Category: Progress Updates

Updates on the Current Project

No comments

On the Nature of Emotions: Category III Emotions, Compound Interactive Emotions (Article 9 of 12)

  By ,

Category III Emotions: Compound Interactive Emotions

This is the ninth article in a series of twelve and gives an overview of Category III Emotions, Compound Interactive Emotions in Affect Engineering, which include Benevolence, Malevolence, Jealousy, and Envy. It is designed for the layperson and explains the basics of Affect Engineering as a theory of emotions. Each article will begin with a list of questions that it will aim to address. The sections that follow will be in two parts each. The first part will be a short statement that answers each question as succinctly as possible. The second part will either be an explanation that goes into more detail where needed or explain some of the implications of the short answer.

QUESTIONS

  1. What are the Category Three Emotions in Affect Engineering?
  2. Why and how are conceptions of Jealousy and Envy altered to fit into Affect Engineering’s framework?
  3. What are Indulgent Type and Protective Type Category Three Emotions and why is there a distinction between them in Affect Engineering?
  4. What makes Category Three Emotions valuable to an individual?

1) What are the Category Three Emotions in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

The Category Three Emotions, termed the Compound Interactive Emotions, consist of Benevolence, Malevolence, Jealousy, and Envy.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Benevolence, Malevolence, Jealousy, and Envy are the four Category Three Emotions in Affect Engineering’s framework. Each involves empathy and they are considered compound in the sense that they are essentially comprised of a Category One Emotion (i.e., Intra-personal or Emotion of the Self) and a Category Two Emotion (i.e., Inter-personal or one of the Four Degrees of Empathy) and they often have implications for the outcomes of other goals held by the self and those around them. The self, however, has the ability to influence the outcome of the empathized party’s situation for Category Three Emotions, which is the primary distinguishing feature between this Category (i.e., Compound Interactive) and Category Two Emotions. The 1:1:1:1 Ratio in Affect Engineering is still upheld, as a 2:2:2:2 ratio because the self imagines itself as the targeted other and also identifies as themself, two entities are being valued for two separate purposes (one held be the self and the other for the target of empathy), and two emotions are being felt, one for the self and the other vicariously experienced as the targeted other. Article Two in this series, Reframing Anxiety as a Resource (Article 2 of 12), Question #4, offers more detail on the 1:1:1:1 Ratio.

The four Category Three Emotions are further classified as either Indulgent or Protective depending on the self’s Appraisal of an entity. In this case, the entity that the self is evaluating is the targeted party’s goal and whether the self wants them to succeed or fail. The Appraisal of an entity in Affect Engineering concerns whether further acquisition of the entity will lead towards or away from balance between a goal and its complementary goal, or homeostasis. Article Three in this series, Cognitive Appraisals in the Context of Affect Engineering (Article 3 of 12), offers more detail on Appraisals. When applied to Category Three Emotions that involve empathy, this becomes the self’s assessment as to whether or not the self successfully helping the targeted party fulfill a purpose will lead towards or away from equilibrium between a purpose and its complementary purpose for both the self and other. Indulgent Category Three Emotions have a negative Appraisal, while Protective Category III Emotions have a positive Appraisal. The chart below outlines basic forms of Category Three Emotions.

The core features of each Category Three Emotion in Affect Engineering are as follows:

  • Benevolence: The self wants a targeted other party (i.e. target of the empathy) to succeed at a goal or purpose. The self takes action to help the targeted other party achieve their goal and is successful. Both the self and the targeted other party are successful.
  • Jealousy: The self wants a targeted other party to succeed at a goal or purpose. The self takes action to help the targeted other achieve their goal but is unsuccessful. Both the self and the targeted other are unsuccessful.
  • Malevolence: The self wants a targeted other party to fail at a goal or purpose. The self takes action to ensure that the targeted other party does not achieve their goal and the self is successful. The targeted other party fails at their objective, but the self is successful.
  • Envy: The self wants a targeted other party to fail at a goal or purpose. The self takes action to ensure that the targeted other party does not achieve their goal but the self is unsuccessful. The targeted other party achieves their objective while the self, consequently, fails at their objective.

2) Why and how are conceptions of Jealousy and Envy altered to fit into Affect Engineering’s framework?

SHORT ANSWER

Many definitions of jealousy and envy are too broad in their scope and they inadvertently violate the 1:1:1:1 Ratio that Affect Engineering adheres towards when implemented directly. Therefore, only the minimal components of Jealousy and Envy considered in Affect Engineering. For Jealousy, this core component would be the fear of losing the target’s loyalty (e.g., typically precipitated by a failure by the self in some manner) and this is irrespective of any particular rival threatening to take it. For Envy, this core component would be contempt for another’s gain (such as that of a rival), or distress at the advantages or fortune enjoyed by another, and this is irrespective of any desire by the self to have that fortune or advantage for themself.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

In popular usage, jealousy and envy are often conflated with one another and mistakenly used as if they are interchangeable, typically to convey the idea of wanting something that another person has. The nuances between them, fortunately, are more clearly delineated in psychology.

The following descriptions and definitions for jealousy (below) and envy (further below) from the APA Dictionary of Psychology’s website, along with excerpts from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s website, offer a starting point for distinguishing between the two to understand how they are implemented in Affect Engineering.

Jealousy

Jealousy, defined: “n. a negative emotion in which an individual resents a third party for appearing to take away (or being likely to take away) the affections of a loved one. Jealousy requires a triangle of social relationships between three individuals: the one who is jealous, the partner with whom the jealous individual has or desires a relationship, and the rival who represents a preemptive threat to that relationship. Romantic relationships are the prototypic source of jealousy, but any significant relationship (with parents, friends, etc.) is capable of producing it. It differs from envy in that three people are always involved . . .” Jealousy, APA Dictionary of Psychology

“Jealousy involves three parties, the subject, the rival, and the beloved; and the jealous person’s real locus of concern is the beloved, a person (or being) whose affection he is losing or fears losing. The locus of concern in jealousy is not the rival.” — excerpt from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, section 1.2 Envy vs. Jealousy

Envy

“Envy is pain at the good fortune of others.” (Aristotle, Rhetoric, Bk II, Chapter 10), sourced from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1.1 Defining Envy

“Envy is a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [Envy] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying others’ good fortune. (Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals 6:459),” sourced from Stanford Encyclopedia of Psychology, 1.1 Defining Envy

Envy, defined: “n. a negative emotion of discontent and resentment generated by desire for the possessions, attributes, qualities, or achievements of another (the target of the envy). Unlike jealousy, with which it shares certain similarities and with which it is often confused, envy need involve only two individuals—the envious person and the person envied—whereas jealousy always involves a threesome. . .” Envy, APA Dictionary of Psychology

“. . .envy is centrally focused on competition with the rival . . .” sourced from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, section 1.2 Envy vs. Jealousy

Jealousy and Envy in Affect Engineering

The observation from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that Jealousy’s focus of concern is the beloved, whereas Envy’s central focus of concern is on competition with the rival, is a good starting point for understanding how these emotions are understood and implemented in Affect Engineering.

Jealousy, described as the fear of losing a beloved’s loyalty, also raises another question, “What is loyalty and how would loyalty be implemented in Affect Engineering?” A consultation with the Merriam-Webster dictionary sees loyalty being defined as “unswerving allegiance” or “faithfulness” to a cause or person. The APA dictionary definition of loyalty is similar:

“n. faithfulness and allegiance to individuals or social groups. —loyal adj.”

This unswerving allegiance, faithfulness, or devotion, like most things in the world, one would not expect to come freely; most things in the world, for better or worse, typically have a price, be it in currency, goods, or services, and the loyalty relationship would likely be transactional in some manner. For example, if loyalty is not being bought outright with money, such as in the case of mercenaries, then this loyalty might typically come with the expectation that it would be reciprocated by the other party, that is to say, the self would be expected to help a targeted other achieve a purpose in exchange for the other party helping the self achieve a purpose. The informal idiom, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” is an example of this, and encapsulates the idea that it would be a two way street, a quid pro quo in essence. The price of loyalty from the other party to the self, in this case, would be the expectation of loyalty from the self to the other since it is not being bought with money.

The transaction, however, runs the risk of breaking down if it becomes a one way street and only one party loyally assists the other to achieve their purposes while the other offers nothing in return or fails to fulfill their part of the obligation. If a country were hiring mercenaries to defend their land and then suddenly stopped paying them without an explanation, one would not expect the mercenaries to continue offering their services to defend the land freely. Their services would generally be expected to go to the next highest bidder. Similarly, if the self fails to fulfill a purpose that would help a targeted party achieve their goal, meaning both the self and the targeted other are unsuccessful in a scenario, then the relationship is not mutually beneficial in that instance. It may continue if the other party decides to let it go and uphold it due to their history, but it will be less certain to the self because the self failed to uphold their end of the bargain in that instance. The core feature of Jealousy in Affect Engineering is that the jealous party fails to help a targeted other achieve a goal that is important to them, and as a result this jeopardizes the loyalty transaction. All of this can happen before the emergence of any rival party at all.

As far as rivals go, any other thing (e.g., a person, a hobby, a new interest, or even some vague unknown) that could potentially help the targeted other party achieve the goal, or even mitigate the disappointment from the self having failed in their efforts to help them achieve the goal, could potentially be viewed as a rival. The fact that the self failed to help the targeted other party achieve their aim in the first place is the onset of Jealousy in Affect Engineering, and would be enough for the self to presume that the other would be looking someone else or for some other thing that could satisfy them where the self was unable to do so, even if no such rivals were readily apparent.

The presence of a rival would indeed be expected to heighten the self’s acknowledgement that they failed the targeted other in some way, but this fear of a rival taking the beloved’s loyalty or affection would be a separate purpose and a separate emotion in Affect Engineering’s framework. This is in accordance with its adherence to the 1:1:1:1 Ratio, that one entity may elicit one emotion, as it relates to the fulfillment of one purpose for one individual; for both Category Three and Category Two Emotions this becomes a 2:2:2:2 Ratio, with the self imagining itself as the targeted other party vicariously experiencing their situation. The self fearing the loss of the beloved’s loyalty, due to some failure on the part of the self, is modeled as the source of Jealousy here, as the loyalty can be lost before a rival even shows up to have a chance to take it. Moreover, the self fearing a rival (e.g., another person, hobby, interest, etc.) taking the beloved’s loyalty concerns a vicariously felt emotion for a separate targeted other party, the rival as opposed to the beloved. Attempting to lump the two together under the definition of jealousy would violate Affect Engineering’s 1:1:1:1 Ratio, as there would be an additional party being empathized by the self that would not necessarily correspond to another entity, emotion, and purpose here (e.g., a 3:2:2:2 Ratio).

If, for the sake of considering an example, a boyfriend fails to take his girlfriend out to dinner for a date at a specific restaurant that she wanted to experience and that he promised he would take her to — he forgot to make reservations and it requires a month in advance due to its popularity — then this is enough to create the fear of losing the girlfriend’s loyalty and would be the onset of an instance of Jealousy in Affect Engineering’s framework. Namely, the boyfriend failed to acquire the entity of the restaurant reservation, and subsequently the girlfriend did not get to experience the restaurant, so she becomes disappointed. The boyfriend’s part of the loyalty transaction was not upheld, which he would be aware of, and the continuance of the transaction is at the whim of the girlfriend, as it went from being mutually beneficial (for both of them) towards being one directional with its benefits (only towards him). Again, all of this can happen before the emergence of any rival party at all.

A boyfriend failing to obtain a restaurant reservation for an agreed upon date would be an example for the onset of an instance of Jealousy in Affect Engineering, before the emergence of any rival party at all.

Should another party enter the foray, such as a coworker inviting her out for a night of karaoke the next weekend, or a group of her friends inviting her to go out dancing, or even the release of the next book in a series that she was eagerly awaiting to read, the boyfriend may indeed view them as potential rivals for the girlfriend’s loyalty if they deliver on what they promise (e.g., a good time) while he could not. Loyalty in this case, might similarly be measured by the boyfriend as a reciprocation of effort, that is to say the girlfriend helping him achieve a goal he wants to do, such as spending time together watching the debut of a new movie he wants to see at the movie theater the following weekend. If she declines to go to see the movie in order to do one of the aforementioned three activities, then the fear that any of these rivals (karaoke, dancing, or a book) offers something that he cannot certainly becomes more amplified, but the fear that the loyalty had been lost was already present beforehand from a separate event, that is, the boyfriend forgetting to get the restaurant reservation.

Any of the three activities mentioned (Karaoke, dancing, or reading a book) can be viewed by the boyfriend as a rival for the girlfriend’s loyalty.

It is also certainly possible that the order of these events could be flipped; if the boyfriend had no previous faults beforehand and actually possessed the dinner reservation, but his girlfriend had declined to go to see the movie with him on the previous weekend prior to their scheduled dinner date for any of the above three alternatives, then the loyalty transaction would have not been upheld on her end in that instance. Affect Engineering would model that the girlfriend would be the Jealous party at that point, and the continuance of the loyalty transaction would be up to the boyfriend. It would be up to him to decide whether or not to continue the loyalty transaction thereafter.

Granted, most relationships are not this draconian and are somewhat more forgiving. The point here in the original scenario, however, is that the boyfriend’s fear that any of these potential rivals (karaoke with a coworker, dancing with friends, or reading a book) may have possibly supplanted him by taking his girlfriend’s loyalty, and the fear that he has lost his girlfriend’s loyalty by a failure on his own part (forgetting to make the restaurant reservation), stem from two separate sources since the vicariously felt emotions target two different parties:

1) The fear of him losing his girlfriend’s loyalty via a fault or shortcoming on his part has the beloved as the target of empathy.

2) The fear that a rival party has taken his girlfriend’s loyalty by offering something he could not has the rival as the target of empathy.

The self fearing that a rival will take or has already taken the beloved’s loyalty would more aptly be labeled an instance of Envy (i.e., contempt for the rival’s gain) in Affect Engineering’s framework, which will be addressed further below. The two emotions of Jealousy and Envy can and often do occur simultaneously in the same scenario in Affect Engineering, but they would be two separate emotions felt towards two different target parties in most cases: Jealousy felt with respect towards the beloved, and Envy felt with respect towards the rival.

