@Heliotrope
Im sure you think so, theyre your neurotransmitters so whatever works for your brain chemistry.
That type of rationalization and affective assurance only exists in the mire of your mind where it can exist as a thought experiment, and for which you can dismiss consequences, repercussions, and complexities of factors and variables with the wave of plot armor and script immunity. It ignores the cold stone reality that these adversarial regimes are not going to trade nobodies in like kind.
You are in a position of power though. You elect these people to represent and carryout these actions. When you vote youre exercising political authority. Those deals are made on your behalf.
Teacher Wrongfully Detained in Russia 2021
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Im sure you think so, theyre your neurotransmitters so whatever works for
> your brain chemistry.
>
> That type of rationalization and affective assurance only exists in the
> mire of your mind where it can exist as a thought experiment, and for which
> you can dismiss consequences, repercussions, and complexities of factors
> and variables with the wave of plot armor and script immunity. It ignores
> the cold stone reality that these adversarial regimes are not going to
> trade nobodies in like kind.
>
> You are in a position of power though. You elect these people to represent
> and carryout these actions. When you vote youre exercising political
> authority. Those deals are made on your behalf.
Likewise.
What rationalization?
Yes, indirectly there's a modicum of power a voter has.
I was talking about discretionary power over whether or not the trade is done or not though.
> @Heliotrope
>
> Im sure you think so, theyre your neurotransmitters so whatever works for
> your brain chemistry.
>
> That type of rationalization and affective assurance only exists in the
> mire of your mind where it can exist as a thought experiment, and for which
> you can dismiss consequences, repercussions, and complexities of factors
> and variables with the wave of plot armor and script immunity. It ignores
> the cold stone reality that these adversarial regimes are not going to
> trade nobodies in like kind.
>
> You are in a position of power though. You elect these people to represent
> and carryout these actions. When you vote youre exercising political
> authority. Those deals are made on your behalf.
Likewise.
What rationalization?
Yes, indirectly there's a modicum of power a voter has.
I was talking about discretionary power over whether or not the trade is done or not though.
Reply
@Heliotrope
The rationalization that both are attainable given real world contexts. Youll dismiss it by claiming youre capable of forming and holding contrary thoughts and feelings at the same time. Ill counter that process is called rationalization. You will retort that it isnt, I will respond with a meme of dismissiveness while reasserting that it is, and which will then repeat in cycle until one of us ceases; upon which the last poster will mentally declare victory. Which should not be unexpected by either of us.
The rationalization that both are attainable given real world contexts. Youll dismiss it by claiming youre capable of forming and holding contrary thoughts and feelings at the same time. Ill counter that process is called rationalization. You will retort that it isnt, I will respond with a meme of dismissiveness while reasserting that it is, and which will then repeat in cycle until one of us ceases; upon which the last poster will mentally declare victory. Which should not be unexpected by either of us.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> The rationalization that both are attainable given real world contexts.
> Youll dismiss it by claiming youre capable of forming and holding contrary
> thoughts and feelings at the same time. Ill counter that process is called
> rationalization. You will retort that it isnt, I will respond with a meme
> of dismissiveness while reasserting that it is, and which will then repeat
> in cycle until one of us ceases; upon which the last poster will mentally
> declare victory. Which should not be unexpected by either of us.
Those two feelings aren’t contrary, because they’re about different things. I can be unhappy about the prisoner swap, and at the same time relieved that he’s finally home with his family. Sure, a good outcome depends on a bad event — but that doesn’t make the emotions contradictory.
If my father passed away and left me his car right after mine broke down, I could feel both grief over his death and relief that he left me the car instead of his wine collection. Those two emotions would be directed at different aspects of the same event.
> @Heliotrope
>
> The rationalization that both are attainable given real world contexts.
> Youll dismiss it by claiming youre capable of forming and holding contrary
> thoughts and feelings at the same time. Ill counter that process is called
> rationalization. You will retort that it isnt, I will respond with a meme
> of dismissiveness while reasserting that it is, and which will then repeat
> in cycle until one of us ceases; upon which the last poster will mentally
> declare victory. Which should not be unexpected by either of us.
