Split: Primary Emotions, Ethics of Online Advice

[Satya]

Thread split from here...

http://forum.infjs.com/showthread.php?p=171571#post171571

I think Anger is a primary emotion actually. We have to deal with it. In Buddhism they talk about the 3 poisons which are Anger, greed and stupidity .

There is a lot of debate in psychology about which emotions are primary and which ones are secondary/reactive. From a neurological perspective, the only primary emotions are depression, love, fear, disgust, surprise, and happiness. If you were to chart the brain during a state of anger, then you would find a mixture of the parts of the brain that represent these emotions lighting up. There is no specific center for anger, and so it is considered a secondary emotion, or an emotion which is comprised of many different primary emotions. Philosophically speaking, you could argue that anger is a primary emotion because it is virtually universal to all humans.

Love follows stages, and some people argue that it should be divided into two or three primary emotions.

 

[sookie]

I think that you could argue that anger is primary because when someone does not deal with anger they are emotionally crippled in many ways. I think anger is so powerful that it exists in many of the other centers. I think ( this is not scientific) that anger is so all encompassing that in some situations it has elements in the other areas. I dont know many people who go into therapy or a crippled by surprise. I find it hard to believe that disgust is more primary than anger.

I am going to go do some reading

 

[sookie]

Satya- http://changingminds.org

This site has an article that says that fear, anger sadness and happiness are the primary emotions.

This is consistent with what I had heard in the past.

What do you think?

 

[Satya]

As I said, I was speaking neurologically. Psychologists have been debating about which emotions are the primary emotions since psychology came into existence and probably will until the end of time.

Here is a list of different theorists so you can see what I mean...

http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/basic%20emotions.htm

From a philosophical perspective, you can argue that anger is a primary emotion, but the way the OP was describing their anger, I would define that as secondary.

Let's try not to confuse the topic. Drifting into a philosophical debate of whether or not anger constitutes a secondary emotion will not be helpful to the OP.

 

[sookie]

1) I would be careful before you define someone who is posting a problem on a forum sites emotions as secondary or primary. You are diagnosing. Are you a doctor, psychologist, or social worker? I have friends who work in the mental health industry and I can not imagine that they would do so. That is dangerous because you are speaking as if you are a professional. If you are I stand corrected. I would wonder about the ethics of doing so.

2) The site that you posted listed 14 theories. 10 out of the 14 theories site anger as a primary emotion. this is 2/3's. The 10 theories defined anger or rage as a primary emotion.

3) It does not make sense to me that you can say neurologically the brain does this, but in psychology it does that. Our brain works the way it works. You cant have an engine of a car run one way but the car itself operate in an entirely different way.

I hope that anyone who truly has anger issues in life to go and get help from more than an internet forum.

 

[Satya]

1) I would be careful before you define someone who is posting a problem on a forum sites emotions as secondary or primary. You are diagnosing. Are you a doctor, psychologist, or social worker? I have friends who work in the mental health industry and I can not imagine that they would do so. That is dangerous because you are speaking as if you are a professional. If you are I stand corrected. I would wonder about the ethics of doing so.

I am a social worker, and I'm not diagnosing anything. Primary and secondary emotions are arbitrary classifications not disorders listed in the DSM.

2) The site that you posted listed 14 theories. 10 out of the 14 theories site anger as a primary emotion. this is 2/3's. The 10 theories defined anger or rage as a primary emotion.

9 out of 10 doctors said in the 1960s that smoking doesn't cause cancer. It doesn't really matter the number of theorists, it really comes down to the definitions and evidence.

3) It does not make sense to me that you can say neurologically the brain does this, but in psychology it does that. Our brain works the way it works. You cant have an engine of a car run one way but the car itself operate in an entirely different way.

Psychology and neurology are entirely different fields of study. A psychologist observes behavior whereas a neurologist observes the brain. They can come to different conclusions based upon what they observe and measure.