The relationship also need not be a romantic one for Jealousy or Envy to take place. It may be a diplomatic one and related to military defense for instance. An alternative scenario will be considered where four countries only grow one type of fruit (Apples, Bananas, Cranberries, and Dragon Fruit) on their land. Land, notwithstanding, would be a highly prized commodity in this realm.

Two hypothetical countries, the Apple Nation and the Banana Republic, have an exclusive mutual defense pact with one another. If one is attacked by a belligerent country, then the other agrees to help defend it.

The Apple Nation and the Banana Republic have agreed to an exclusive mutual defense pact with one another, and agree to help defend one another should they be attacked.

However, should a hostile aggressor attack (e.g., the Cranberry Confederation), and the Apple Nation fails to help defend its ally, the Banana Republic, against them, then this would be considered an instance for the onset of Jealousy in Affect Engineering’s framework for the Apple Nation. Failure in this case would either constitute not sending enough help to thwart the Cranberry Confederation’s assault, or sending no help at all. The failure of the Apple Nation to successfully help the Banana Republic achieve its aim (i.e., maintaining territorial integrity) would jeopardize the loyalty held between the two, since the loyalty transaction was an exchange, because its benefits would likely only be seen as one way thereafter.

The Apple Nation failed to send enough help to ensure that the Banana Republic achieved its goal of maintaining territorial integrity, in this case, against the Cranberry Confederation.

Any other party that can offer the Banana Republic what the Apple Nation Apple failed to offer would be viewed as a potential rival to the Apple Nation for the Banana Republic’s loyalty. This would be the case, for instance, if the Dragon Fruit Dominion, acting on behalf of the Banana Republic’s interest, wages a military campaign against the Cranberry Confederation to restore the Banana Republic’s land.

The Dragon Fruit Dominion, upon striking against the Cranberry Confederation to restore the Banana Republic’s territory, offers an exclusive mutual defense pact with them. The Dragon Fruit Dominion would then be viewed by the Apple Nation as a rival for the Banana Republic’s loyalty.

Affect Engineering would model that Jealousy would be felt by the Apple Nation with respect towards the Banana Republic for failing to help defend them against the Cranberry Confederation, and this would occur before the emergence of the Dragon Fruit Dominion as a rival. Affect Engineering would model that Envy (i.e., contempt for another party’s gain) would be felt by the Apple Nation with respect towards the Dragon Fruit Dominion for threatening to take away the Banana Republic’s loyalty; this might arise if the Apple Nation wanted to be the hero that came in and saved the day, but the Dragon Fruit Dominion usurped them instead.

To complete the example with the four Category Three Emotions, Affect Engineering would model Malevolence (i.e., successfully taking action to prevent another from achieving a goal) to be felt by the Cranberry Confederation towards the Banana Republic upon successfully seizing land held by the Banana Republic in the first place. Affect Engineering would model Benevolence (successfully taking action to enable an other to achieve a goal) to be felt by the Dragon Fruit Dominion towards the Banana Republic if they are able to successfully help the Banana Republic reclaim their land.

Jealousy, in Affect Engineering, is similar to Benevolence to the degree that the self wants the targeted other party to succeed and the self takes action to try to make this happen. However, the difference between the two lies in the fact that for the case of Jealousy, the self and the targeted other are not successful. In the case of Benevolence, however, the self and the targeted other party are both successful. The self’s lack of success to help the targeted other in the case of Jealousy is what jeopardizes the loyalty transaction, and opens the door for any rival party to then replace them thereafter. A state of initial amity and good will exists for both Benevolence and Jealousy in this framework.

Envy, on the other hand, has been described in this article and previous articles as contempt for another’s gain. As Benevolence is the counterpart to Malevolence in Affect Engineering’s framework, Envy is the counterpart to Jealousy in Affect Engineering. Envy can be also generally be thought of as the fear of condoning, or allowing to go unchecked, a rival party’s lack of loyalty, perfidiousness, or misdeeds that enabled them to acquire a gain that the self considers to be ill-gotten.

In this regard, Envy is also similar to Malevolence in affect Engineering’s framework. For both Envy and Malevolence, the self takes action to prevent a targeted other from achieving a purpose. However, in the case of Envy the self is unsuccessful in their endeavors to prevent a targeted other party from achieving a goal. In the case of Malevolence, the self is successful and the targeted other party fails to achieve their goal. An initial state of animosity and hostility exists for both Malevolence and Envy in this framework.

If the self merely wants or covets what the targeted other party manages to achieve or acquire, this is not sufficient to distinguish Envy in Affect Engineering. The core feature of Envy here is that the self does not want the targeted other party to achieve a goal and acquire a good of some sort, but the envied party succeeds anyway, despite the self’s efforts to prevent this from happening. The self does not have to want for themselves what the targeted other party acquired for the emotion to be classified as Envy here, they only have to want the other party not to have it. The self taking action to prevent the other party from acquiring a good, and failing to prevent them from acquiring it, is the necessary component. Moreover, even if the self does want what the targeted party acquired, which may oftentimes be the case, this would be modeled as a separate purpose, and a separate emotion would be modeled to be felt in Affect Engineering due to the framework’s adherence to its 1:1:1:1 Ratio.

Hence, the standard definitions of both jealousy and envy are streamlined in order to adhere to Affect Engineering’s 1:1:1:1 Ratio to avoid conflating two emotions into one for each. In Affect Engineering, Jealousy only concerns the fear of the self losing a beloved’s loyalty, and does not need it to be lost to a rival, but rather, just lost or at risk of being lost. Meanwhile, Envy in Affect Engineering only concerns a rival acquiring something the self does not want them to acquire, and the self does not need to want what the rival has for themselves. These aspects are not ignored completely, as both Jealousy and Envy are often modeled to occur simultaneously in the same situation in Affect Engineering, but would be felt towards different targeted other parties. The aspect of jealousy that is eliminated in Affect Engineering’s conception of Jealousy (i.e., the rival threatening to take the beloved’s loyalty), is usually covered by Envy in Affect Engineering. The aspect that of envy that is eliminated in Affect Engineering’s conception of Envy (i.e., the self wanting what the rival party has), is usually covered by Jealousy in Affect Engineering for instances where a beloved’s loyalty is at stake.

  1. The boyfriend fearing the loss of his girlfriend’s loyalty (e.g., loss of reciprocation in the above case) is an instance of Jealousy felt towards the girlfriend in Affect Engineering, and is irrespective of any rival. The boyfriend holding contempt for a rival party that threatens to take his girlfriend’s loyalty is an instance of Envy felt towards the rival party in Affect Engineering; the boyfriend does indeed want the girlfriend’s loyalty that the rival party appears to take, but this is a separate purpose and not included in Envy’s definition for Affect Engineering.
  2. The Apple Nation fearing the loss of the Banana Republic’s loyalty (e.g., the exclusive mutual defense pact) is an instance of Jealousy felt towards the Banana Republic in Affect Engineering and is irrespective of any rival party. The Apple Nation holding contempt for the Dragon Fruit Dominion for threatening to take the Banana Republic’s loyalty would be an instance of Envy in Affect Engineering; the Apple Nation does indeed want what the Dragon Fruit Dominion is on the verge of acquiring (the Banana Republic’s loyalty), but this is also a separate purpose and not included in Envy’s definition for Affect Engineering.

The four Category Three Emotions, or Compound Interactive Emotions, correspond to the Four Degrees of Empathy from the Category Two Emotions (See Article Eight: The Category II Emotions, or Four Degrees of Empathy, Question #2) and can be mapped on a similar two by two pundit square. The major exception is that the self possesses the ability to influence the outcome for the targeted other party, so there are some differences.

3) What are Indulgent Type and Protective Type Category Three Emotions and why is there a distinction between them in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Indulgent Type and Protective Type are two classifications for the four Category Three Emotions and they correspond to whether the pursuit of pleasure or avoidance of pain is being considered for the self. The distinction is used to acknowledge subtle differences between instances of the Compound Interactive Emotions that share similar objectives and characteristics. If Anxiety is at stake for the self, then a Category Three Emotion is classified as a Protective Type emotion, similar to the Avoidance of Pain Category One Emotions. If Negative Anxiety is at stake for the self, then a Category Three Emotion is classified as an Indulgent Type emotion, similar to the Pursuit of Pleasure Category One Emotions.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

All the Category Three Emotions involve the self actively attempting to influence the outcome for a targeted other party. They are nearly identical to the Category Two Emotions except for the fact that the self can influence the outcome for the targeted other party. This would be reflected in neurological models as well. For the Indulgent Type Category Three Emotions a Pursuit of Pleasure Emotion is felt by the self (e.g., Happiness, Guilt, or in other cases Courage or Euphoria). For the Protective Type Category Three Emotions an Avoidance of Pain Emotion is felt by the self (e.g., Sadness, Anger, or in other cases Grief, Fear, or potentially Disgust).

In the diagrams and sample neurological models below, the modifications of the variables in the exponents of functions (Threat and Efficacy components) that will maximize particular emotions felt will be stated. Although attentional processes, reasoning, and executive processes, could also modify them, they are not included in these models in order to minimize clutter. Article Four in this series, Emotional Responses and Emotional Regulation in Affect Engineering, goes into more detail with these concepts (Article 4 of 12).

Indulgent Type Benevolence: Happiness + Loving Pride, or Courage + Loving Pride, or Euphoria + Loving Pride

Indulgent Type Benevolence entails the self wanting a targeted other party to succeed, and the self successfully achieves a purpose that ensures the targeted party succeeds as well. Moreover, further acquisition of an entity by the self will lead the self and targeted other away from equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (i.e., it is already available in ample supply).

This is the equivalent of the self spoiling the targeted party by performing an action that gives the targeted party an excess in some department. A parent or guardian giving a child an extra serving of food after they had already been adequately fed would be an example. A sample graph of Indulgent Benevolence (Happiness + Loving Pride) is below.

In the sample neurological model below, amplification of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for both the Self and Other, along with a decrease in the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) will maximize Indulgent Benevolence. This could happen if the parent or guardian were able to easily acquire the additional food item for their child, despite the fact the child was already well fed, provided for, and the child successfully eats it.

Indulgent Type Jealousy: Guilt + Sympathetic Shame

Indulgent Type Jealousy entails the self wanting a targeted other party to succeed, but the self is unsuccessful at fulfilling a purpose that would ensure the targeted party succeeds; both the self and the other party fail. Moreover, as further acquisition of an entity by the self would have lead the self and targeted other party away from equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (it is already available in ample supply), this results in a reduction of Negative Anxiety (e.g., pleasure) felt with respect towards the purpose at hand.

This would be the equivalent of the self attempting to spoil the targeted party by performing an action that would give the targeted party an excess, but is unsuccessful. Using the same example as above, if a parent or guardian attempted to give their child an extra serving of food at a restaurant, such as a dessert, but to their dismay discovered they are not able to access it any longer because the restaurant is closing and they were too late, then Indulgent Jealousy would be modeled here. A sample graph of Indulgent Jealousy (Guilt + Sympathetic Shame) is below.

In the sample neurological model below, a decrease of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for both the self and other party, along with an amplification in the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) will maximize Indulgent Jealousy felt. This could happen if the parent or guardian were suddenly not able to easily acquire the additional food for their child to eat due to the restaurant closing earlier than anticipated. Because the child was already adequately fed beforehand, however, Affect Engineering only models a reduction in Negative Anxiety invested (e.g., pleasure) with respect to the particular goal.

Indulgent Type Malevolence: Happiness + Hateful Humiliation, or Courage + Hateful Humiliation, or Euphoria + Hateful Humiliation

Indulgent Type Malevolence entails the self wanting a targeted other party to fail, and the self is successful at fulfilling a purpose that would ensure the targeted party fails; the self succeeds and the other party fails. Moreover, as further acquisition of an entity by the self leads the self and the targeted other away from equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (it is already available in ample supply for the self, and not in ample supply for the other party), this results in an increase of Negative Anxiety (e.g., pleasure) felt by the self with respect towards the purpose at hand, but an increase in Positive Anxiety (e.g., pain) felt by the other.

This would be the equivalent of the self attempting to punish the targeted party far beyond equilibrium up to the point that it would closely resemble torture. If, for example, a gardener were attempting to eliminate weeds from a plot of soil, and successfully withheld water from the garden until the weeds began to wither from dehydration, then Indulgent Malevolence would be modeled here. A sample graph of Indulgent Malevolence (Happiness + Hateful Humiliation) is below.

In the sample neurological model below, an increase of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for the self and a decrease of the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) for the self, will maximize Indulgent Malevolence felt. For the targeted other party, Efficacy Components would need to decrease and Threat Components would need to increase in order to maximize Indulgent Malevolence felt by the self. This could happen if the gardener is easily able to withhold water from the plot of soil with no threats of rain, and if the weeds in the garden are unable to reach deep enough in the ground to pull underground water from the soil. If the weeds were already on the verge of wilting from dehydration, then this will push them closer to perishing.

Indulgent Type Envy: Guilt + Antipathetic Mercy

Indulgent Type Envy entails the self wanting a targeted other party to fail, but the self is unsuccessful at fulfilling a purpose that would ensure the targeted party fails; the self fails but the other party succeeds. Moreover, as further acquisition of an entity by the self would have lead the self and the targeted other away from equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (i.e., it is already available in ample supply for the self, but not for the other party), the failure by the self results in a decrease of Negative Anxiety (e.g., pleasure) felt by the self with respect towards the purpose at hand, and a decrease in Positive Anxiety (e.g., pain) felt by the other.

This would be the equivalent of the self attempting to punish the targeted party far beyond equilibrium, but because they fail in the effort the targeted party recovers towards equilibrium. If, for example, the same gardener were attempting to eliminate weeds from a plot of soil by withholding water from the garden until they began to wither from dehydration, but failed to do so because it rained heavily, then Indulgent Envy would be modeled here. A sample graph of Indulgent Envy (Guilt + Antipathetic Mercy) is below.

In the sample neurological model below, a decrease of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for the self and an increase of the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) for the self, will maximize Indulgent Envy felt. For the targeted other party, Efficacy Components would need to increase and Threat Components would need to decrease in order to maximize Indulgent Envy felt by the self. This could happen if the gardener attempts to withhold water from the plot of soil to dry out the weeds, but a heavy rainstorm sweeps past enabling the weeds in the garden to hydrate or reach deep enough into the soil to pull up moisture from an elevated water table. If the weeds were already on the verge of wilting from dehydration, then this will bring them closer to equilibrium and away from dying.

