolution, what evolved was a mechanism that is basically a rather
complex control system. This system has a reference of "zero
threat." Thus, when threat is perceived, an error develops that changes
the reference levels in a variety of lower-level control systems.

Activity

···

in the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system increases heart
rate and blood pressure, constricts blood flow to the digestive organs,
suspends digestion, increases blood flow to the muscles, increases muscle
tensions, and breathing rate goes up. Similar changes occur as the
pituitary gland dumps hormones into the bloodstream, resulting in the
release of corticosterones and adrenalin from the adrenal
glands. Perceptual filters are retuned and the cortex is brought to a
state of high alertness.

All of these changes prepare the organism for high levels of physical
exertion that may be necessary to support vigorous fight or flight. Other
control systems receive new reference values that involve such goals as
rapidly increasing the distance between the individual and the bear,
leading to further reference changes lower in the hierarchy to bring about
such activities as turning away from the bear and running as fast as one
can manage.

If these changes prove effective, the threat-control (fear) system reduces
the perceived threat back to zero, running ceases, and the supporting
physiological systems are rebalanced for a more leisurely existence.

This account is oversimplified and needs a considerable amount of fleshing
in (guided by good data), but this description should be enough to convey
the general idea.

Now, imagine that you are about to give an important speech and are not
used to public speaking. You are not confident in your ability to do this
job well. As you begin to deliver the speech, you find yourself fumbling
for words, and suddenly become convinced that the audience is going to
evaluate your performance in a very negative way. Your self-esteem is
threatened. So what happens? That ancient threat-control system in your
brain perceives a non-zero threat and begins to order changes to counter
the threat. Your hands begin to shake, your voice trembles, you feel as
though you can't get enough air. All the changes needed to get your body
ready to counter a physical threat are happening, but they are the wrong
actions for dealing with the particular threat you are now facing, and in
fact make matters worse. The system didn't evolve to deal with "threats"
of this type, but once the higher centers of the brain perceive this
situation as threatening, the threat-control system is going to act just
as if this were a physical threat that would require strenuous physical
activity to counter.

Other emotion-systems, including those involving the "positive" emotions
(e.g., love) evolved to deal with other kinds of problems common in the
life of the individual and the species.

Well, that's my two cents on the matter.

Bruce A.

[Bruce_Abbott]

[From Bruce Abbott (961009.1930 EST)]

Rick Marken (961009.0930) --

Bill Powers wrote a chapter on Emotion for "Behavior: The control of
perception" that was finally published in "Living Control Systems II".

Basically, emotions in PCT are perceptions. They are unique perceptions
because they are, apparently, not controllable. Emotions seem to be a
perceptual side effect of control. "Good" emotions result when we suddenly
get a variable under control; "bad" emotions result when we suddenly (or are
about to) lose control. In PCT, "bad" emotions are mainly symptoms of
internal conflict; they result from mustering physiological resources (to do
something like kill an opponent) that are never used because another system
(controlling for non-violence) prevents it; the unused physiological
preparation is experienced as an emotion (like "anger"). "Good" emotions are
symptoms of the sudden (and possibly temporary) solution of a conflict.
Emotions are important to people as evidence of the existence of or solution
to problems; in PCT, emotions are another aspect of controlling.

If this is Bill P.'s view, he has it wrong. Emotions are the perceptual
manifestations of ancient control systems in action. These are
pre-organized systems that respond to specific situations _as perceived_,
with specific actions which in the evolutionary history of the species
(_and_ the experience of the individual) have tended to counter certain
sources of error. For example, the emotional state called "anger" arises
when what one is trying to "do" (perceive) is being thwarted, usually by
some external agency -- one's ability to bring some perceptual variable to
reference or to keep it there is being hampered. The pre-organized output
by the control system that is brought into play by this situation is one
that in the evolutionary past (or individual's experience) has tended to
reduce or eliminate the hinderance to the operation of the thwarted system.
Generally, this consists of sympatheic nervous system activation (Cannon's
preparation for fight), changes in body posture and demeanor that tend to
make the person appear more threatening (including a facial expression
usually involving the showing of fangs, "bulking up" of the body produced by
tightening of muscles, intimidating speech, and so on) -- all of which may
immediately remove the problem by intimidating the source of the perceived
hinderance; if not, then overt aggression may ensue to accomplish the same.
The actual activities used will vary depending on circumstances (evaluation
of the opposing threat, available resources, experience); what is activated
is not a specific behavior but the references of lower-level control systems
in the service of the emotional system.

