"People suffer emotionally of their own accord"?

[fushigi]

Precisely. Great dig brien.

Involuntary emotion is the only kind, IMO. The idea of completely controlling one's emotions--to the extent that all emotional response is the product of a cognitive filtering process--is to suggest that humans can become robots.

[iclaudius]

Well, pardon me for interrupting here, but the quote is actually saying that you don't have to act if what you feel is genuine. However, changing how you act is not being a robot, but really, changing what feels natural. And really, what's more robotic -- being controlled completely by some invisible force of emotions, or being able to alter how you respond to things?

[Osborn F Enready]

Mans rationale is judged by how he measures things objectively, and reacts to things using objectivity.

It is human to have emotion, and react to emotion.

It is irrational to over-react to emotion.

Most people manage their emotion objectively enough to function without resulting to infringing the rights of others. Most people learn this process in their younger years when making the connection between behaviour and punishment for a lack of it.

The argument of what is acceptable behaviour?

That is defined by rights of the individual, trial by jury, not the government, ultimately, is it not? (In U.S.A.)

[againstthewind]

We can ultimately trace all suffering back to the fact that we live in a fallen world that is cursed by sin

[Osborn F Enready]

againstthewind said: We can ultimately trace all suffering back to the fact that we live in a fallen world that is cursed by sin

LOL.....

I can ultimately conclude that you put faith above reason.

[againstthewind]

When you typed that reply you had faith that I would receive it and that nothing would go wrong in the process. So you put faith above reason

[Osborn F Enready]

Having faith in things which can be proven, shown and duplicated at will is different than faith in the unknown by any stretch of the imagination.

[fushigi]

Quote by: iclaudius Well, pardon me for interrupting here, but the quote is actually saying that you don't have to act if what you feel is genuine. However, changing how you act is not being a robot, but really, changing what feels natural. And really, what's more robotic -- being controlled completely by some invisible force of emotions, or being able to alter how you respond to things?

Actually, this thread has turned into a new debate--whether people can or can't control their ACTIONS is a different question than can or can't they control their EMOTIONS. Emotion can be a private thing that people don't share.

Don't you think platoon sergeants are emotionally conflicted when they have to send their men to their deaths? Sure, they don't show it, but I should hope that tugs at their heart strings just a little bit.

fushigi

[Scoobydoo]

I re-read the statement and I both agree and disagree. I disagree that pepole only suffer emotionally oftheir own accord, adn I agree that nobody can 'make' a person have certain emotions.

I disagree w/ first point because a good research into the topic one will learn that some emotional troubles are medically based. For example, bipolar illness or diisorder (aka manic depression) is a disease of the brain, that has a very strong hereditary component. Also, it is largely treated with anti seizure class medications. Why would one treat an 'emotional' upset with anti seizure meds? Well, it is more and more thought by doctors and researchers there is *soem* type of link bw seizure activity and bipolar. I think just fact that these medications are so effective and the front line to treat bp, indicates there may be some link to seizures. I know a lady who's teenager has bipolar illness and turns out the bio dad had epilepsy. Also growing up a neighbor girl was an epileptic. When her older sister was about 16 she became seriously ill with, none other than manic depression, or bipolar.
So to say that one has charge of that is nonsense in some or many cases where theres a medical biological, hereditary link.
That would be akin to me saying, ' my dad's diabetes is really something he created, the lazy good for nothin bum. He should have bucked up more and resisted that pesky diabetes

Obviously though there are measures someone with an illness can take to alleviate or minimize symptoms, but that is different than sayign they can prevent it

[fushigi]

But according to your analysis (a good one, BTW) I can make someone have certain emotions. Give them selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and I can make them happier. Give them enough of any chemical that acts as a keylate for GABA molecules (barbiturates, for example) and I can make them depressed or angry.

If emotions are caused by neurochemical agents (which they are), they can be controlled by external actors (and they are).

[Scoobydoo]

I rethought my answer...I should have said that external factors can cause certain emotions- it makes total sense, and is true that victims of abuse, I was just looking up the other day about children of alcoholics-- these children have higher rates of anxiety and depression, higher rates of seriosu eating disorders, etc. To a lesser degree if it's somethign minor, like a friend slights us, we can choose to remain positive, but other things such a sabuse, bullying, neglect, growing up in foster home, etc etc of course, contribute to one's emotional states.

[Jack]

If emotions are caused by neurochemical agents (which they are), they can be controlled by external actors (and they are).

In the field of counter-intelligence, psychological operations personnel are trained in the various ways to evoke emotional responses in groups and individuals by finding and exploiting their emotional weaknesses. It doesn't work with everyone. Some can moderate their responses. The majority can not or do not.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Isherwood In the field of counter-intelligence, psychological operations personnel are trained in the various ways to evoke emotional responses in groups and individuals by finding and exploiting their emotional weaknesses. It doesn't work with everyone. Some can moderate their responses. The majority can not or do not.

Do they use neurochemicals? If I shoot you full of androgen and start beating your loved one in front of you, I guarantee you'll get pissed off.

For the majority, the androgen wouldn't be necessary.

[Jack]

Neuro-chemicals are more researched than employed. Words and body language are so effective in most situations that nothing stronger is necessary. Besides, using any type of chemicals tends to not be very subtle and not always predictable. If you're trying to achieve a specific result, predictable means need to be used.
Then, if nothing else works, poke them in the ass with your ricin-laden umbrella. First, go for the hearts and minds. If necessary, go for the balls.

[fushigi]

Well, there you go--emotions are malleable, but not unconditionally so.