Protective Type Benevolence: Anger + Loving Pride, or Disgust + Loving Pride

Protective Type Benevolence entails the self wanting a targeted other party to succeed, and the self successfully achieving a purpose that ensures the targeted party succeeds as well. Moreover, further acquisition of an entity by the self will lead the self and targeted other towards equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (i.e., it is not available in ample supply for the self or other party).

This might be the equivalent of the self wanting to better provide for the targeted party by performing an action that gives the targeted party resources to help restore its well being. A parent or guardian giving a starving child a serving of food after they had been malnourished for an extended period of time would be an example. A sample graph of Protective Benevolence (Anger + Loving Pride) is below.

In the sample neurological model below, amplification of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for both the Self and Other, along with a decrease in the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) will maximize Protective Benevolence. This could happen if the parent or guardian were able to successfully acquire food to give to their child to eat if, up until that point, the child had been starving and extremely malnourished.

Protective Type Jealousy: Sadness + Sympathetic Shame, or Fear + Sympathetic Shame, or Grief + Sympathetic Shame

Protective Type Jealousy entails the self wanting a targeted other party to succeed, but the self is unsuccessful at fulfilling a purpose that would ensure the targeted party succeeds; both the self and the other party fail. Moreover, as further acquisition of an entity by the self would have lead the self and targeted other towards equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (i.e., it is not available in ample supply for the self or the other party), this results in an increase in Positive Anxiety (e.g., pain) felt with respect towards the purpose at hand.

This would be the equivalent of the self attempting to provide resources for the targeted party by performing an action that would bring the targeted party closer to equilibrium, but the self is unsuccessful. Using the same example as above, if a parent or guardian attempted to give their starving child a serving of food, but to their dismay discovered they are not able to access it any longer for any reason, then Protective Jealousy would be modeled here. A sample graph of Indulgent Jealousy (Sadness + Sympathetic Shame) is below.

In the sample neurological model below, a decrease of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for both the self and other party, along with an amplification in the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) will maximize Protective Jealousy felt. This could happen if the parent or guardian were suddenly not able to acquire the food item to provide for their starving child to eat. Because the child was already malnourished beforehand, Affect Engineering would model an increase Positive Anxiety invested (e.g., pain) with respect to the particular goal.

Protective Type Malevolence: Anger + Hateful Humiliation, or Disgust + Hateful Humiliation

Protective Type Malevolence entails the self wanting a targeted other party to fail, and the self is successful at fulfilling a purpose that would ensure the targeted party fails; the self succeeds but the other fails. Moreover, as further acquisition of an entity by the self leads the self and the targeted other towards a restoration of equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (i.e., the entity is not in ample supply for the self), this results in a decrease of Positive Anxiety (e.g., pain) felt by the self with respect towards the purpose at hand, and a decrease in Positive Anxiety (e.g., pleasure) felt by the targeted other.

This would be the equivalent of the self attempting to restrict a targeted party that is enjoying success far beyond equilibrium. If, for example, a gardener were attempting to eliminate weeds that had completely overrun a plot of soil, and the gardener successfully withheld water from the garden until the weeds began to wither from dehydration, culling their numbers, then Protective Malevolence would be modeled here. A sample graph of Indulgent Malevolence (Anger + Hateful Humiliation) is below.

In the sample neurological model below, an increase of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for the self and a decrease of the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) for the self, will maximize Protective Malevolence felt. For the targeted other party, Efficacy Components would need to decrease and Threat Components would need to increase in order to maximize Protective Malevolence felt by the self. This could happen if the gardener is able to withhold water from the plot of soil with no threats of rain, and if the weeds in the garden are unable to reach deep enough in the ground to pull underground water from the soil. Because the weeds were thriving prior to this, the self’s success here only brings them closer to equilibrium.

Protective Type Envy: Sadness + Antipathetic Mercy, or Fear + Antipathetic Mercy, or Grief + Antipathetic Mercy

Protective Type Envy entails the self wanting a targeted other party to fail, but the self is unsuccessful at fulfilling a purpose that would ensure the targeted party fails; the self fails but the other party succeeds. Moreover, as further acquisition of an entity by the self would have lead the self and the targeted other towards a restoration of equilibrium between the purpose and its complementary purpose (i.e., it is not available in ample supply for the self and at a deficiency), the failure by the self results in an increase of Positive Anxiety (e.g., pain) felt by the self with respect towards the purpose at hand, and an increase in Negative Anxiety (e.g., pleasure) felt by the other.

This would be the equivalent of the self attempting to restrict the targeted party and bring it closer to equilibrium, but because they fail in their efforts the targeted party continues thriving far beyond equilibrium. If, for example, the same gardener were attempting to eliminate weeds that had completely overrun a plot of soil by withholding water from the garden until the weeds began to wither from dehydration, but fails to do so (e.g., it rains heavily) then Protective Envy would be modeled here. A sample graph of Protective Envy (Sadness+ Antipathetic Mercy) is shown below.

In the sample neurological model below, a decrease of the Efficacy Components (variables of Response-Efficacy and Self-Efficacy) for the self and a increase of the Threat Components (variables of Threat-Severity and Threat Susceptibility) for the self, will maximize Protective Envy felt. For the targeted other party, Efficacy Components would need to increase and Threat Components would need to decrease in order to maximize Protective Envy felt by the self. This could happen if the gardener attempts to withhold water from the plot of soil to dry out the weeds, but a heavy rainstorm sweeps past enabling the already thriving weeds in the garden to hydrate and further solidify their hold on the soil to the point they become wildly successful.

4) What makes Category Three Emotions valuable to an individual?

SHORT ANSWER

Category Three Emotions signal messages towards the self, the target of empathy (i.e., the other party) and towards third parties or outsiders observing the scenario. Much of the value or usefulness that Category Three emotions provide to an individual also comes from these messages that they deliver to observers by setting the stage for establishing new relationships and offering suggestions for courses of action.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The Category Three Emotions serve a handful of aims for both the individual, the targeted other party or target of empathy, and third party observers.

Self

In regards to the self, the Category Three Emotions, like the other Categories of Emotions, are posited to serve as a call to action to the self in some manner and they also provide feedback to the self in Affect Engineering.

The presence of either Benevolence or Jealousy indicate that the self generally holds the target of empathy in good will and amity. For Benevolence, the self successfully helps the targeted other achieve a goal and this emotion would call the self to continue doing what they are doing in order to maintain that. The presence of Jealousy, in comparison, indicates that the self would need to do more to help the targeted other achieve a goal, and that some some of change for the self is needed.

In contrast, Malevolence and Envy indicate that the self generally holds the target of empathy in a state of hostility and enmity. For Malevolence, the self successfully prevents the targeted other from achieving a goal and this emotion would call the self to continue doing what they are doing in order to maintain that. The presence of Envy, however, indicates that the self would need to do more to help prevent the targeted other from achieving a goal, and that some sort of change for the self is needed.

Target of Empathy (The Other Party)

Similarly, these four emotion also send a message to the target of empathy, or the targeted other party.

In the case of Benevolence, the self’s efforts to help the targeted other party achieve a goal can encourage the targeted party to collaborate with the self and even reciprocate the Benevolence. For Jealousy, depending upon the extent to which the self exhibits a fear of losing the targeted other party’s loyalty, it may encourage the other party to forgive the self’s shortcoming, for instance, on the condition that circumstances improve.

In contrast to this, Malevolence and Envy, which both signal hostility and enmity, the message to the target of empathy would be more confrontational. In the case of Malevolence, the self successfully taking action to prevent the targeted other from achieving a goal is straightforwardly antagonistic and territorial in nature. For Envy, even though the self is unsuccessful at preventing a targeted other from achieving a goal, there is still a territorial nature to this emotion implying that the targeted other should not tempt their luck again and should be wary with future endeavors.

Third Party Observers

Finally, to third party observers witnessing instances of these emotions, the Category Three Emotions also signal alliances, rivalries, and suggestions for what courses of action would be considered safe or optimal:

  • Benevolence: A third party witnessing the self demonstrate Benevolence towards a targeted other party would realize that a state of good will and amity exists between the two and that aggression towards one would likely provoke the other. Acts of kindness, however, would likely be looked upon favorable, for instance, if the self considers the friend of a friend a friend.
  • Jealousy: A third party witnessing the self demonstrate Jealousy towards a targeted other party would know that a state of good will once existed, that it may still exist, or that it may be more fluid and uncertain if the self is attempting to reconcile and repair the relationship. Similar to Benevolence, any act of aggression by a third party towards the targeted party (the object of Jealousy), may provoke the self to act as a means of reconciliation. Acts of kindness, however, may alternatively be looked upon either favorably or unfavorably depending on whether or not the self views the third party as a potential threat.
  • Malevolence: A third party witnessing the self demonstrate Malevolence towards a targeted other party would know that a state of hostility exists between the two, and that any act of kindness towards the other party would likely be met with hostility from the self for appearing to side with their rival. Acts of aggression towards the rival, however, would likely be met with approval, especially if the self considers the enemy of an enemy to be a friend.
  • Envy: A third party witnessing the self demonstrate Envy towards a targeted other party would also know that a state of hostility once existed between the self and the other, that it may still exist, and that the self may be contemplating retribution of some sort against the rival in the future. Similar to Malevolence, any act of kindness towards the other party might be met with hostility from the self for appearing to side with their rival. Acts of aggression by a third party would likely be met with approval, unless the self the dynamic has changed. Envy, like Jealousy, also suggests a fluid dynamic between the self and the other party, so uncertainty may exist.

Preview

The next article, number ten, will go into more detail on the final class of emotions in Affect Engineering, Category Four Emotions: The Emotive States.

Previous Article: On the Nature of Emotions: Category II Emotions, the Inter-personal Emotions or the Four Degrees of Empathy (Article 8 of 12)

Next Article On the Nature of Emotions: Category IV Emotions, the Emotive States (Article 10 of 12)

No comments

On the Nature of Emotions: Category II Emotions, the Inter-personal Emotions or the Four Degrees of Empathy

  By , ,

Category II Emotions: the Inter-personal Emotions or the Four Degrees of Empathy

Category II Emotions: the Inter-personal Emotions or the Four Degrees of Empathy

This article gives an overview of Category II Emotions (the Inter-personal Emotions or Four Degrees of Empathy) in Affect Engineering. It is the eighth article in a series of twelve designed for the layperson that explains the basics of Affect Engineering as a theory of emotions. Each article will begin with a list of questions that it will aim to address. The sections that follow will be in two parts each. The first part will be a short statement that answers each question as succinctly as possible. The second part will either be an explanation that goes into more detail where needed or explain some of the implications of the short answer.

*Note, this article contains some movie spoilers, albeit for older films.*

QUESTIONS

  1. What are the Category II Emotions and what distinguishes them from Category I and Category III Emotions?
  2. Why are there only four degrees of empathy in Affect Engineering if there are five pairs of Category II Emotions?
  3. Why does Affect Engineering bother to distinguish emotions that are experienced vicariously depending on whether or not one party has the ability to influence the outcome of another party’s situation?
  4. For what reasons might an individual intentionally alter their identification level with a target?

1) What are the Category II Emotions and what distinguishes them from Category I and Category III Emotions?

SHORT ANSWER

Category II Emotions in Affect Engineering concern instances where one party vicariously experiences the situation of another party but has no ability to influence the outcome (i.e., they are completely passive). Category II Emotions always involve empathy, and the presence of empathy distinguishes them from Category I Emotions. Additionally, Category II Emotions always have a party that is passively empathizing with the observed party, and the passivity of one party distinguishes them from Category III Emotions where the empathizing party can actively influence the outcome for the other’s situation.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Category II Emotions are organized into two separate, but related, groups. Love, Sympathy, Hate, Antipathy, and Neutrality are felt by the passive party that is observing the active party. The passive party imagines themself as the target and desires to vicariously experience the target’s success (for Love and Sympathy), or their failure (for Hate and Antipathy), or neither (for Neutrality).

The other group, consisting of Pride, Shame, Humiliation, Mercy, and Loneliness, are construed in Affect Engineering as emotional responses arising in the target from awareness that their circumstances and the outcome are being empathized with in some manner by an observing party (for Pride, Shame, Humiliation, and Mercy), or not empathized with at all in the case of Loneliness.

Altogether, there are five pairs. Each pair may have one of two constructions depending on which party is passively observing and which party is actively attempting to influence the outcome for a scenario and a relevant purpose. For the following examples, the self will be assumed to be passively observing and empathizing with a targeted party that is actively attempting to achieve a purpose.

For the case of Loving Pride in Affect Engineering, the self would desire for the targeted party to succeed and subsequently, to vicariously experience their success. If the other party succeeds, then this would be classified as an instance of love in Affect Engineering. Love, in this context, is construed as a sense of satisfaction at having acknowledged and vicariously experienced another’s success and good fortune; it is not love in the romantic sense, which often entails additional objectives. Pride, a sense of accomplishment arising when a goal has been achieved and also recognized and approved by others, would be modeled to occur in conjunction with this from the targeted party; pride would arise from the awareness by the targeted party that the self desires for them to succeed and they are being admired for it because they did succeed. Pride, in this context, is understood as an emotional response in the loved party.

Moreover, because the self is not the loved party (the self is the one doing the loving) and they are only passively observing, they would not be modeled to feel pride themselves directly. The targeted party would feel pride if they are aware that the self or any other empathizing party wants them to succeed and they do succeed. The self, at the very least, knows that they want the targeted party to succeed, and so the self would be modeled to feel vicarious pride along with love in Affect Engineering.