Such actions may be entirely inappropriate (e.g., kicking the candy machine
that just stole your dollar) and, as Rick notes, may be in conflict with
other control systems whose reference is, e.g., to turn the other cheek, to
avoid being beaten up, to avoid getting fired, and so on; and if so, the
emotional control system will fail to accomplish its function, leaving it
persistently active (producing stress hormones, sympathetic activation, and
other bodily changes which are perceived as the emotional experience)
continuing until either the situation is resolved or the person reorganizes,
giving up on the former goal as being beyond current reach and ceasing to
control for it.

_That_ is what an emotion is. (Or so I claim.) Other emotions are
organized to serve other goals, but all are control systems.

I hope everyone sees the irony in our two positions on this. (:->

Regards,

Bruce

[HANS_BLOM2]

[Hans Blom, 961010]

(Bruce Abbott (961009.1930 EST))

Emotions are the perceptual manifestations of ancient control
systems in action. These are pre-organized systems that respond to
specific situations _as perceived_, with specific actions which in
the evolutionary history of the species (_and_ the experience of the
individual) have tended to counter certain sources of error.

This view coincides with that of psychologist Nico Frijda, author of
the well-known (in this part of the world) book "The Emotions"
(Cambridge University Press, 1986). He thinks an emotion is best
described as an "action tendency". In his view, an emotion is a
perception (of danger, say) that is coupled to an innate response or
action pattern (of flight, maybe), but the coupling between
perception and action can be modified or overridden. This is what
biologists think distinguishes an emotion from an instinct:
instinctual control systems cannot be overridden, and they are not
accompanied by feelings. Thus, maybe, the feelings that accompany
emotions do indicate that some choice -- or conflict -- is present.

Frijda does not talk in terms of control systems, which he may not be
familiar with. But what he says (and he gives lots of examples of all
types of emotions) leads to the firm conviction that an emotion is a
complete control system by itself, whose operation somehow leads to
feelings. The latter are mostly _body_ feelings: the body is
preparing itself for some kind of action.

Strong emotions have an all-or-none quality; nothing else is allowed
to enter consciousness while they rule -- only one emotional control
system can operate at a time. All attention is focussed there -- for
a while. Time sense may be lost, sometimes resulting in an "eternal
moment". He quotes a girl's feelings about her boyfriend: "Sometimes
I feel I'd like to be with him always." Paradox. We seem to be less
unitary than we often pretend to be.

_That_ is what an emotion is. (Or so I claim.) Other emotions are
organized to serve other goals, but all are control systems.

I agree. Each emotion seems to be a control system of its own, able
to pretty much exclude other emotions if strong. If less strong, one
might better call them "moods". Moods can be richer, sometimes
combining several emotions. But moods are not so powerfully forcing;
they do not lead to almost impossible to control urgencies.

I hope everyone sees the irony in our two positions on this. (:->

I second the motion.

Greetings,

Hans

[Richard_Marken]

[From Rick Marken (961010.0900)]

Upon re-reading Bruce Abbott's (961009.1930 EST) theory of emotion I can see
that it is not fundamentally different from the PCT approach. For example,
Bruce says:

Such actions may be entirely inappropriate...and if so, the emotional
control system will fail to accomplish its function, leaving it persistently
active (producing stress hormones, sympathetic activation, and other bodily
changes which are perceived as the emotional ch is probably the perception of the

consequences of particularly high levels of "hormones, sympathetic
activation, and other bodily changes"; these intrinsic errors "...are
perceived as the emotional experience".