I hope that anyone who truly has anger issues in life to go and get help from more than an internet forum.

I agree. If this were a serious anger issue that was causing disfunction in the OP's life, I would hope they would seek a professional.

 

[sookie]

Anger is not a true emotion. It's usually a reactive behavior to some underlying emotion; usually fear or shame. The key to controlling anger is to remember that you are reacting, not acting. You are allowing the situation to control you and not the other way around. The moment you choose to take control of the situation is when you begin to control your anger.

People will often use your anger to control you if they get a chance. For example, this is why fundamentalists get such joy out of seeing gays and lesbians get angry. The fundies recognize the fact that they are successfully shaming them or instilling fear in them and they want gay people to react with anger to those emotions. They want to instill that underlying emotion of inadequacy. If they can do that, it makes them feel very powerful and superior.

Ironically enough, Jesus Christ gave the answer to this kind of psychological warfare. He suggested two courses of action. First, you need to learn to turn the other cheek. No matter how much anyone abuses you, you need to remain in control and show them that you can take whatever they can dish out. If you stand your ground and do not react, then you have already taken away all the emotional power they could have had over you. Second, love your enemy. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to feel love and fear at the same time. That is why people can throw themselves on grenades, jump in front of bullets, and do all sorts of other self sacrificing things to save someone they love. Love is a far more constructive emotion than fear or shame.

This is my problem. Here you were not even calling it a true emotion. If someone has anger problems they may think- "I have nothing to worry about anger is not even an emotion"

Then- from your own site: It defines anger as a primary emotion10 out of 14 thoeries. This changes the entire dynamic of the argument. Then you say neurology says this, and psychology says that. This is splitting hairs. I agree on an academic level it makes an interesting debate. This is someones life.

Your answer keeps changing. As a Social Worker can you at least see what I am saying. What if a client was in front of you and you left it at your first answer. Anger is not even an emotion but a reaction.

Anger does not feel like a simple reaction. It is a powerful. I think that it is important not to muddy this in a way that misleads someone.

 

[sookie]

People kill when angry. It is that powerful.

 

[Satya]

This is my problem. Here you were not even calling it a true emotion. If someone has anger problems they may think- "I have nothing to worry about anger is not even an emotion"

I can't imagine how they would come to that conclusion unless they stopped reading at that sentence.

Then- from your own site: It defines anger as a primary emotion10 out of 14 thoeries. This changes the entire dynamic of the argument. Then you say neurology says this, and psychology says that. This is splitting hairs. I agree on an academic level it makes an interesting debate. This is someones life.

Um...I don't know why you feel its even a debate. I've simply stated that psychologists disagree on it, and that I was speaking neurologically. You can see from my original reply to you that I stated such. I even explained that philosophically, you can easily argue that anger is a primary emotion. I was the first person to suggest that such a debate is not helpful to the OP.

Your answer keeps changing. As a Social Worker can you at least see what I am saying. What if a client was in front of you and you left it at your first answer. Anger is not even an emotion but a reaction.

I have not changed any answers. You are welcome to point out in my posts where I have done so. And I'm not sure why my profession is even at issue here. I stated that anger is a reaction fueled by deeper emotions. I'm not entirely sure why you are taking issue with that point.

Anger does not feel like a simple reaction. It is a powerful. I think that it is important not to muddy this in a way that misleads someone.

No offense, but I think the only person here is who muddying things is yourself. I recommend you go back and carefully reread my posts.

 

[Satya]

People kill when angry. It is that powerful.

Frankly, it seems you stopped reading at the first sentence of my post.

 

[sookie]

I read your post. reative behavior-fear or shame, fundamentalists controlling people, turn the other cheek

I read it. It did not change one thing

 

[Satya]

I read your post. reative behavior-fear or shame, fundamentalists controlling people, turn the other cheek

I read it. It did not change one thing

Sigh...well it would help if you would explain how stating that anger is a reaction fueled by deeper emotions would lead someone to thinking "I have nothing to worry about anger is not even an emotion".