  • In the Love and Vicarious Pride variant of Loving Pride, an observer, (e.g., the self) desires for the targeted party to achieve their goal, and they succeed. For the targeted party, the goal might be something as simple as a desire to safely return home, as was the case for the crew of astronauts in the movie Apollo 13 (1995), (link to Roger Ebert’s review of Apollo 13 with some background for those unfamiliar with the story). Another example would be the pets Shadow, Sassy, and Chance in the Disney movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993) (link to the Homeward Bound Disney movie trailer). For individuals watching and wanting the targeted parties to succeed, these would be modeled as instances of Love in Affect Engineering. The self wants the target party to succeed and the targeted party does succeed. Both movies have happy endings, given that they are mentioned in this group of Category II Emotions, and take a fairly direct approach in the sense that viewers are expected to want these characters to succeed.
  • The targeted parties, if they were aware that the self were observing them, would feel pride at the acknowledgement that the self wanted them to succeed, in this case by safely returning home. Because these are movies filmed beforehand, this is not technically possible, but it can be simulated with other characters and family members in the story that want them to succeed. The self can then more easily imagine being in the position of the characters feeling loved for safely returning home. The self would feel vicarious pride, imagining themself as the targeted party feeling pride for safely returning home, if the supporting characters are likable enough that audience members can also identify with them.
  • The hero, if they were aware that they were being empathized, would be modeled to feel Vicarious Love, imagining themself as the self or another spectator wanting them to succeed. If a story is well written, then whoever is waiting for the hero to return home would ideally be someone that an audience member or viewer can easily identify with in order to be more effective (e.g., family members of the astronauts Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, and Jack Swigert, or the three children Peter, Jamie, and Hope who the pets identify as their owners in Homeward Bound).

An example of Loving Pride (e.g., Love and Vicarious Pride variant) felt by the audience. Apollo 13 (1995) with Jim Lovell (portrayed by Tom Hanks), Fred Haise (portrayed by Bill Paxton) and Jack Swigert (portrayed by Kevin Bacon).

An example of Loving Pride (e.g., Love and Vicarious Pride variant) felt by the audience. Chance, Shadow, and Sassy from the movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (1993).

For each party (i.e., the self and the other), one of the two emotions would be felt as a vicarious one while the other emotion would be felt for the individual themself. If the self were instead the active party in the story, then the emotions felt would be flipped with the self feeling Pride and Vicarious Love and the other party feeling Love and Vicarious Pride. As each was a movie filmed beforehand, the closest scenario that this could be the case would be if the real life astronauts that the Apollo 13 movie was based on watched the movie version of their ordeal with their characters being portrayed by famous actors (e.g., Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Kevin Bacon). Not surprisingly, after watching the film, actual Apollo 13 captain Jim Lovell said in a statement in the Independent, “More than 50 years after the mission, the film put me right back in the captain’s seat.”

Image 3a (below) Sample neural model for Loving Pride where the self is the passive party and feels Love and Vicarious Pride.

Image 3b (below) Sample neural model for Loving Pride where the self is the active party and feels Pride and Vicarious Love.

The passive party vs. active party dynamic applies to all of the other Category II Emotions in Affect Engineering as well. The passive party will either feel Love and Vicarious Pride, Sympathy and Vicarious Shame, Hate and Vicarious Humiliation, Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy, or Neutrality and Vicarious Loneliness. The active party will either feel Pride and Vicarious Love, Shame and Vicarious Sympathy, Humiliation and Vicarious Hate, Mercy and Vicarious Antipathy, or Loneliness and Vicarious Neutrality.

In each case, the 1:1:1:1 Ratio is still maintained, but becomes a 2:2:2:2 for all parties (for more on the 1:1:1:1 Ratio, see Article two, question number four in this series Reframing Anxiety as a Resource). The self, for example, imagines themself to be another person while vicariously experiencing the other’s situation, so the ratio is upheld.

It should not come as a surprise that the other pairs of Category II Emotions are also prevalent in popular cinema, books, or other works of art that seek to sway an audience one way or another, often times for artistic or rhetorical effect. In more benign cases, being able to readily identify when and how this is occurring can help give an audience a greater appreciation for the work and effort that went into crafting a message or story, or to critique the narrative if it fell short in some regard. In more malignant cases, it can afford audiences some inoculation against being manipulated via bias or prejudice by being better able to recognize it.

For the case of Sympathetic Shame, if the self were the passive party observing another and wanted a targeted other to succeed, but they failed, then the self would be modeled to feel Sympathy in Affect Engineering. Correspondingly, the targeted party, if they were aware that they were being empathized with, would feel Shame; shame, in this case, is more a sense of disappointment at having failed to achieve a goal that one desired to achieve coupled with the acknowledgment that others around expected or wanted the individual to achieve it. The self, in turn, would experience this sense of disappointment or Shame secondhand and vicariously in Affect Engineering’s framework, even if the self were the only one feeling Sympathy for the targeted party’s plight at having failed.

Image 4a (below) Sample neural model for Sympathetic Shame, where the self is the passive party and feels Sympathy and Vicarious Shame.

Image 4b (below) Sample neural model for Sympathetic Shame where the self is the active party and feels Shame and Vicarious Sympathy.

  • In the Sympathy and Vicarious Shame variant of Sympathetic Shame, the self wants the targeted party (e.g., hero, protagonist, etc.) to achieve their goal, but the hero is unsuccessful in their endeavors. The character of Jack Dawson in James Cameron’s movie Titanic is a good example of this, as most audience members who watched the film wanted him to survive. This would be an instance of Sympathy in Affect Engineering (i.e., the self wants the target to succeed, but the they fail). In this particular case, the target of empathy, Jack, made it almost all the way to the finish line, but unfortunately fell short just before rescuers came and saved Rose. Jack’s fate, by many, is viewed as undeserved and unfair given all the other things he survived through to get there.
  • The targeted party would be modeled to feel Shame at the acknowledgement that the self or anyone empathizing with their situation, wanted them to succeed, but they were unable to succeed, and this leads to disappointment in those witnessing it.
  • The self would be modeled to feel vicarious Shame, imagining themself as the hero feeling Shame at having failed to achieve their objective and everyone else wanted them to, even if the self is the only one feeling sympathy for their failure.
  • The hero or protagonist in this case, feels vicarious Sympathy, imagining themself as the self or another spectator wanting them to succeed but being compelled to witness their failure and become disappointed.

An example of Sympathetic Shame (e.g., Sympathy and Vicarious Shame variant) felt by the audience. Jack and Rose on the floating piece of wood from the movie Titanic (1997)

The above two Category II Emotions of Loving Pride and Sympathetic Shame are often used in narratives where an author, politician, content creator, artist, or marketer to name a few fields, wants to align the audience with a particular group or ideals, such as the protagonist, the hero, or whatever values they espouse.

In contrast, on the other side of the spectrum are Hate with Humiliation and Antipathy with Mercy. These Category II Emotions are generally reserved for targeted parties that the creator of a narrative desires to be viewed as antagonists, villains, or in politics, any person or group that one may seek to demonize or suggest that their values are less than wholesome.

If the self is passively observing a target party (e.g., a villain), wants the villain to fail at their objective, and the target party fails, then the self would be modeled to feel Hate in Affect Engineering, that is to say, delight at the failure of the other. Correspondingly, the target party or villain in this case, would feel Humiliation upon acknowledging that the self or other empathizing parties wanted them to fail at their objective and they did fail. The sense of humiliation here arises from the target being aware that observers disapprove of their objective and are celebrating upon their failure.

Meanwhile, the self, passively observing in this example, would experience the target’s sense of humiliation secondhand and vicariously.

Image 5a (below) Sample neural model of Hateful Humiliation where the self is the passive party and feels Hate and Vicarious Humiliation.

Image 5b (below) Sample neural model of Hateful Humiliation where the self is the active party and feels Humiliation and Vicarious Hate.

  • In the Hate and Vicarious Humiliation variant of Hateful Humiliation, the spectator (e.g., the self) wants the villain (the target party) to fail by being unsuccessful and the villain was unsuccessful. This would be an instance of Hate, as the self wants the hero to fail and the villain does fail. In popular films, this would be exemplified by Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars franchise, or Pennywise from the movie It. These are both characters that are relatively easy for audiences to cheer against and hope for their downfall, as neither one has any particularly redeeming qualities and they are easy to label, for lack of a better word, as evil.
  • The villain (the target party) would be modeled to feel Humiliation at the acknowledgement that the self wanted them to fail and they were unable to achieve their aims.
  • The self feels Vicarious Humiliation, imagining themself as the villain feeling Humiliation.
  • The villain, in this case, would be modeled to feel vicarious Hate, imagining themself as the self or another spectator wanting them to be unsuccessful and celebrating their failure.

An example of Hateful Humiliation (e.g., Hate and Vicarious Humiliation variant) felt by the audience. Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars franchise.

An example of Hateful Humiliation (e.g., Hate and Vicarious Humiliation variant) felt by the audience. Pennywise from the movie It.

Fourth on this list is the situation where the self is a passive party observing a target party (e.g., a villain), wants the target party to be unsuccessful at their objective, but the target party succeeds. The self would be modeled to feel Antipathy in these instances, as the target party ends up successfully achieving their aims despite the self not desiring this to have occurred. Correspondingly, the target party would be modeled to feel Mercy (e.g., a sense that they have escaped justice, either obtaining an unearned reward or evading deserved punishment for their actions) in Affect Engineering at having succeeded despite the fact that those observing desired or expected for them to fail to achieve their objective (e.g., if their actions are in the wrong). Additionally, the self, passively observing, would experience the target’s sense of mercy secondhand and vicariously.

Image 6a (below) Sample neural model of Antipathetic Mercy, where the self is the passive party and feels Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy.

Image 6b (below) Sample neural model of Antipathetic Mercy where the self is the active party and feels Mercy and Vicarious Antipathy.

  • In the Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy variant of Antipathetic Mercy, the spectator (e.g., the self) wants the villain or, antihero in some cases, to fail, but they are successful. This is modeled as an instance of Antipathy in Affect Engineering as the self wanted the target to fail, but they succeed anyway. The character of Joe Goldberg in the series You is an example of this, as the character in the series commits some fairly egregious deeds ranging from theft, to kidnapping and murder, yet manages to repeatedly escape justice, even if for no other reason than being the main character of the show and possessing plot armor, so to speak, along with the benefits that go with it (“You” trailer). Another example would be Danny Ocean in the 2001 remake of Ocean’s Eleven (e.g., Ocean’s Eleven trailer). These types of characters are also often written as being very charismatic, which can help enable them to earn a pass for their wrongdoings from observers and those empathizing with them.
  • The targeted party (e.g., a villain or an antihero) would be modeled to feel Mercy at the acknowledgement that the self wanted or at least should expect them to fail, but they were successful nonetheless.
  • The self would be modeled to feel Vicarious Mercy, imagining themself as the villain feeling Mercy, even if the self is the only one mercifying them.
  • The villain, or alternatively an antihero, would be modeled to feel Vicarious Antipathy, imagining themself as the self or another spectator wanting them to be unsuccessful but being disappointed because they succeeded despite this.

An example of Antipathetic Mercy (e.g., Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy variant) felt by the audience. Joe Goldberg from the series You.

An example of Antipathetic Mercy (e.g., Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy variant) felt by the audience. Danny Ocean from the 2001 remake of Ocean’s Eleven.

Lastly, Neutrality with Vicarious Loneliness or Vicarious Neutrality with Loneliness would be modeled to arise if the passive party neither desires for the active party to succeed nor fail (e.g., both are weighted the same). This, in essence, would be the absence of an empathetic response in Affect Engineering, or an instance of Indifference. The outcome of the scenario for the active party has no effect on the state of the passive party; there is no correlation one way or the other.

2) Why are there only four degrees of empathy in Affect Engineering if there are five pairs of Category II Emotions?

SHORT ANSWER

The conception of empathy in Affect Engineering can be likened to a compass with four directions represented by its four degrees. These four degrees can be mapped out on a pundit square with one scale being a measure for amity and goodwill against enmity and animosity, while the other scale is a measure for the amount of cognitive dissonance vs. cognitive consonance present, and the difference between expectations versus reality. The absence of amity and enmity along with the absence of cognitive dissonance and consonance would comprise the fifth pairing, Indifference, a general lack of empathy.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Compass Mapping of the Four Degrees of Empathy

Assuming that the empathizing party is the passive party, then there are two questions that Category II Emotions address:

  1. Does the empathizing party want to vicariously experience the targeted party (i.e., the other) succeed or fail at their objective?
  2. Does the targeted party (i.e., the other) succeed or fail?

For instance, if the self is passively observing another party attempt to achieve an objective, a two by two pundit square results with the four possibilities.

Image 7 (below) What the self feels when the self is the passive party and the other party is active.

For instances where the self is actively working towards an objective and the other party is passively observing them, the pundit square is similar but the vicariously experienced emotions flip.

Image 8 (below) What the self feels when the self is the active party and the other party is passive.

The fifth, or perhaps better labeled zeroth degree of empathy, would occur when the empathizing party does not lean one way or the other in regards to which outcome they prefer for the other party and there is neither cognitive dissonance nor consonance due to there being no expectations. This would be for Indifference (e.g., Neutrality and Vicarious Loneliness or Vicarious Neutrality and Loneliness).

3) Why does Affect Engineering bother to distinguish emotions that are experienced vicariously depending on whether or not one party has the ability to influence the outcome of another party’s situation?

SHORT ANSWER

An individual who is vicariously and passively experiencing another party’s success or failure will necessarily experience it differently than they would if they were actively trying to shape the outcome of the other party’s situation with their actions.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The distinction between Category II Emotions (Interpersonal Emotions) and Category III Emotions (Compound Interactive Emotions) lies solely within the answer to the question, “Does the empathizing party possess the ability to influence the outcome for the targeted party they are empathizing with?” This distinction is somewhat similar to the difference between fans of a sports team watching them on television and cheering them on from home or at a bar in isolation from the event, as opposed to cheering them on at the stadium or arena they are competing in.

Watching from home or at a bar effectively distances the fan far enough away from the event that they can only observe and vicariously experience the team’s situation from afar. There is nothing that they can do that might reasonably influence the outcome of the game.

However, a fan cheering their team on from a stadium can shout and cheer for their chosen team to boost morale; alternatively, they can boo, jeer, and heckle athletes and competitors from the opposing team during crucial moments to try and disrupt their concentration. While they can not play the sport themselves in lieu of the professional athletes on the team, it does afford them some sense of influence over the atmosphere at the venue. Moreover, their emotions would more aptly be categorized as a Category III Emotion in these cases.