The only problem I have with Bruce's theory of emotion is with the idea that
there are a special set of control systems dedicated to the experience of
emotion; what Bruce calls the "emotional control systems". These are
presumably the control systems regulating hormone levels, "sympathetically"
controlled physiological variables, etc. In PCT, these are the control
systems that control "intrinsic variables". I believe that these systems are
always controlling, keeping intrinsic variables in their reference states. We
experience an emotion (I think) when these intrinsic variables are driven
away from their reference specifications by the failed action of higher level
control systems that ordinarily "use" these variables in the ordinary process
of controlling.

Here is a diagram of what I think is going on:
                 r
                 >
            p--->C---e
            > >
            > v
            S M --->Intrinsic Variables
            ^ |
            > v
       d--->q<-------o

What we have is a regular control loop, controlling some perceptual variable
p. Let's say that p is the perception of the relationship betweem a fist and
a face. Then r is the reference for seeing the fist hit the fact: the
reference for the perception of a "slug". As long as the actual perception is
not of a slugged person there is error, e, which drives the output function,
M.

M is really a collection of lower level control systems that convert the
neural error signal (e) into the muscle tensions that create the forces that
throw the punch. This output function is surely very complex and it works,
in part, by varying the references for the states of lots of physiological
variables - - intrinsic variables -- like norepinephrine levels, adrenalin
levels, etc. These variables have perceptible physiological consequences --
increased muscle tone and respiration rate, for example -- that support the
generation of the actual output -- the punch. Under normal ("non-emotional")
circumstances, the perceptible consequence of a change in the level of an
intrinsic variable never becomes particularly noticable because the variable
quickly returns to a nominal level as the output (o) occurs that keeps p
under control by the higher level system. The higher level control system
produces the intended result (the slug) with no noticeable "fuss".

Now suppose that for some reason (internal conflict) the control system above
is unable to get p to match r. This means that there is a constant error
driving the lower level output systems (M). This leads to a constant increase
in the level of the intrinsic variables as the "slug" control system attempts
to vary the intrinsic variables in order to produce the error driven level of
output. Since this output never actually happens (becuase of the conflict)
the perceptible consequence of this increase in the level of the intrinsic
variables is never "dissipated" via output generation. These consequences
become quite noticeable, then, as the experience we call an emotion.

In other words, in an emotion we are experiencing an amplified version of
the physiological accompaniment to all normal controlling. We experience
these physiological states as an emotion when control is "frustrated" for
some reason.

Anyway, I think this discussion makes it clear that PCT does suggest a way
of dealing with the real phenomenon of emotion.

Best

Rick

[Bruce_Gregory9]

[From Bruce Gregory (961010.1245 EDT)]

Rick Marken (961010.0900)]

Upon re-reading Bruce Abbott's (961009.1930 EST) theory of emotion I can see
that it is not fundamentally different from the PCT approach.

Thanks. I had that feeling but was unwilling to express it
because I thought I must be missing something.

Bruce

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

[From Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.02,09:40 EST)]

from Rick Marken (2002.10.31.1640)

Also I think emotion is coexisting with conflicts...I like Bill P's
formulation.
The concept "insuperable disturbance" is new for me and I don't experience
it compatible with PCT.
I will argue against your insuperable disturbance. And a central point in my
argument is that you exemplify your rejection of conflict in some situations
with speculative naming of active control systems. (I think about "not want
to do something" (look later)).

Marc Abrams (2002.10.31.1730) --

I think emotion is nothing more or less then conflict...I like Bill P's
formulation.