Those two feelings aren’t contrary, because they’re about different things. I can be unhappy about the prisoner swap, and at the same time relieved that he’s finally home with his family. Sure, a good outcome depends on a bad event — but that doesn’t make the emotions contradictory.
If my father passed away and left me his car right after mine broke down, I could feel both grief over his death and relief that he left me the car instead of his wine collection. Those two emotions would be directed at different aspects of the same event.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Neither of your scenarios are about different things, they are about
> related "things". Youre rationalizing that they are.
You're welcome to call them related.
Still, you've never had two different emotions about two different aspects of the same event?
Can you perhaps imagine being happy so many friends showing up for little PsyGuy's 7th birthday ., but also sad your best friend Timmy wasn't able to make it due to a cold?
If your family home was struck by an earthquake while you were out, killing most of your family, would you not still be happy if you unexpectedly found one them still alive under the rubble, while also being sad that the rest didn't make it?
If you found out you overpaid for a painting and were mad about that, would you really be unable to still appreciate it's beauty?
> @Heliotrope
>
> Neither of your scenarios are about different things, they are about
> related "things". Youre rationalizing that they are.
You're welcome to call them related.
Still, you've never had two different emotions about two different aspects of the same event?
Can you perhaps imagine being happy so many friends showing up for little PsyGuy's 7th birthday ., but also sad your best friend Timmy wasn't able to make it due to a cold?
If your family home was struck by an earthquake while you were out, killing most of your family, would you not still be happy if you unexpectedly found one them still alive under the rubble, while also being sad that the rest didn't make it?
If you found out you overpaid for a painting and were mad about that, would you really be unable to still appreciate it's beauty?
Reply
@Heliotrope
Youre welcome to call them the same.
No, I have not.
Those arent different emotions. They are the polar ends of one emotion, well being. One end being happiness and the other end being sadness. A negative event would reduce the happiness of a positive event (or inverse a positive event would improve the negative event). They arent experienced separately.
Youre welcome to call them the same.
No, I have not.
Those arent different emotions. They are the polar ends of one emotion, well being. One end being happiness and the other end being sadness. A negative event would reduce the happiness of a positive event (or inverse a positive event would improve the negative event). They arent experienced separately.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
PsyGuy wrote:
> Those arent different emotions. They are the polar ends of one emotion,
> well being. One end being happiness and the other end being sadness. A
> negative event would reduce the happiness of a positive event (or inverse a
> positive event would improve the negative event). They arent experienced
> separately.
What you're describing is known as the hedonic “single-axis” theory, a simplistic early model that viewed emotions as one-dimensional: pleasant vs. unpleasant. This outdated model fails to capture the complexity of simultaneous or conflicting emotions, and doesn’t match how emotions are observed to actually work.
According to current psychological understanding, emotions are multidimensional, not just one axis, and people can experience affective ambivalence, or "mixed emotions". Brain imaging and physiological data also show distinct neural patterns for emotions like anger and sadness, even when they occur at the same time. So feeling both joy and sadness, or relief and grief, separately at the same time are psychologically realistic and empirically supported.
> Those arent different emotions. They are the polar ends of one emotion,
> well being. One end being happiness and the other end being sadness. A
> negative event would reduce the happiness of a positive event (or inverse a
> positive event would improve the negative event). They arent experienced
> separately.
What you're describing is known as the hedonic “single-axis” theory, a simplistic early model that viewed emotions as one-dimensional: pleasant vs. unpleasant. This outdated model fails to capture the complexity of simultaneous or conflicting emotions, and doesn’t match how emotions are observed to actually work.
According to current psychological understanding, emotions are multidimensional, not just one axis, and people can experience affective ambivalence, or "mixed emotions". Brain imaging and physiological data also show distinct neural patterns for emotions like anger and sadness, even when they occur at the same time. So feeling both joy and sadness, or relief and grief, separately at the same time are psychologically realistic and empirically supported.