Although this is a relatively tame example of a Category III Emotion, it is a suitable enough example to highlight the difference between the two categories in Affect Engineering’s framework. For instance, having home field advantaged is well acknowledged in most professional team sports. Across the major professional sports league, during the course of a regular season, the home team generally wins more games on average than the away team:

Image 9 (below) Percentage of games won by home teams across major sports leagues. Source: Google Search Engine Result for lower and upper bound estimates.

Across these professional sports, home teams win more games on average than away teams (Soccer ~60-69%, NBA ~60%, NHL ~55-59%, NFL ~53-57%, MLB ~53-54%, Rugby ~58%, Cricket ~60%). Other factors such as familiarity with the venue, having less jetlag from not traveling, and being acclimated to an environment (e.g., high altitude, snow, or heat in certain regions), also play a large part in home field advantage.

What is life, however, without exceptions?

Anomalies

One exception to this home field advantage trend stands out among others. In its thirty three years and seasons of existence, the 2020-2021 season of the Premier League (soccer) is the only season that saw away teams win more games than home teams. This was also a season during which no fans were permitted in stadiums due to COVID-19 restrictions. It saw away teams win 40.3% of games against home teams, who won 37.9% of games.

Image 10 (below) – Away Teams 153 Wins – Draws 83 – Home Wins 144

Homefield advantage returned in the Premier League the next year and has remained for every subsequent year thereafter with home teams winning more games than away teams, as can be observed in the article “Crumbling fortresses – why are teams struggling to win at home?”.

Also of note, the 2020-2021 NFL season was the only NFL season in its fifty plus year history, and only season since then, where home teams won fewer games than away teams (“What Happened to NFL Home-Field Advantage?”).

Image 14 (above) Home Team Wins = 127; Away Team Wins = 128, Draws = 1

Away teams were still traveling to less familiar venues, were jetlagged, and less acclimated to their environments, but with no homefield fans to create an atmosphere conducive to the home team winning, homefield advantage all but diminished for that year. During this season, the home teams odds of winning again away teams was reduced closer to chance or lower level than it was before or since then. This homefield advantage, as subtle and intangible as it is, virtually disappeared with the absence of fans in the stadium for a season, and then returned the following year and for every subsequent season thereafter in both leagues.

The implications of anomalies like this for modeling empathy in Affect Engineering are bit more straightforward fortunately. Judging by these two anomalies (the loss of homefield advantage that occurred during the absence of fans for these two leagues during the COVID lockdown), an observer might surmise the following: in general, fans who attend sporting events to cheer on their team or boo and jeer against rival teams are probably more inclined to believe that they contribute to their home team’s success more so than they would have if they had merely watched the game from home or at a bar where they could only passively watch it.

What this entails for Affect Engineering is that in the case of the sports fan, it would be more appropriate to model the empathy of fans who attend sporting events to cheer on their team and boo the opponent as a Category III Emotion, Compound Interactive Emotions, because they have the ability to influence, small as it may be on an individual level, the collective atmosphere at the venue where the event is taking place, and in some ways, the outcome. Category III Emotions will be examined in more detail in the next article of this series.

For the sports fan who watches and empathizes with their favorite sports team in isolation at home or with a small group of friends in a bar, it would be more appropriate to model their empathy as a Category II Emotion, or Interpersonal Emotion, as they have no tangible or easily identifiable means to influence the outcome of the event.

4) For what reasons might an individual intentionally alter their identification level with a target?

SHORT ANSWER

An individual might alter their identification level with a target by lowering it to avoid relating to someone or something potentially upsetting. Alternatively, they might intentionally elevate their identification level with a target by raising it abnormally to a heightened level if normal communication methods are inadequate for a situation.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Identifying with extreme classes or types of people (e.g., serial killers, murders, criminals, heroes, celebrities, etc.) presents some unique opportunities and challenges to an individual. For an individual to identify with another person or lifeform, this entails putting themself in a different perspective to see the world from their point of view. Sometimes this might compel the empathizing party to confront their own capacity, or lack thereof, to commit certain offenses or perform certain heroic deeds under duress if they were in a similar situation. In the case of this last statement, two reasons for distancing oneself from a target (by not identifying with them or drastically lowering identification level) present themselves:

  1. Observers might choose to distance themselves from a serial killer or murderer (e.g., by dehumanizing or labeling them a monster) to avoid confronting the possibility that they too, might be capable of committing horrible crimes if they were in the same position.
  2. Similarly, observers might choose to distance themselves from a hero (e.g., by idolizing, them a saint, otherworldly, or putting them on a pedestal) to avoid confronting the possibility that may not be capable of performing a similar action if called upon to do so in a time of peril.

In other situations, identifying too much with a target can also make certain endeavors more difficult, such as warfare. Being called upon to fire at and potentially kill an enemy combatant, particularly one that the soldier personally knows nothing about and harbors no ill will towards, save that they are a citizen of another country that was also drafted into the same war but on the opposing side, requires a certain level of detachment that can be difficult to achieve under normal circumstances. These are instances where identification would be likely viewed as a general hindrance on one side (e.g., by warhawks), and viewed as a general necessity on the other side (e.g., by pacifists).

On the other side of this question, an abnormally heightened identification level with a target can prove useful, such as in a first encounter between different cultures, situations where there are unknowns and direct communication is not possible, or for identifying ideals towards which one wishes to aspire.

For the vast majority of situations though, an individual would most likely be inclined to identify with a target at an elevated level (e.g., at a higher level than they would if they were in the position) if it is necessary for the target’s well being, and normal communication is not possible. For example, a protective parent of a small baby, a pet owner, a horticulturist in a garden, or an owner of a vintage car (e.g., inanimate object) might identify with the target at a higher level than they would if they themself were in that position, perhaps in order to preemptively address issues related to their wellbeing that cannot be stated directly. Under ideal conditions, this state of hypervigilant or excessive identification would serve the purpose of helping the individual anticipate the targeted party’s needs and respond to them. Under less ideal conditions, this state of elevated identification might lead to infatuation or obsession, such as the idolization of a celebrity, and so moderation would be warranted.

Preview

The next article will examine Category III Emotions, the Compound Interactive Emotions, in more depth.

Previous: Article 7 of 12: Category I Emotions, the Intra-Personal Emotions or Emotions of the Self

Next: Article 9 of 12: Category III Emotions, the Compound Interactive Emotions

No comments

On the Nature of Emotions: Categories of Emotions and Organizing Principles in Affect Engineering (Article 6 of 12)

  By

Categories of Emotions and Organizing Principles in Affect Engineering

This is the sixth article in a series designed for the layperson and it overviews the organizational principles behind how emotions are classified in Affect Engineering and also provides a general description of many of the basic emotions. It will begin with a list of questions that it aims to address. The sections that follow will be in two parts each. The first part will be a short statement that answers each question as succinctly as possible. The second part will either be an explanation that goes into more detail where needed or explain some of the more nuanced implications of the short answer.

QUESTIONS

  1. How are emotions organized in Affect Engineering?
  2. What are the core distinguishing features used to classify emotions in Affect Engineering?
  3. What would a general description of the main emotions in each category of emotions sound like?

How are emotions organized in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Emotions in Affect Engineering are grouped into one of four categories: Emotions of the Self; Interpersonal Emotions; Compound Interactive Emotions; Emotive States.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Emotions in Affect Engineering are grouped into one of four categories based upon a handful of features. Emotions that concern a single individual’s objectives and that take place over a relatively shorter time frame (e.g., minutes as opposed to days or weeks) are grouped together under Category I Emotions, Emotions of the Self or the Intrapersonal Emotions.

Emotions that involve empathy (e.g., scenarios where individuals imagines themselves in an other party’s position experiencing something) where they vicariously experience the other party’s success or failure in a passive manner without attempting to influence the outcome are grouped together under Category II Emotions. These are called the Interpersonal Emotions or the Four Degrees of Empathy in Affect Engineering.

Emotions that involve empathy and where individuals are attempting to influence the outcome of the other party’s situation while they are vicariously experiencing their success or failure are grouped together under Category III Emotions. These are called the Compound Interactive Emotions.

Lastly, emotions that are influenced more heavily by the amount of elapsed time, that are somewhat more unique in how they arise, or that are characterized by an interplay between multiple objectives (e.g., three or more objectives) are grouped together under Category IV Emotions, the Emotive States.

The Four Categories of Emotions in Affect Engineering. In the Category I Emotions, Anger, Disgust, and Relief are all grouped under Avoidance of Pain and would possess similar graphs, but differ in the response by the Self (i.e., Aggression, Evasion, Neither). Content is grouped under both the Avoidance of Pain and Pursuit of Pleasure subcategories. Category II and Category III Emotions involve empathy. Category IV Emotions include emotive states and miscellaneous emotions; it is a bit more expansive than the other three categories.

What are the core distinguishing features used to classify emotions in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

The core distinguishing features used to classify emotions in Affect Engineering are primarily derived from answers to the following questions:

  1. At what rate is the individual’s valuation of an entity for a purpose changing?
  2. What is the Appraisal of an entity, and will its acquisition lead towards or away from restoring equilibrium between the purpose at hand and its complementary purpose?
  3. Is empathy is involved?
  4. If empathy is involved, is the self actively attempting to influence the outcome for the other party’s success or failure, or is the self simply observing and vicariously experiencing the other party’s situation in a passive manner?
  5. What is the time frame over which an entity’s valuation is changing? Is it a drastic change?
  6. Is there an interplay between three or more purposes or other variables in the functions?
  7. What type of response is the self engaging in (e.g., aggressive, evasive, or neither)?

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The main feature used to distinguish one emotion from another in Affect Engineering is the rate of change in an entity’s valuation for the fulfillment of a purpose. For Category I Emotions, Emotions of the Self, the rate of change of an entity’s valuation for a purpose over time is the primary distinguishing feature between different emotions. This value may be increasing or decreasing at either an accelerating rate or a deaccelerating rate. It may also be staying the same.

The Appraisal of an entity, which is concerned with whether the entity’s acquisition will lead towards a restoration of equilibrium between a purpose and its complementary purpose or away from equilibrium, determines whether an Avoidance of Pain function is used as opposed to a Pursuit of Pleasure function. Each of these types of functions has different emotions that fall under their domains, although the emotion of Content is an exception as it falls under both. The Avoidance of Pain emotions under Category I Emotions include: Sadness, Grief, Fear, Anger, Disgust, Relief, and Content. The Pursuit of Pleasure emotions under Category I Emotions include: Happiness, Euphoria, Courage, Guilt, and Content.

Empathy, or the self imagining itself experiencing a situation as another party, is present in all Category II, all Category III Emotions, and in some Category IV Emotions. In the case of Category II Emotions, the self’s vicarious experience is purely passive, akin to watching a movie and identifying with one of the characters in it. In the case of Category III Emotions, the self is actively attempting to influence the outcome of the situation for the another while also vicariously experiencing the other’s success or failure.

Category IV Emotions, or Emotive States, are those where the duration of the situation is taken into consideration when classifying an emotion; Category Four Emotions also include emotions that are characterized by an interplay between three or more objectives, and this category includes emotions that arise due to specific variables in the functions that may be consistently elevated, depressed, unknown, or fluctuating wildly, among several other possibilities.

Lastly, regarding the self’s response type (e.g., to a threat of harm to an entity), if the self’s response involves aggression and moving against a threat of harm, attempts to evade a threat of harm, or neither of these, then this would alter the classification of the emotion being expressed. This applies primarily to the Category I Emotion of Anger, and is used to distinguish Anger from both Disgust and from Relief.

What would a general description of the main emotions in each category of emotions sound like?

SHORT ANSWER

Category I Emotions, the Intrapersonal Emotions, include the emotions related to purposes that only concern the self, and no empathy is involved. They are: Sadness; Grief; Fear; Anger; Content; Happiness; Euphoria; Courage; Guilt, Disgust, Relief.

Category II Emotions, the Interpersonal Emotions, or Four Degrees of Empathy, include the emotions that concern the self and others when the empathizing party is passive and not actively trying to influence the outcome of the other. They are: Love and Vicarious Pride; Pride and Vicarious Love; Sympathy and Vicarious Shame; Shame and Vicarious Sympathy; Hatred and Vicarious Humiliation; Humiliation and Vicarious Hatred; Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy; Mercy Vicarious Antipathy; Neutrality, Vicarious Loneliness; Loneliness, Vicarious Neutrality.

Category III Emotions, the Compound Interactive Emotions, concern the self and others when the empathizing party is actively trying to influence the outcome of the other. They are: Benevolence; Jealousy; Malevolence; Envy. Each of the these four emotions may also be one of two types, Indulgent or Protective. Category III Emotions are comprised of both a Category I and a Category II emotion.

Category IV, the Emotive States, often concern the time frame over which some valuations are established, and include emotions that are characterized by the interplay between multiple purposes or variables within the functions. Some examples include: Surprise; Joyfulness; Restlessness; Helplessness; Confusion; Limerence. Other more culturally specific, obscure, or lesser known emotions would likely fall under this category if they cannot be explained by the other three Categories.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

A brief explanation of each emotion along with a sample graph where applicable, follows below. A more in depth explanation of each of the emotions along with examples, descriptions of what variables in the functions could lead to these emotions arising, how the self can regulate these emotions, and instances of other miscellaneous emotions will follow in the remaining six articles (articles 7-12).

The Category I Emotions: Intrapersonal Emotions

Sadness

Sadness felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity rising at a steady rate. This could be due, for instance, to the entity becoming more difficult to acquire.

Grief

Grief felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity rising at an accelerating rate, oftentimes approaching a vertical asymptote (i.e., towards positive infinity). A steep slope or a vertical asymptote could arise due to the self’s realization that the entity is either nearly impossible to attain or no longer attainable at all.

Fear

Fear felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity initially being low and somewhat uncertain before rising and tapering off again. This could be due to new information becoming available concerning a threat of harm to an entity or the inability to prevent the threat of harm (e.g., low efficacy and a high probability of the harm happening). This could happen if a threat of harm was initially dismissed as negligible, but is later revealed to be significant.

Anger, Disgust, and Relief

Anger felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity lowering and the presence of aggression against a threat of harm to it; aggression distinguishes Anger from the emotions of Disgust and Relief. Anger’s presence would be indicated by the self actively eliminating a threat of harm, that is to say, demonstrating aggression against it.

