Category: Deconstructions

Using the Equation to Deconstruct a Situation

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: Category I Emotions, the Intra-personal Emotions or Emotions of the Self (Article 7 of 12)

  By

Category I Emotions, the Intra-personal Emotions or Emotions of the Self

This article gives an overview of Category I Emotions (Intra-personal Emotions or Emotions of the Self) in Affect Engineering. It is the seventh 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. What are the Category I Emotions in Affect Engineering?
  2. If the same object or entity can elicit different emotions for an individual, then how would this be represented in Affect Engineering and why is it significant?
  3. Why is it necessary to balance or hold certain emotions in check, including ones that are generally considered positive such as happiness and euphoria?
  4. How would instances of self-sacrifice be accounted for in Affect Engineering?
  5. What factors will amplify, or alternatively, reduce the intensity of each Category I Emotion when they are modeled in Affect Engineering?

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

SHORT ANSWER

Category I Emotions in Affect Engineering are emotions arising from valuations of entities that concern a purpose held only by the individual in consideration (e.g., the self). No empathy is involved. The Category I Emotions are: Happiness, Euphoria, Courage, Guilt, Sadness, Grief, Fear, Anger, Disgust, Relief, and Content.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Category I Emotions in Affect Engineering only concern valuations of entities for purposes or goals held by the self. They are further classified into one of two subcategories, the first being the Avoidance of Pain Emotions, and the second being the Pursuit of Pleasure Emotions. The classification of an emotion into one of these two subcategories is determined solely by the Appraisal variable (i.e., a coefficient equaling either +1 or -1). The Appraisal signals whether or not further acquisition of a particular entity is expected to lead towards a restoration of equilibrium, or away from the restoration of equilibrium between a purpose and its opposite or complementary purpose. Article three in this series goes into more detail on Appraisals as they are implemented in Affect Engineering, Cognitive Appraisals in the Context of Affect Engineering (Article 3 of 12).

An emotion felt by one individual is modeled in Affect Engineering to be felt for one entity as it relates to the fulfillment of one purpose held by the individual, and this will correspond to one emotion felt. This, the 1:1:1:1 Ratio (i.e., one person, one entity, one valuation and emotion felt, and one purpose), is a principle that Affect Engineering adheres to in order to prevent erroneous conflation in Affect Engineering, such as by merging two emotions into one emotion when it would be more accurate to keep them as separate emotions for separate instances. The 1:1:1:1 Ratio in Affect Engineering is explained in greater detail in article two of this series Reframing Anxiety as a Resource, (Article 2 of 12).

Avoidance of Pain Emotions

The Avoidance of Pain Emotions in Affect Engineering each have an Appraisal value that is positive (i.e., coefficient of +1), meaning an entity’s acquisition will lead towards a restoration of equilibrium between a purpose and its complementary purpose (opposing purpose). With respect to an individual’s valuation of an entity for the fulfillment of a purpose, the core features of the Avoidance of Pain Emotions are the following:

  • Sadness: The individual’s valuation of the entity rises towards positive infinity at a steady rate.
  • Grief: The individual’s valuation of the entity rises towards positive infinity at an accelerating rate, oftentimes approaching a vertical asymptote if the entity becomes impossible to attain (e.g., the loss of a loved one, if one wished to see them again).
  • Fear: The individual’s valuation of the entity is initially at a lower and somewhat uncertain level before it rises towards positive infinity and then tapers off again.
  • Anger: The individual’s valuation of the entity is initially at a higher level and lowers towards its existential value (i.e., an absolute value of one). It is also characterized by the presence of aggression against a threat of harm to the entity; aggression distinguishes Anger from Disgust and Relief.
  • Disgust: The individual’s valuation of the entity is initially at a higher level and lowers towards its existential value. It is also characterized by evasion or evasive action against a threat of harm; evasion or evasive action distinguishes Disgust from Anger and Relief.
  • Relief: The individual’s valuation of the entity is initially at a higher level and lowers towards its existential value. It is also characterized by a lack of aggression and a lack of evasive action towards a threat of harm, and this distinguishes Relief from Anger and Disgust.
  • Content: Content felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity remaining the same or having an absolute value that remains at a low level, such as at or near its existential value.  Content is considered to be an Avoidance of Pain Emotion if it has an Appraisal value of +1. Content would be more likely to happen if balance between the opposing purposes is maintained near equilibrium.

Pursuit of Pleasure Emotions

The Pursuit of Pleasure Emotions in Affect Engineering each have an Appraisal value that is negative (i.e., coefficient of -1), meaning an entity’s acquisition will lead away from a restoration of equilibrium for a purpose relative to its complementary or opposing purpose. With respect to an individual’s valuation of an entity for the fulfillment of a purpose, the core features of the Pursuit of Pleasure Emotions are:

  • Happiness: The individual’s valuation of the entity lowers towards negative infinity at a steady rate. Its absolute value or distance from zero, however, is still increasing.
  • Euphoria: The individual’s valuation of the entity lowers towards negative infinity at an accelerating rate, oftentimes approaching a vertical asymptote if it becomes impossible to fail to attain (e.g., obtaining the entity is unavoidable). Its absolute value is still increasing.
  • Courage: The individual’s valuation of the entity is initially at a higher (i.e., closer to zero) and somewhat uncertain level before it lowers towards negative infinity and then tapers off again. Its absolute value also increases.
  • Guilt: The individual’s valuation of the entity is initially at a lower level and rises towards its existential value. Its absolute value diminishes and returns closer towards the existential level in this case. Guilt is modeled as a missed opportunity by an individual in Affect Engineering
  • Content: Content felt for a particular entity is characterized by an individual’s valuation of the entity remaining the same or having an absolute value at a low level, such as at or near its existential value.  It will be a Pursuit of Pleasure Emotion if it has an Appraisal value of -1. Content would be more likely to happen if balance between the opposing purposes is maintained near equilibrium.