I think that in Bill's formulation emotion is something more than conflict
inasmuch as emotion can occur even when there is no conflict. All there has

to be

is a failure of control. Conflict is one cause of loss of control, but

there are

other causes, such as insuperable disturbance. One familiar example of an
insuperable disturbance is the death of a loved one. The emotion that

occurs when

we lose a loved one is not the result of conflict: we don't both want and

not want

to do something and, by so wanting, prevent ourselves from taking actions

that let

us see the loved one again. The emotion occurs because there is simply no

way to

bring the loved one back to life. So there is uncorrectable error causing
physiological preparation to act but there is no action that will correct

the

error. So we feel grief. And we continue to feel grief until we can

reorganize and

stop wanting to see the loved one again. That reorganization process is

called

"mourning" and it can take one heck of a long time.

The emotion that occurs when we lose a loved one may be the result of
conflict: we both want to do something and we will turn up with the idea
that dead people cannot wake up alive again. It depends which two (or more)
control systems that are involved. I think this second reference level is
more general than the reference level "not want to do something". If I am
correct, there is a conflict.

My understanding is that there is no "insuperable disturbance". And I will
substantiate it after commenting your
[From Rick Marken (2002.10.31.1640)]

Marc Abrams(2002.10.31.2337)--

But what is an insuperable disturbance, if not a conflict.

It is simply a disturbance that is so large that it exceeds the output
capabilities of the control system. For example, I control for standing up

(the

controlled perception) by exerting output forces that counter the

disturbing

forces that would push me over (gravity, the shear and torque forces I

generate

when I walk, etc). But there are limitations in how much force I can

produce. So

if a 100 mph blast of wind suddenly pushes on me with 1000 lbs of force and

the

maximum countering force I can generate is 200 lbs, then I will lose

control of

standing up. A 1000 mph wind is, thus, an insuperable disturbance to

control of

standing up for a person who can generate a maximum of 200 lbs of

countering

force. There is no conflict (internal or external) involved in this

situation.

Conflict (in control theory terms) is a specific phenomenon: it occurs when

at

least two control systems are acting to keep the same variable in different
reference states. Conflict, as so defined, is not the same as disturbance

(which

can be insuperable) to a controlled variable.

I think you make a mess of numbers. I read your "A 1000 mph wind" as a wind
that pushes on you with 1000 lbs. (no matter).

If a wind pushes on me with 1000 lbs of force and my maximum countering
force is 200 lbs., I will be crawling on the ground. I am sure I don't want
wish to control for standing up and therefore there is no "insuperable
disturbance". (I think I will be controlling for coming into safety.

I know you picked out a random and big wind velocity.

If the wind is pushing me with ( a more normal) 220 lbs of force and my
maximum countering force is 200 lbs., I still will be beaten down. (Physical
law). In this example there is a chance that I wish to be standing up.
Therefore I see a conflict between the two control systems with references
"I will stand up" and "I don't think I can stand up when the wind is so
strong, but I wish it".

My point is that if we perceive what you name an insuperable disturbance
with a really great value, we don't wish to resist it. And if we don't
resist it, it isn't an insuperable disturbance. There are marginal values of
disturbances. Then there also is a conflict.

bjorn

[BJORN_SIMONSEN]

Bjorn Simonsen (2002.11.03,21:30 EST)

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.01.0850)]

The concept "insuperable disturbance" is new for me and I don't

experience

it compatible with PCT.

It is quite compatible with PCT. Here's a simple, quantitative example.

Suppose

you are trying to keep a perceptual variable, p, at reference level r=0.

The

controlled perception, p, is proportional to the sum of your action ,o, and
prevailing disturbances, d. So, p = o + d. Suppose that the maximum action

you

can produce is 50 and the minimum is -50. So -50<=o<=50. As long as the
disturbance is between -50 and 50 you can keep p under control. So, for
example, when d = -32 you generate an o of 32 and p=32-32=0 = r. However,

when

d is >50 or <-50 you cannot keep p under control. For example, when d = -75

the

maximum o you can produce is 50 so p =50-75=-25. So p<>r and there is
considerable error. This error results from the fact that you were unable

to

produce output sufficient to compensate for the disturbance and keep p=r.