Disgust felt for a particular entity is also characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity lowering. However, evasion or evasive action is the critical component in this case; evasive action distinguishes Disgust from the emotions of Anger and Relief. Disgust could arise due to the self taking action to successfully evade a threat of harm to the entity, for instance, by moving the entity away from the threat of harm.

Relief felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity lowering, but without aggression or evasion; the lack of aggression or evasive action distinguishes Relief from the emotions of Anger and Disgust. Relief could arise due to the threat of harm to the entity simply not happening, or the threat of harm having a low likelihood and becoming negligible through chance.

Content

Content felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity remaining the same or at a low level, such as at or near its existential value. This could be due to the entity simply not having all that much importance to the individual, or if the entity’s valuation has remained steady for an extended period of time and is being used as a benchmark of sorts to compare against other entities. Valuations for two separate entities are listed below on the same graph.

Happiness

Happiness felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity descending at a steady rate towards negative infinity. It is important to keep in mind that the negative symbol here (-), for Negative Anxiety, does not symbolize good or bad, but simply means that further acquisition of the entity will lead away from equilibrium between the purpose at hand and its complement or opposing purpose. The entity is already in ample supply, and further acquisition of it is akin to increasing a stockpile of a resource that is already possessed in a sufficient amount. In contrast, for emotions gauged with Anxiety (i.e., Positive Anxiety), the positive Appraisal value implies that acquiring the entity will lead towards a restoration of equilibrium.

Euphoria

Euphoria felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity descending at a steady rate towards negative infinity. Similarly to Happiness, the entity is already in ample supply, and further acquisition of it is akin to increasing a personal stockpile. Approaching a vertical asymptote could be due to an instance of extremely good fortune, such as winning the lottery or becoming obsessed with and successfully collecting a specific entity, or suddenly acquiring the means to engage in an enjoyable activity such as traveling. The primary risk here arises from other entities and objectives that are being ignored or neglected, as euphoria felt for successfully acquiring a specific entity in excess for the fulfillment of the purpose will necessarily come at the expense of successfully achieving other objectives that the individual is not fulfilling.

Courage

Courage felt for a particular entity as it relates to the fulfillment of a purpose is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity initially having a low absolute value (i.e., closer to zero) and being somewhat uncertain before increasing and tapering off again. It is similar to the graph for Fear in this sense, but because Negative Anxiety is used its value descends negatively towards negative infinity before tapering off again. Like for courage, this could be due to the availability of new information concerning a threat of harm to an entity or the inability to prevent the threat of harm (e.g., high efficacy or a low probability of the threat of harm to the entity). If the acquisition of an entity initially seemed unattainable, but new information later suggests that the individual can more easily acquire it, then they would feel emboldened or encouraged to obtain the entity under this model.

Guilt

Guilt felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity initially having a high absolute value, and then rising towards its existential value (i.e., its absolute value diminishes and returns closer towards one in this case). Guilt is modeled as a missed opportunity by an individual in Affect Engineering, and this could arise due to the self initially possessing a good chance or favorable odds to acquire the entity (e.g., high initial efficacy and low threat components), but failing to acquire the entity nonetheless. This often times happens with procrastination for individuals, where they may have initially had time to complete a task, but because they failed to act with urgency, they end up not succeeding.

The Category II Emotions: Interpersonal Emotions or the Four Degrees of Empathy

All of the Category II Emotions involve empathy. However, the party that is vicariously experiencing the other party’s success or failure only does so passively. They do not attempt to influence the outcome of the other party’s situation, and oftentimes cannot interact with the other party. They only observe and mirror them.

When the self is the passive party, they will feel either Love and Vicarious Pride, Sympathy and Vicarious Shame, Hatred and Vicarious Humiliation, or Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy.

When the self is the active party and is aware that they are being passively observed by someone empathizing with them, then the roles essentially flip. The self vicariously experiences the other party vicariously experiencing their situation. That is to say, the self imagines they are another party imagining that they are the original individual. When this happens, Pride and Vicarious Love, Shame and Vicarious Sympathy, Humiliation and Vicarious Hatred, or Mercy and Vicarious Antipathy may be felt by the self in Affect Engineering’s framework.

Love and Vicarious Pride; Pride and Vicarious Love

Love and Vicarious Pride felt for another party are characterized by the self wanting the other party to succeed, and the other party does succeed. This may take one of two forms, depending on which functions are being used for the self (top left and bottom left graphs of the next two images) and their vicarious valuation of the other party (top right and bottom right graphs of the next two images).

For Pride and Vicarious Love, the self would have agency and the graphs would be flipped, with the self’s valuation of an entity being on the right, and their imagining of the other party vicariously experiencing their success on the left . . . vicariously experiencing the other party wanting to vicariously experience the self’s own success and the self succeeds.

Sympathy and Vicarious Shame; Shame and Vicarious Sympathy

Sympathy and Vicarious Shame felt for another party are characterized by the self wanting the other party to succeed, but the other party fails. This may take one of two forms, depending on which functions are being used for the self (top left and bottom left graphs of the next two images) and their vicarious valuation of the other party (top right and bottom right graphs of the next two images).

For Shame and Vicarious Sympathy, the self would have agency and the graphs would be flipped, with the self’s valuation of an entity being on the right, and their imagining of the other party vicariously experiencing their failure on the left. In contrast to Vicarious Love, with Vicarious Sympathy the self would be vicariously experiencing the other party wanting to vicariously experience the self’s own success, but because the individual failed then that awareness of the disappointment (Shame) is felt along with Vicarious Sympathy.

Hatred and Vicarious Humiliation; Humiliation and Vicarious Hatred

Hatred and Vicarious Humiliation felt for another party are characterized by the self wanting the other party to fail at their objective, and the other party does fails. This may take one of two forms, depending on which functions are being used for the self (top left and bottom left graphs of the next two images) and their vicarious valuation of the other party (top right and bottom right graphs of the next two images).

For Humiliation and Vicarious Hatred, the self would have agency and the graphs would be flipped, with the self’s valuation of an entity being on the right, and their imagining of the other party vicariously experiencing delight at their failure on the left . . . vicariously experiencing the other party wanting to vicariously experience the self’s own failure, and the self ultimately fails. This could arise from the other party feeling like the self did not deserve to achieve whatever goal was sought.

Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy; Mercy and Vicarious Antipathy

Antipathy and Vicarious Mercy felt for another party are characterized by the self wanting the other party to fail at their objective, but the other party ultimately succeeds. Vicarious Mercy in this sense is the sensation by the self that the other party either avoided a harm that they deserved or achieved a goal that they did not deserve to achieve. This may take one of two forms, depending on which functions are being used for the self (top left and bottom left graphs of the next two images) and their vicarious valuation of the other party (top right and bottom right graphs of the next two images).

For Mercy and Vicarious Antipathy, the self would have agency and the graphs would be flipped, with the self’s valuation of an entity being on the right, and their imagining of the other party vicariously experiencing frustration at their success on the left. In contrast to Vicarious Hatred, they would be vicariously experiencing the other party wanting to vicariously experience the self’s own failure, but the self ultimately succeeds. This could arise from the other party feeling like the self did not deserve to achieve whatever goal was sought, and that the self, in essence, escaped justice.

Neutrality, Vicarious Loneliness; Loneliness, Vicarious Neutrality

Neutrality and Vicarious loneliness felt for another party are characterized by the self neither reacting to the success nor failure of the other party. It is akin to indifference, and the graph for the self is similar to Content.

For Loneliness and Vicarious Neutrality, the self would have agency and the graphs would be flipped, with the self’s valuation of an entity being on the right, and their imagining of the other party not reacting to their success or failure on the left.

The Category III Emotions: Compound Interactive Emotions:

The primary distinction between Category III Emotions and Category II Emotions is that for Category III Emotions, the self also has agency, and is able to perform actions that can influence the outcome of the scenario for the other party. Category III Emotions are also comprised of both a Category I and Category II Emotion.

For Category III Emotions, the distinction between Indulgent Type and Protective Type depends on the Appraisal of the entity being valued for actions that the self may take. Indulgent Type emotions involve a negative Appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium and a Pursuit of Pleasure Emotion for the self. Protective Type emotions involve a positive Appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium and an Avoidance of Pain emotion for the self.

Lastly, for any of the Protective Type Emotions listed below, Anger may be substituted for Disgust or Relief depending on the approach type used by the self (i.e., aggression, evasion, or neither), as all three are considered Avoidance of Pain Emotions in Affect Engineering.

Benevolence: Indulgent Type and Protective Type

Benevolence entails the self wanting the other party to succeed, and the self successfully performs an action to ensure that the other party succeeds. The other party ultimately succeeds.

Jealousy: Indulgent Type and Protective Type

Jealousy entails the self wanting the other party to succeed. However, the self is unable to successfully perform an action to ensure that the other party succeeds and the other party ultimately fails. Jealousy’s definition here is more precise and limited, but still in line with the fear of losing loyalty (e.g., to a third party, see jealousy); this definition does not include being covetous, as this would violate the 1:1:1:1 ratio that Affect Engineering adheres towards. Coveting a rival’s situation would be a separate object and would involve a separate emotion. In Affect Engineering, that third party does not need to be another person; it may be any activity or thing that can fulfill the other party’s desire where the self failed to do so.

Malevolence: Indulgent Type and Protective Type

Malevolence entails the self wanting the other party to fail. The self is able to successfully performs an action to ensure that the other party fails and the other party ultimately does not succeed.

Envy: Indulgent Type and Protective Type

Envy entails the self wanting the other party to fail. The self is not able to successfully performs an action to ensure that the other party fails and the other party ultimately succeeds. Envy in this context refers to contempt for another’s gain or resentment that arises from the other party’s fortune. The gain, in this case, is the other party escaping a fate that the self considered deserved (e.g., the perception that the other escaped justice). It is comparable to the standard definition of envy, but does not include desiring what the other party has, as this would also violate the 1:1:1:1 ratio in Affect Engineering, in much the same way that being covetous would for jealousy. If the individual desires what the other party has, then that would be a separate purpose and it would involve an additional emotion.

The Category IV Emotions: Emotive States (and other miscellaneous emotions)

Category IV Emotions, or Emotive States, are include all other emotions not mentioned up to this point. As mentioned earlier, Category IV Emotions include those where the duration of the situation is taken into consideration when classifying an emotion, emotions that are characterized by an interplay between three or more objectives, and emotions where certain variables in the functions may be consistently elevated, depressed, unknown, or fluctuating wildly, among other possibilities. Difficult to generalize and culturally specific emotions would often fall under this category, as, more often than not, they are characterized by an interplay between multiple objectives (e.g., three or more). This category is necessarily broader and more expansive than the other three, and permits some flexibility within Affect Engineering’s classification scheme.

Surprise

Surprise felt for an entity is characterized by a sharp change in the valuation of an entity for a purpose. This could be due, for instance, to the Appraisal variable switching from negative to positive or vice versa. A sudden, unexpected change in any other variable could also lead to Surprise arising.

Joyfulness

Joyfulness felt by the self is characterized by the individual having a significant amount of Negative Anxiety invested into several different entities, often times for different purposes. All of the entities all possessed in ample supply and can be stockpiled easily, and with respect to the purpose or purposes at hand, accomplishing them would be relatively easy.

Restlessness

Restlessness felt by the self is characterized by the individual having a significant amount of Anxiety invested into several different entities, often times for different purposes. All of the entities are needed and in short supply. With respect to the purpose or purposes at hand, accomplishing them will be relatively difficult and a general state of unease would be expected. Restlessness would be the counterpart to Joyfulness.

Helplessness

Helplessness felt by the self for an entity is characterized by the individual having a chronically low sense of control over their situation. This could be modeled by low efficacy components, or even an inability of the self to effectively regulate the emotions themselves. Graphs for Helplessness might take on a variety of different appearances.

Confusion

Confusion felt by the self for an entity is characterized by one or more variables in the function being unknown, only known within a certain range, or varying unpredictably from one instance to another. The valuation of the entity for a specific purpose might oscillate within whatever range is possible based on what is known or suspected with the given information the individual knows.

Greed

Greed in Affect Engineering would be modeled as conflict between at least three purposes. The self, by fulfilling one purpose for the self ends up preventing another party from fulfilling a purpose. Moreover, the self wanted the other party to successfully achieve their purpose, but the self’s actions prevented this. A hypothetical scenario will follow to explain this with the author as the subject.

Scenario A: Buying cookies from a pastry shop for friends.

The subject, Marcus, goes to a pastry shop to buy cookies for his friends. His friends want to enjoy some of the pastry shop’s cookies but they cannot get to the shop to order any before it closes. However, Marcus is able to go and he is more than happy to go there and purchase some cookies to make them happy. However, on his way back to delivering them to his friends, the smell of the cookies proves irresistible and Marcus eats all of the cookies before his friends get to try any of them.

The three objectives under consideration:

  1. Marcus’s friends (the other party) want to eat some cookies from the pastry shop but are unable to go there themselves. Their situation and objectives are experienced vicariously by Marcus (i.e., mirrored).
  2. Marcus wants to help his friends achieve their objective (eating the cookies) and is able to go to the pastry shop to get the cookies for them.
  3. Marcus wants to eat the cookies for himself.

The first two objectives would fall under the Category III emotion of Jealousy, and would be of the indulgent type if Marcus simply could not resist the cookies despite having enough of his own. If Marcus was starving to death and the only way to avoid expiring from hunger was by eating the cookies, the case could be made that it was of the protective type, but this would be unlikely. The third objective, wanting to eat the cookies for himself, would fall under the Category I emotion of Happiness and is a separate objective that is in opposition to the other two.

The collective dynamic between these three objectives would be labeled Greed in Affect Engineering. In the image below, Marcus wanting to eat the cookies would be one of the topmost graphs. Marcus wanting to help his friends enjoy some of the cookies but failing to do so would be on of the bottommost graphs below.

Romantic Love, Limerence and Other Emotions

Romantic love, limerence, and some of the more obscure emotions would likely fall under Category IV as many involve an interplay between three or more objectives. These, and other lesser known emotions such as Schadenfreude, Sonder, Callosity, Sehensucht, Hiraeth, and potentially others will be addressed with Category IV Emotions (article 12).