I would particularly like to know that since I also stated in that post that people could control you using your own anger, and that you may have no control over the situation due to your anger.

 

[sookie]

You did not say deeper you said underlying. There is a big difference. You talked about anger in terms of other people. Just dont let others get to you.

I am a abuse survivor. Do you think that I caused my father to hurt me?

 

[Satya]

You did not say deeper you said underlying. There is a big difference.

I draw the line at semantics.

You talked about anger in terms of other people. Just dont let others get to you.

I never suggested such a thing. I only argued that people are responsible for their own anger. You can choose to let it control you and let others control you through it, or you can choose to take control of it yourself.

I am a abuse survivor. Do you think that I caused my father to hurt me?

I'm very sorry to hear that. I'm an abuse survivor as well. It certainly is not your fault that your father hurt you. It seems that my post has struck a raw nerve and I recommend that you seek out a professional to explore it. An internet forum like this is probably not the best place to discuss such issues.

 

[sookie]

I have explored it.

That is why your post is irresponsible. You can say things in words on a page that can be taken the wrong way.

I healed from my past (happily). But I have learned from it and that is why I am challenging you. Not for my sake but because you can mislead others in a way that can be hurtful.

 

[Satya]

I have explored it.

That is why your post is irresponsible. You can say things in words on a page that can be taken the wrong way.

That is the risk of communicating through this medium. In real life, approximately 70% of communication is nonverbal. That means you are losing a tremendous amount of information by communicating over this forum.

I healed from my past (happily). But I have learned from it and that is why I am challenging you. Not for my sake but because you can mislead others in a way that can be hurtful.

I've learned from experience not to try to provide any sort of therapy or service over the internet. I try to keep any advice I give purely intellectual, holistic, or spiritual. If I think a person needs professional advice, then I would recommend they seek a professional in real life.

 

[sookie]

Well I at least think I made my point and I am going to bed.

consumer beware

 

[dvslil1]

Thread split from here...

http://forum.infjs.com/showthread.php?p=171571#post171571



There is a lot of debate in psychology about which emotions are primary and which ones are secondary/reactive. From a neurological perspective, the only primary emotions are depression, love, fear, disgust, surprise, and happiness. If you were to chart the brain during a state of anger, then you would find a mixture of the parts of the brain that represent these emotions lighting up. There is no specific center for anger, and so it is considered a secondary emotion, or an emotion which is comprised of many different primary emotions. Philosophically speaking, you could argue that anger is a primary emotion because it is virtually universal to all humans.

Love follows stages, and some people argue that it should be divided into two or three primary emotions.

It is my understanding that anger is a reactive mechanism to a negative emotional subset rather than a primary emotion. I believe it originates in the amygdala which is a frontal lobe structure-the frontal lobes are considered to be the emotional control centre. It is also very interesting to note that the temporal lobes play a role in emotions.
I would say anger is more of a primal response and very problematic if coupled with a lack of inhibitions.
Satya, you could try reading a comprehensive neuropsych book, that might give you a better idea.

 

[IndigoSensor]

I don't think anger is a primary emotion, at least for me. I seldom, if at all, experience any form of anger.

 

[Satya]

It is my understanding that anger is a reactive mechanism to a negative emotional subset rather than a primary emotion. I believe it originates in the amygdala which is a frontal lobe structure-the frontal lobes are considered to be the emotional control centre. It is also very interesting to note that the temporal lobes play a role in emotions.
I would say anger is more of a primal response and very problematic if coupled with a lack of inhibitions.
Satya, you could try reading a comprehensive neuropsych book, that might give you a better idea.

Yes, this thread has definitely prompted me to return to the nuerological studies. It might help if I could reference exactly which parts of the brain are responsible for what primary emotions, and what sets of those are responsible for what secondary/reactive emotions.