In

fact, any disturbance >50 or <50 is insuperable.

Thank you for reminding me about PCT, Rick. I is compatible with PCT.

My point is that _failure of control_ is the ultimate cause of emotion.

I can use your explanation also for positive emotions. I have got a new
basis thinking about emotions. Than you.

[Marc_Abrams1]

[From Marc Abrams(2002.10.31.2337)]

Thanks for responding Rick

[From Rick Marken (2002.10.31.1640)]

Marc Abrams (2002.10.31.1730) --

I think emotion is nothing more or less then conflict...I like Bill P's
formulation.

I was debating over the use of the words conflict or error.

I think that in Bill's formulation emotion is something more than conflict
inasmuch as emotion can occur even when there is no conflict. All there has

to be

is a failure of control.

agreed, no problem

Conflict is one cause of loss of control, but there are
other causes, such as insuperable disturbance. One familiar example of an
insuperable disturbance is the death of a loved one. The emotion that

occurs when

we lose a loved one is not the result of conflict: we don't both want and

not want

to do something and, by so wanting, prevent ourselves from taking actions

that let

us see the loved one again.

But what is an insuperable disturbance, if not a conflict. Physical action
is not the only kind of action. Imagination can be utilized to reduce error
as well as conflict.

The emotion occurs because there is simply no way to
bring the loved one back to life.

Is this not conflict? At some level?, with some variables?,We feel anxiety
because we are not controlling something. Who knows what we are controlling
for when we lose a loved one. If I felt that the person was going to a
better place, and was better off dead, does that mean I would not feel
"emotional". What if I hated the individual?, What if I hardly knew that
person?.

So there is uncorrectable error causing
physiological preparation to act but there is no action that will correct

the

error.

_must_ you have physiological reactions to be emotional?, and by "act" I
assume you mean imagining as well.

So we feel grief. And we continue to feel grief until we can reorganize and
stop wanting to see the loved one again. That reorganization process is

called

"mourning" and it can take one heck of a long time.

OK, but there is nothing here that is physiological. are your sweat glands
producing for the entire duration of your mourning period?, do you cry
_continuously_ throughout the period? My dad died 3 years ago and I still
have lots of moments of "emotional" thoughts. Sometimes I cry, sometimes I
laugh. I quit smoking 9 years ago and there are times I feel the "urge" for
a cigarette. Thank god it doesn't last long:-). I think much more, or lack
of control, takes place in our brain/imagination/memory then in the physical
world.

Rick, I feel a large part in understanding emotion is in understanding chap.
14 and 15 of B:CP. Unfortunately, so far, no real research has been done in
these area's. I do not believe we can get there from where the current
research is going. I happen to think that Bill P is close if not right on
the money with his material in those chapters. I hope my health will permit
me gain the proper foundation in modeling that I am trying to acquire to try
and explore those area's.

[From David Goldstein (2002.10.31.2140 EST)]

The point of view explained by Bruce Abbott, with the feeling/emotion
of fear, has been developed by Robert Plutchik. He wrote a book called
the Psychoevolutionary Theory of Emotions. I recommend this book
to my CSG listmates.

Very interesting book, I've read it.

He hypothesizes eight basic emotions that are related to each other in a

way

that he describes as a circumplex (a circle).

Why 8? He never explains how he derived at 8 and not 9 or 7.

There are opposite emotions.
Fear versus anger.
Happy versus Sad. Disgust versus acceptance. Surprise versus anticipation.
Each of
the basic eight emotions are present during infancy and show up in

different

facial
expressions.

_very interesting_ theory without a lot of data to back it up

Each of the basic emotions can be thought of as a control system that
controls certain
experiences. Plutchik doesn't really understand the way a control system
works, but he comes close.

He doesn't come close. This is your view. not a bad hypothesis, but you talk
of a "control system" as if it's a monolithic _discrete_ entity. It's not.