Reply
@Heliotrope
Those arent different emotions. They are the polar ends of one emotion, well being. One end being happiness and the other end being sadness. A negative event would reduce the happiness of a positive event (or inverse a positive event would improve the negative event). They arent experienced separately. What you are describing is the presence of multiple axes for differing emotional pairs. Not all feelings can be aggregated to a single axes, and while you can feel differing emotions from different axes, you cant feel emotions on the same axes independently of one another.
Those arent different emotions. They are the polar ends of one emotion, well being. One end being happiness and the other end being sadness. A negative event would reduce the happiness of a positive event (or inverse a positive event would improve the negative event). They arent experienced separately. What you are describing is the presence of multiple axes for differing emotional pairs. Not all feelings can be aggregated to a single axes, and while you can feel differing emotions from different axes, you cant feel emotions on the same axes independently of one another.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
What you're describing is outdated, and all experts would disagree with you.
According to them, happiness and sadness are different emotions, and you can experience both at the same time about the same event.
According to them, happiness and sadness are different emotions, and you can experience both at the same time about the same event.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Comment
PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> You neither represent all experts, nor would ALL of them agree with
> @Heliotrope.
>
> We disagree.
There is no 'representative of all experts', and if there was, it wouldn't be an international teacher now, would it?.
I merely informed you of the consensus amongst experts.
You're welcome to be a non-expert who disagrees, just as I'm a non-expert who happily defers to the consensus of experts.
> @Heliotrope
>
> You neither represent all experts, nor would ALL of them agree with
> @Heliotrope.
>
> We disagree.
There is no 'representative of all experts', and if there was, it wouldn't be an international teacher now, would it?.
I merely informed you of the consensus amongst experts.
You're welcome to be a non-expert who disagrees, just as I'm a non-expert who happily defers to the consensus of experts.
Reply
@Heliotrope
There absolutely could be a a representative of all experts in a field, and an edu could certainly be that representative.
@Heliotrope isnt that representative, such that @Heliotrope isnt in a position to inform what all experts in a field agree upon, and further there isnt consensus. You have a theory and a model that you think is supported by some body of research, which doesnt make it a fact. I likewise have a theory and a model, and its not a fact but its no different than your theory and model.
We disagree.
There absolutely could be a a representative of all experts in a field, and an edu could certainly be that representative.
@Heliotrope isnt that representative, such that @Heliotrope isnt in a position to inform what all experts in a field agree upon, and further there isnt consensus. You have a theory and a model that you think is supported by some body of research, which doesnt make it a fact. I likewise have a theory and a model, and its not a fact but its no different than your theory and model.
We disagree.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1199
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Reply
Yes, you have a theory, but your theory and model is outdated and has been deemed incorrect by basically all experts in the field.
I appreciate that this was possibly the leading theory when you were in university, but science advances and they now have a much more correct and more complete understanding of how emotions work.
Post your theory in a forum for affective neuroscientists and see what all of them will say. You'd be classified as a dinosaur.
So we indeed disagree that this teacher who was or was not wrongfully detained in Russia 2021.
I appreciate that this was possibly the leading theory when you were in university, but science advances and they now have a much more correct and more complete understanding of how emotions work.
Post your theory in a forum for affective neuroscientists and see what all of them will say. You'd be classified as a dinosaur.
So we indeed disagree that this teacher who was or was not wrongfully detained in Russia 2021.
Reply
@Heliotrope
My theory and model is valid and reliable. @Heliotrope isnt the representative for all or even mostly all experts. Its not my theory I didnt postulate it. Its an accurate and reliable published theory and model that I agree with.
Yes, we disagree.
My theory and model is valid and reliable. @Heliotrope isnt the representative for all or even mostly all experts. Its not my theory I didnt postulate it. Its an accurate and reliable published theory and model that I agree with.
Yes, we disagree.