Preview

In the remaining articles, each category of emotion will be examined more in depth with either contemporary examples or hypothetical ones. Some of the relationships between variables will also be explored with sample functions comprised of the variables introduced in the first five articles. A sample function for both the Avoidance of Pain and Pursuit of Pleasure equations is provided below.

Sample function for an avoidance of pain emotion (e.g., Category I)
Sample function for a Pursuit of Pleasure Emotion (e.g., Category I Emotion).

The categories of emotions and their application to real life scenarios can, fortunately, be explored without getting into too much of the math.

Previous: Article 5 of 12 Empathy in Affect Engineering

Next: Article 7 of 12 Category I Emotions: Intra-personal Emotions or Emotions of the Self

No comments

On the Nature of Emotions: Empathy in Affect Engineering (Article 5 of 12)

  By

Empathy in Affect Engineering

This article gives an overview of empathy in Affect Engineering and is the fifth article in a series designed for the layperson that explains the basics of Affect Engineering as a theory of emotions. Each article will begin with a list of questions that it will aim to address. The sections that follow will be in two parts each. The first part will be a short statement that answers each question as succinctly as possible. The second part will either be an explanation that goes into more detail where needed or explain some of the implications of the short answer.

QUESTIONS

  1. How is empathy represented in Affect Engineering?
  2. Can the regulation or intensity of empathy in the individual be modeled in Affect Engineering?
  3. Can empathy, if it is extended towards other sentient lifeforms, inanimate objects, or intangible entities, be modeled in Affect Engineering?

How is empathy represented in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Empathy is mathematically modeled in Affect Engineering using imaginary numbers, that is to say, √(-1) or “i”. The variable used to signify whether or not empathy is involved is “Self-Distinction.” Vicarious valuations and emotions are mapped on a complex plane, with the real values marking the elapsed time.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Empathy in Affect Engineering is generally understood as a person’s capacity to imagine the self as an other (i.e., non-self) experiencing a feeling. Individuals imagine themselves experiencing how an other would value an entity for a purpose and what they would feel with respect to the entity in a given scenario; this is modeled in a fashion similar to the emotions of the self (Category I emotions in Affect Engineering) and empathy’s presence is signaled by the variable of “Self-Distinction.” Self-Distinction answers the question, “Is the entity being valued for a purpose held by the self, or is the individual imagining the self as an other valuing the object for a purpose held by the other?”

Self-Distinction, in Affect Engineering, is a distinct variable (i.e., having a limit to what its inputs may be) and may only equal either +1 or -1. If the valuation for an object/entity concerns a purpose held by the individual (no empathy involved), then Self-Distinction equals +1. Alternatively, if the valuation for an object/entity concerns a purpose held by an other (empathy involved), then Self-Distinction equals -1. In the functions of Affect Engineering, Self-Distinction is taken to the one-half power (i.e., square root) and is positioned alongside the base of the functions. If no empathy is involved, the output becomes √(+1) or simply one, and a Cartesian plane is used. If empathy is involved, the output becomes ✓(-1) or “i” and an Argand plane (i.e., complex plane) is used to map the valuations for the imaginary numbers, which would then correspond to a vicarious valuation (i.e., the self imagining itself as an other).

Even though individuals are imagining themselves as an other valuing the entity, the 1:1:1:1 ratio (i.e., one entity may be given one value by one person for the fulfillment of one purpose) is still upheld as a principle, but it becomes a 2:2:2:2 ratio where the self’s own valuations respond to or combine and interact with what they imagine the other to be experiencing. This occurs in Category II Emotions (Interpersonal Emotions), Category III Emotions (Compound Interactive Emotions), and some Category IV Emotions (Emotive States).

Although the neurological model above may look overwhelming, it is perhaps easiest to look at one part of it at a time and keep in mind that the relationships are primarily associative; that is to say, things that happen together or in a chain are considered to be linked. When empathy is involved, the box “Other” [located in the middle near the top] in the chart is used, and indicates that the variable of Self-Distinction is -1. The above neurological model is based upon a function for a Category III Emotion in Affect Engineering (Compound Interactive) where the individual is attempting to influence the outcome of the other’s situation. It is also of the protective type for Category III emotions, as the self is attempting to avoid pain and Anxiety is being used to measure value. The counterpart to this would be an indulgent type, where the individual is attempting to pursue pleasure with Negative Anxiety being used.

Excitatory and inhibitory synapses are also incorporated just as in the model for the emotions of the self. Similarly, cognitive appraisal based approaches (starting with the cognitive processes that influence affect and feeling) would begin at top of the chart with signals and neural activity flowing in a predominantly downward direction. Alternatively, more physiological based approaches (starting with the affect and feeling itself) would start at the bottom of the chart with signals and neural activity generally flowing upwards to associate the feeling to something cognitively meaningful.

As the relationships are associative, these groups of neurons are modeled to be firing together and/or in sequence to one another to signify that they are related to one another. For instance, neurons firing to signal a particular entity might be marked with value for a purpose depending on how much Anxiety is being invested into them (i.e., valuing neurons firing at the same time, along with a cluster of neurons corresponding to the purpose they are being valued for). For scenarios concerning empathy, that is, where the individual imagines the self as an other, mirror neurons that fire both when the valuation concerns the self and someone or something the self is observing are one possible means by which an individual’s value system might be organized; alternatively, the individual might possess a separate group of neurons specifically tasked for vicariously valuing an other’s response. Either one of these possibilities could be modeled. In the above neurological model, the individual is acting to influence the outcome of the observed party (i.e., the other), and the two purposes are linked to one another; the perceived success or failure of the other has an influence on a purpose held by the self.

Can the regulation or intensity of empathy in the individual be modeled in Affect Engineering? 

SHORT ANSWER

Yes, the regulation and intensity of empathy can be modeled with coefficients and modifiers to those coefficients to signify the self’s identification level with an other.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The different degrees to which an individual may or may not empathize with an other is modeled with coefficients alongside the functions in Affect Engineering.  It is well documented throughout history that people, for one reason or another, identify with certain groups of people or animals more easily than others. For groups that people do not identify with, they might even ignore them altogether, treating them as if they did not even exist. These coefficients are just outside of the Self-Distinction variable and represent the identification level of the self to an other target when empathy is involved. A larger coefficient (e.g., one) indicates that the self strongly identifies with the other individual and vicariously values the entity to the same degree that they would if they themselves were in the other’s position.

Identification levels can be illustrated with hypothetical sentient blobs of color and subtractive color mixing; this is a parallel for identifying with others based on socially constructed concepts such as race.

In the above identification chart, green blobs would be expected to identify strongest with other green blobs, because they share the fact of their greenness together. A coefficient of one for the identification level implies that the self identifies with the other perfectly. The self’s identification level with the other green blob is 100% and does not influence the self’s capacity to empathize at all; this serves as a baseline. Hence, the identification level chart above for the colored blobs reveals that a green blob would identify with another green blob perfectly.

In contrast, a smaller coefficient, (e.g., one-half or 1/2) would model that the self vicariously values the entity for a purpose at one-half of the intensity that they imagine an other would experience it at. Subsequently, the intensity of the emotion felt will be reduced. Blue and yellow paint mixed together will yield green; from a green blob’s perspective, this would lead to an identification level of one-half for both the yellow and blue blobs. This might be valuable to the individual for distancing the self from the plight of others in the face of overwhelming tragedy, in order to mitigate vicariously felt trauma. It might even just stem from the fact that yellow and blue are different enough from green that this could lead a green blob to not having a strong personal connection to the target (i.e., the other). This might serve the aim of resource management, given that empathizing with everyone and everything would potentially exhaust one’s available emotional resources quickly. Alternatively, it might stem from bias against the unknown.

A green blob in this case, might be expected to identify with a blue or yellow blob at one-half the level they would if they were in their position themselves. What this means is that the green blob would internalize vicarious valuations at approximately one-half the level a blue or yellow blog perceives them. It would take the vicarious valuations of two blue blobs, two yellow blobs, or a blue and a yellow blob together to equal that of one green blob, if they were all experiencing the same trauma or plight.

In cases where the coefficient for identification is set to zero, the self has no vicarious valuation for what they imagine an other would experience it (i.e., reduced to zero). The self effectively does not identify with the other at all, which might arise in scenarios where the self deems it is necessary to distance itself from an other. It might also arise from refusing to acknowledge the other as being worthy of empathy. This might be done by the individual in cases where an other or group of others is dehumanized so that the self does not empathize with their suffering, such as in scenarios where the other has committed offenses that the self deems unforgivable (e.g., war crimes, or serial killers). The usefulness here might be for resource management of emotional energy, or for maintaining one’s worldviews concerning morality and adherence to a code of ethics. If the self empathizes with an other whose conduct persistently violates what the self considers acceptable behavior, then cognitive dissonance would be one of the expected results; choosing to not identify, and subsequently not empathize with the other, would be one way to resolve the cognitive dissonance, or prevent it from arising in the first place.

In the above illustration, the green blob has not identified at all with the red blob, its complementary and opposite color. No matter how many red blobs are present, because the coefficient for the green blob’s identification level with the red blobs is zero, the green blob will effectively dismiss any and all vicarious valuations that arise from observing a red blob. It bears mentioning that such a blanket generalization of the red blobs would likely be fraught with errors in most cases.

On the opposite end, if one wished to model a situation where the self over-empathizes (e.g., hyper-empathy) or vicariously experiences the valuations and corresponding emotions to a greater degree than they imagine the other would experience it, then this could be modeled with coefficients greater than one.  For example, a coefficient of three where empathy is involved, or 3 x √(-1), would hold that the self vicariously values the entity at three times the intensity that they imagine the other to experience it. This identification level formation may be voluntary, involuntary, or a mix of both depending on what assumptions a scientific observer wishes to use in a setup of function in Affect Engineering.  Notwithstanding, the corresponding intensity of the emotion felt would also be modeled to be greater in the above example.  A person who is overly sensitive to the wants and needs of others may easily blow things out of proportion if they overestimate an other’s situation in this manner, and feel the emotion more strongly than they would if they were in that position themselves. This might happen, for instance, between a parent and a child.

Can empathy, if it is extended towards other sentient lifeforms, inanimate objects, or intangible entities, be modeled in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Yes, empathy, if extended towards other sentient lifeforms, towards inanimate objects, or towards intangible entities for which the individual imagines what the object would feel if it could feel, can be modeled in Affect Engineering.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The extension of empathy is not limited to other human beings in Affect Engineering. It may be extended towards other creatures (e.g., animals, pets, plants, other wildlife), towards inanimate objects (e.g., rocks, personal possessions like a doll or stuffed animal, vehicles, etc), or towards intangible concepts (e.g., ideas, fictional characters in a story, vague labels for groups of people, nations, etc). In each of these cases there are important things to consider.

Empathy Extended Towards Other Lifeforms 

This is perhaps the most easily recognizable and relatable form of empathy due to the individual being able to readily witness the responses, behaviors, and actions of an other (e.g., lifeform in this case) they are empathizing with. Its usefulness in these scenarios is also somewhat self-evident as it is often directly tied to survival, or at least it is easier to make this connection when other lifeforms are involved. For instance, if, while hiking in a wooded area, one encounters and startles a mountain lion, being able to empathize with, or at the very least, grasp a rudimentary understanding of the mountain lion’s state of heightened alarm, becomes potentially life saving knowledge. One’s chances of surviving the encounter unscathed would go up significantly by taking this into account and backing away slowly instead of continuing in a business as usual manner.

Empathy Extended Towards Inanimate Objects

Regarding inanimate objects such as stuff animals and dolls, the use of empathy can serve a number of functions.  In childhood, it may serve the role of helping a child to develop their empathy skills through practice and imaginative play. A stuffed teddy bear for example, is not going to give any feedback at a tea party, so it compels the child to imagine and anticipate the needs, albeit imaginary, of the toy.

Imaginative play with a stuff teddy bear is essentially empathy practice, more so if the child at play holds up both ends of the conversation, such as by asking the stuffed animal or doll, “Would you like some more tea?” and then responds for the stuffed bear, “Yes, I would. Thank you.”

While the parallels for this to eventually empathizing with people are readily apparent, sometimes empathizing with an inanimate object simply serves the function of inspiring them to take better care of the inanimate object. Plenty of people have given nicknames to the cars they drive, private planes they fly, boats they pilot, or they have anthropomorphized other machines, vehicles, or material possessions they own. If they are an adult, one would presume that they have hopefully already learned to empathize with other people, and are not doing it to practice for future human interactions. In the case of these inanimate objects, anticipating the maintenance needs of large/heavy machinery is also important for keeping it functioning properly. Like stuffed animals, dolls, or action figures, these inanimate objects cannot say what they need, unless they have been electronically programmed that way, such as a car’s check engine light.

Empathy Extended Towards Intangible Concepts 

Thirdly, regarding the use of empathy with intangible objects, empathy may also be employed for other uses, such as a means of self-comfort (e.g., in the case of a lonely child with an imaginary friend) and is not solely restricted to practice. Empathizing with intangible objects may also be used for entertainment value, such as in the case of reading a fictional horror and romance novels. It may also be used for projective purposes if one wishes to forecast what a loosely defined group of people or things might value, feel, or do, such as a culture, society, or country, if they do not have a clearly defined center.

Summary

In sum, for each of these cases, where the self empathizes with other lifeforms, inanimate entities, and intangible entities, empathy can be modeled in Affect Engineering with the variable of Self-Distinction. However, as the employment of empathy in these instances goes from the more concrete (e.g., fauna and flora that have motives that can be reasonably deduced from evidence) towards the increasingly abstract (e.g., stuffed animals, dolls, statues, and cars with motives that are frequently fabricated) it is important to keep in mind that empathy is oftentimes imaginative in its nature. This is both a blessing and a curse.

Preview

The organizing principles behind the four categories of emotions in Affect Engineering will be covered in the sixth article. Thereafter, each emotion’s core distinguishing features will be covered in the remaining six.