The emotion of fear controls for the perception of danger/no danger.
Each of the other emotions can be described in terms of the experience
controlled. We can identify
the components of the control system for each emotion. The action

component

of fear is "run from it."

I don't believe that is the _only_ action. Are thoughts actions?

Any emotional experience can be described in terms of some combination of
the eight basic
emotions.

The hypothosis is 8. but that's no better then Glasser's 5 needs. It very
well could be correct, but we really don't have a clue.

Frequent emotional states can lead to interpersonal personality traits. A
person who is afraid often
will develop different traits than a person who is angry often.

How much is "often"? and how does a state transform itself into a trait.

Why the basic emotions are related to each other in the way Plutchik
describes is an interesting
question which he really doesn't answer.

Yep.

Just thought Bruce and the other might like to know about Robert Plutchik.
His work is very rich
clinically. I have only scratched the surface.

I'd love to hear about how this has helped you clinically. If you don't feel
comfortable posting this to the net please e-mail me directly @
mabrams@nvbb.net . I'm interested in seeing how you utilize this.

Marc

[Abbott_Bruce]

[From Bruce Abbott (2002.11.01.0745 EST)]

Marc Abrams (2002.10.31.1730) --

Nice to see your still with us Bruce.

Thanks, Marc. Same to you!

. . . I like Bill P's formulation.

Well, nobody's perfect . . . (:->

Bruce A.

[Richard_Marken2]

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.01.0815)]

David Goldstein (2002.10.31.2140 EST)--

Each of the basic emotions can be thought of as a control system that
controls certain experiences.

I don't understand how an emotion can be thought of as a control system.
Personally, I'm much more comfortable with the idea that emotion is a perceived
side effect of failed control.

Plutchik doesn't really understand the way a control system
works, but he comes close.
The emotion of fear controls for the perception of danger/no danger.

If Plutchik thinks that "fear controls for the perception of danger/no danger"
then I don't think he is all that close to understanding the way a control system
works.

Each of the other emotions can be described in terms of the experience
controlled.

This sounds more like it.

Just thought Bruce and the other might like to know about Robert Plutchik.
His work is very rich clinically.

It seems to me that there is far more clinical richness in the PCT notion that
emotion is a side effect of failed control, and that the interpretation of the
emotion is in terms of the perceptual goal that is not being achieved. It sounds
like Plutchik might have understood something like the latter, but it doesn't
sound like he really grasped the former.

Marc Abrams(2002.10.31.2337)--

But what is an insuperable disturbance, if not a conflict.

It is simply a disturbance that is so large that it exceeds the output
capabilities of the control system. For example, I control for standing up (the
controlled perception) by exerting output forces that counter the disturbing
forces that would push me over (gravity, the shear and torque forces I generate
when I walk, etc). But there are limitations in how much force I can produce. So
if a 100 mph blast of wind suddenly pushes on me with 1000 lbs of force and the
maximum countering force I can generate is 200 lbs, then I will lose control of
standing up. A 1000 mph wind is, thus, an insuperable disturbance to control of
standing up for a person who can generate a maximum of 200 lbs of countering
force. There is no conflict (internal or external) involved in this situation.
Conflict (in control theory terms) is a specific phenomenon: it occurs when at
least two control systems are acting to keep the same variable in different
reference states. Conflict, as so defined, is not the same as disturbance (which
can be insuperable) to a controlled variable.

>The emotion occurs because there is simply no way to
>bring the loved one back to life.

Is this not conflict?

It certainly _could_ involve conflict. But I was describing the simple case where
you want to be with someone but that is no longer possible because they have died.
Death is an insuperable disturbance to the perception of that person being alive.

_must_ you have physiological reactions to be emotional?

Yes. At least according to the PCT model. Physiological reactions (accelerated
heart rate and respiration, adrenaline "rush", etc) are presumed to be the basis
of the perception of the emotion. Whether that perception is called "fear",
"anger", etc depends (according to PCT) on what you were trying to achieve.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org