Previous: Article 4 of 12: Emotional Responses and Emotional Regulation in Affect Engineering

Next: Article 6 of 12: Organizing Principles of the Categories of Emotions in Affect Engineering

No comments

On the Nature of Emotions: Emotional Responses and Emotional Regulation in Affect Engineering (Article 4 of 12)

  By ,

Emotional Responses and Emotional Regulation in Affect Engineering

This is the fourth article in a series designed for the layperson that will explain the basics of Affect Engineering as a theory of emotions. Each article will begin with a list of questions that it will aim to address. The sections that follow will be in two parts each. The first part will be a short statement that answers each question as succinctly as possible. The second part will either be an explanation that goes into more detail where needed or explain some of the implications of the short answer.

QUESTIONS

  1. What is an emotional response in Affect Engineering?
  2. What does heeding an emotion’s call to action mean in Affect Engineering?
  3. What variables can amplify, or alternatively, reduce an emotion’s call to action to the individual?
  4. How is emotion regulation by an individual modeled in Affect Engineering?
  5. How might someone use their understanding of Affect Engineering’s framework to better regulate their own emotional responses and actions?

What is an emotional response in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

An emotional response in Affect Engineering consists of the feelings and reactions (e.g., facial expressions) that arise from a change in an individual’s valuation of an entity for the fulfillment of a purpose.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

A novel experience, whether pleasant or unpleasant, will often lead to an individual having future expectations. One’s first time eating a delicious brownie or cookie in response to hunger will typically lead to expectations of enjoying eating another food like it again in the future under similar circumstances. Likewise, an individual breaking a bone for the first time would likely have expectations that breaking a bone again in the future would be a painful and unpleasant experience that is best avoided.

While emotions, strong feelings, and affect can arise for both novel experiences where the individual has no prior expectations, and for scenarios in the future where the individual has predictions for what they expect to feel based upon their prior knowledge, most people would agree that an individual has a better chance to manage an emotional response to a situation where they have the advantage of holding past experience as a precedent. The focus here will be on emotional responses and emotional regulation for situations where the individual has relevant prior experience and knowledge about what they foresee will happen (e.g., an expected contingency). An emotional response in Affect Engineering consists of the physical sensations, feelings, affect arising from, and behavioral expressions (e.g., smiling when happy, crying when sad, frowning when angry) related to a change in an individual’s valuation of an object for the fulfillment of a specific purpose. Emotional responses serve as a call to action to the individual, and sometimes observers around them, to engage in behavior that will influence outcomes for the immediate situation at hand or alternatively future scenarios.

For example, a situation where an individual experiences a wave of good feelings and smiles after eating a food that looks strange but tastes appealing will create at least two messages. The individual both receives feedback from their own emotional response, a signal to continue eating, and the emotional response signals to observers that what the individual is eating is perhaps worth trying for themselves.

As mentioned in the first article of this series, affect that is unattached to a particular entity or purpose, such as a vague feelings of delight for no apparent reason to the individual, are best thought of as white noise or static interference in Affect Engineering. An individual unknowingly exposed to a drug for instance (e.g., in vapor form or dissolved in a consumed beverage), may feel the physical effects of it without knowing why they are occurring. Oftentimes, an entity, purpose, or explanation may be attributed to the feelings later, but until that happens it is not considered an emotional response in Affect Engineering. Instead, it is energy that is unavailable to do work by valuing entities until it is either demobilized, or attributed to something. In the context of Affect Engineering’s functions, this would be the equivalent of starting on the other side of the equation (i.e., the affect itself), and then working backwards to try to figure out an explanation for why the individual feels a certain way. In Affect Engineering’s framework, this is perhaps the best way to describe an individual’s formation of emotions for novel experiences where there are neither prior expectations nor context for the individual draw from, and also for accounting for physiological approaches to the study of emotions (e.g., James-Lange theory of emotions, Canon-Bard theory of emotions). However, for the purposes of explaining Affect Engineering’s basic framework here, a cognitive appraisal based approach (i.e., one emphasizing thoughts, mental processes, and interpretations) will be used here instead of a physiological one; but both approaches can be accounted for in Affect Engineering’s framework depending on which side of the functions one wishes to begin, or which variables are known initially.

There are pros and cons to each approach. If emotions are thought of as survival tools, then in some cases thinking one’s way through a situation and taking command of which emotions will be acted upon may be preferable. In these cases, the individual having absolute control over the tool will usually lead to more favorable outcomes, much like a construction worker adeptly wielding a heavy sledgehammer instead of being suddenly knocked off balance and falling over if they are carrying the tool on their back and its weight suddenly shifts.

In other cases, more favorable outcomes will tend to arise from the individual going along with wherever the emotion takes them, feeling their way through a situation in a more physiological approach. In these cases, going with the flow and letting one’s feelings guide a course of action will typically lead to more favorable outcomes, like a surfer on a surfboard following the path of least resistance, riding it where the waves take them instead of trying to fight against both the waves and board to go in a different direction.

Different situations often call for one approach over the other in terms of what is practical. Typically, the time one has available to act, or a deadline for action will determine which approach will yield a better outcome. When time and urgency are not a factor, approaches that emphasize thinking, interpretation, and mental processes (e.g., cognitive appraisal based) are often ideal. In contrast, when time is of the essence and acting quickly is important, physiological approaches oftentimes will yield better outcomes.

What does heeding an emotion’s call to action mean in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

In Affect Engineering, heeding an emotion’s call to action means that the individual has chosen to carry out an action that will help in the acquisition of an entity related to the fulfillment of a purpose; this includes actions that can prevent a threat of harm to the entity or that can ensure a benefit befalls it.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Heeding an emotion’s call to action concerns efficacy components and actions the individual can do to either acquire an entity, prevent a threat of harm to the entity, or to ensure a benefit happens to the entity. Acquiring an entity may be as straightforward as physically obtaining a piece of candy [entity] for the purpose of eating, or alternatively, something more abstract like acquiring the experience [entity] of simply witnessing an event taking place, such as seeing a display of fireworks at night. An entity could be anything tangible or intangible, depending on the context of the situation, and provides a greater degree of flexibility for analyzing different situations in Affect Engineering’s framework.

What variables can amplify, or alternatively, reduce an emotion’s call to action to the individual?

SHORT ANSWER

All of the variables in the functions have an influence or may potentially alter the magnitude and type of emotion felt by an individual.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The variables that can alter the magnitude of an entity’s valuation, and subsequently alter the type of emotion felt and with the strength of its call to action include:

  • Existence: The variable of Existence concerns whether or not the entity exists to the individual. It answers the question, “Does the individual know about the entity at all?” If an entity does not exist to an individual, then no emotional response to it can be modeled in Affect Engineering (i.e., the individual does not know about it at all and it is presumed that no emotions are felt towards it).
  • Sufficiency: The variable of Sufficiency is concerned with the degree to which the entity in question is able to fulfill the task at hand on its own. It answers the question, “Is the entity enough for the purpose?”
  • Uniqueness: The variable of Uniqueness is concerned with the degree to which the entity in question is the only entity capable of fulfilling the task at hand. It answers the question, “Is this the only option for the purpose?”
  • Sentiment: The variable of Sentiment is concerned with the importance of the purpose at hand for which the entity is being valued. It answers the question, “How important is the purpose at hand relative to other purposes held by the individual?”
  • Appraisal: The Appraisal variable is concerned with whether or not acquisition of the entity to fulfill the purpose at hand will lead towards or away from a restoration of equilibrium between the purpose being considered and its opposite or complementary purpose. The Appraisal variable in Affect Engineering is used to determine which type of function — Avoidance of Pain or alternatively the Pursuit of Pleasure — to use. It answers the question, “Will acquiring this entity lead to a restoration of equilibrium between this purpose and its opposite?”
  • Threat (Threat of Harm to an entity): The variable of Threat, when at a high level, is modeled to amplify Anxiety invested in an entity and raise negative affect; alternatively, it is modeled to reduce Negative Anxiety invested and lower positive affect. It answers the question, “How severe is the threat of harm and how likely is it to happen?”
  • Benefit (Promise of Benefit to an entity): The variable of Benefit, when at a high level, is modeled to reduce Anxiety invested and lower negative affect; alternatively, it is modeled to amplify Negative Anxiety invested and raise positive affect. It answers the question, “How helpful is the promise of benefit and how likely is it to happen?”
  • Efficacy (Efficacy to prevent a threat of harm or to prevent a promise of benefit to an entity): Efficacy is modeled to counter the influence of Threat or Benefit, depending on which is used in a function. Functions in Affect Engineering use either Threat or Benefit, but not both. It answers the question, “How effective is the recommended action and what is the likelihood the individual can do it?”
  • Attention: The variable of Attention is generally modeled to decay with a half-life in Affect Engineering, though it can be modeled in other ways. When modeled to decay, whatever variable it is influencing will diminish over time, similar to radioactive decay. Attention is typically directed towards features that have salience in an environment, such as a high level of contrast in brightness, sharpness, color, etc. It answers the question, “Which variables in a scenario are being noticed?”
  • Reason (Reasoning or Executive functions): The variable of Reason generally influences valuations by holding Attention constant on one or several variables while permitting other variables to fall into attentional decay, that is to say, attention to them diminishes until they are all being ignored. It answers the question, “To which variables in a scenario is the individual directing their resources?”

The chart above illustrates a sample theoretical neural pathway for how an emotional response might arise based upon relationships and interactions between the above variables for an Avoidance of Pain function (i.e., used when the Appraisal variable is positive, explained in Article 3 of 12 in this series) in Affect Engineering. The original entity is given a base valuation for a purpose by the individual derived from its utility components (Sufficiency, Uniqueness, Sentiment felt for the purpose) and the fact that it exists to the individual. This valuation is then amplified or reduced further by expected threats of harm to it (e.g., via excitatory synapses that lower the threshold for neural activation) and the efficacy of the individual to prevent the harm to it (e.g., via inhibitory synapses that raise the threshold for neural activation). The groups of neurons that are used to mark the value of the entity (e.g., Anxiety in Affect Engineering) would also lead to pathways that correspond with negative affect (e.g., unpleasant feelings, or pain) in this setup.

This second chart illustrates a sample theoretical neural pathway for how an emotional response might arise based upon relationships and interactions between the above variables for a Pursuit of Pleasure function (i.e., used when the Appraisal variable is negative) in Affect Engineering. The setup is similar to the Avoidance of Pain function with a few exceptions. The original entity is still given a base valuation for a purpose derived from the same utility components (Sufficiency, Uniqueness, and Sentiment), and the fact it exists to the individual. The groups of neurons that are used to mark the value of the entity, Negative Affect in this case, would alternatively lead to pathways that correspond with positive affect (e.g., pleasant feelings, pleasure). The Threat components and Efficacy components have their excitatory and inhibitory roles reversed from the previous setup, with Threat having an inhibitory effect and Efficacy having an excitatory effect.

The above chart illustrates Attention being directed towards the Efficacy components for the first sample depicted, for the Avoidance of Pain function. If information concerning response-efficacy (i.e., the expected effectiveness of a response at preventing a threat of harm) and self-efficacy (i.e., the likelihood the individual believes they can perform the action) are more salient than the threat components (i.e., threat severity and threat susceptibility), then this would likely have the effect of helping the individual feel less overwhelmed in a potentially stressful or dire situation. This might prove helpful to the individual for conserving resources (i.e., Anxiety) in circumstances where the threat of harm is actually at a very high level and the efficacy appears low by comparison, or a classic underdog story (e.g., a David vs. Goliath scenario).

This final chart illustrates an executive function such as reasoning, being used to hold attention on efficacy components constant while permitting attention towards threat components to fall into attentional decay (e.g., neglect). This might be arranged by the individual if the purpose in question has a high level of importance to them and they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.

Though the four sample neurological models above illustrate a more cognitive appraisal based approach, as mentioned earlier, the route is reversible. A route beginning with positive affect or negative affect (e.g., the feeling itself) and ending with the individual later identifying or assigning factors that caused it later would be a more physiological based approach and more useful for novel experiences for the individual. In Affect Engineering, this would be the equivalent of starting on the other side of the equation (e.g., knowing variables on one side of the function before the other). This is not to say that everyone’s internal organizational scheme would be identical to the above sample models, but most would likely possess a structure more or less similar to it. Every brain is wired differently of course, and variations are to be expected. However, a general template does provide a starting point from which more nuanced discrepancies can be made (e.g., with coefficients alongside some variables).

How is emotion regulation by an individual modeled in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Emotion regulation in Affect Engineering is modeled to be primarily guided by the level of importance the individual holds for the purpose the emotion is being felt for (i.e., Sentiment variable), attentional processes, and executive functioning processes that can direct attentional processes toward or away from components of a scenario (i.e., other variables in the functions).

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

In Affect Engineering, emotion regulation by the individual is primarily modeled by the variables of Sentiment (i.e., the ranking of the purpose in question against the purpose with the utmost importance to the individual) and Reasoning. The variable of Sentiment works to influence emotion regulation by changing the importance of the purpose at hand for the individual, particularly in indeterministic setups of functions where free will is presumed and behavior cannot be predicted. Executive functions like Reasoning are modeled to influence emotion regulation primarily by directing Attention towards or away from other variables and maintaining it for an extended duration of time, or away from other variables to allow them to fall into attentional decay or neglect.

How might someone use their understanding of Affect Engineering’s framework to better regulate their own emotional responses and actions?

SHORT ANSWER

Someone might use their understanding of Affect Engineering’s framework to better regulate their own emotional responses, develop better resilience in the face of adversity, and potentially to influence the regulation of emotional responses in others.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION AND PREVIEW

One of the aims in developing Affect Engineering was to organize and model different approaches to the study of the psychology of emotion underneath the umbrella of a single, unifying language, math in this case. Knowing what resources one has at their disposal, what the relationship between these resources might be with one another, where to direct attention to perform at an optimal level, and recognizing how to best interpret emotions in oneself and others has practical applications that extend beyond emotional regulation. Some of these uses extend to rhetoric and persuasive techniques, simulated intelligence, behavioral forecasting, and worldbuilding for writers to name a few.

Preview:

Interpreting emotions in others falls under the domain of empathy, and is the subject of the next article.

Previous: Article 3 of 12 Reframing Anxiety as a Resource

Next: Article 5 of 12 Empathy in Affect Engineering

This page is also available on this website here, Article 4 of 12, Emotional Responses and Emotional Regulation in Affect Engineering