The above Category I Emotions are described with sample graphs in article six of this series, Categories of Emotions and Organizing Principles in Affect Engineering (Article 6 of 12).

2) If the same object or entity can elicit different emotions for an individual, then how would this be represented in Affect Engineering and why is it significant?

SHORT ANSWER

The same object or entity can elicit different emotions for an individual if it is being valued for two or more separate purposes by an individual. The primary reason for this distinction in Affect Engineering is to avoid conflating two or more emotions into one erroneously.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

In Affect Engineering, a single entity can elicit and be linked to multiple emotions if the entity is being valued for different purposes by an individual. This is done to avoid mistakenly combining two or more emotions felt for an entity into one emotion when it is more accurate to leave them separate. It also grants a higher degree of specificity for each emotion felt. For example, the entity of a tree will be contemplated. The tree is being valued by an individual for its ability to fulfill several different purposes:

  • The tree’s capacity to provide shade on a hot day
  • The tree’s capacity to provide enough leaves to make a leaf pile to jump in
  • The tree’s capacity to provide a picturesque backdrop for a wedding photo

An individual’s valuation of the tree for the fulfillment of these different purposes would necessarily be different. It may be valuable for one or two of the purposes, and only somewhat valuable for the third purpose. To merge the three valuations of the tree, and subsequently, the emotions that are modeled to result when the tree is considered for each purpose independently, would be problematic for another reasons as well. There might be any number of hidden purposes held by the individual that could influence the feeling felt towards it. A fourth and less desirable purpose will also be considered.

  • The tree’s capacity to release pollen and trigger allergies in the individual

A single tree can be assessed by an individual for four different purposes will have four different emotions felt for it with respect to: providing shade (top left); providing leaves to jump in (top right), providing a picturesque backdrop (bottom left), and for providing pollen to trigger allergies (bottom right).

The individual’s valuation of the tree for this fourth and less pleasant purpose could swing any feelings they feel for it in a different direction, for example, depending on what purposes have priority to the individual or what time of the year it is. Keeping the valuations and emotions felt separate for separate purposes — in accordance with the 1:1:1:1 Ratio — does not preclude an observer from making later predictions about what the individual’s overall feelings towards the tree might be, as the magnitude of these different emotions can be compared against one another, even as seasons change, to arrive at an average. However, if these valuations are merged together prematurely, the need to tease them apart, for accuracy’s sake, can be overlooked.

What this entails for Affect Engineering is that any entity that an individual is assessing for its ability to help fulfill multiple purposes will need to be organized in some way as to be useful without feeling cumbersome and overwhelming. Ultimately, multiple dimensions will need to be used to organize the many emotions that are modeled to be simultaneously present in an individual for each entity and purpose. Although a dimension could be used for every variable in the multivariate functions, six dimensions (e.g., six-dimensional space) are adequate for organizing and modeling the most useful information for all four Categories of Emotions in Affect Engineering. To visualize spatial dimensions higher than three dimensions on a two dimensional surface, one can extend a shape that is perpendicular to all of the existing dimensions as follows:

Dimensional diagram: zero dimensions (point); one dimension (line); two dimensions (square); three dimensions (cube); four dimensions (tesseract), five dimensions (penteract). A six dimensional cube (hexeract) would follow, perpendicular to the penteract.

The six most important dimensions to consider are as follows:

  1. 1st Dimension, the x-axis: Elapsed Time.
  2. 2nd Dimension, the y-axis: Valuation of a single entity for a single purpose.
  3. 3rd Dimension, the z-axis: Multiple Entities being valued for a single purpose.
  4. 4th Dimension, the x4-axis: The Multiple Purposes for which multiple entities are given valuations.
  5. 5th Dimension, the x5-axis: Vicarious Valuations made by the self (i.e., involving empathy) of multiple entities for multiple purposes that are held by others.
  6. 6th Dimension, the x6-axis: Multiple valuations and vicarious valuations of multiple entities for multiple purposes from Multiple People (or lifeforms). One example would be the perspective from an omniscient external observer in a fictional book delving inside the experiences and vicarious experiences of all the characters in the story.

Time

The time elapsed is organized on the first dimension.

The first dimension, the x-axis, is the time elapsed from a given point. This is dependent upon an individual’s perspective and their own internal clock. It may also project backwards in time if the individual is trying to remember something from the past, such as how they felt 25 years ago. Alternatively, it may forecast the future based on expectations and what is currently known about current variables, such as how they expect to feel in the coming week. Neurologically, this would likely resemble a closed loop with a tick and a tock, similar to an actual clock, and can be modeled with a vector field.

A more in depth explanation of this is available at this link Representing an Internal Mental Clock with a Vector Field.

Valuation

The second dimension, the y-axis, is the individual’s valuation of an entity for a single purpose. This is the value or amount of weight that an entity is given by the individual with respect to the fulfillment of a particular goal.

The Valuation of an entity (for a single purpose) is the second dimension.

Multiple Entities

The third dimension, the z-axis, is used to organize different entities being valued by the individual for a particular purpose. As for how to arrange different entities along this axis, entities may be individually arranged along the natural numbers (1, 2, 3, 4 . . .) with one entity assigned per number. Tracking the changes in an individual’s valuations of entities for a purpose is the primary aim at this level. The z-axis is used to organize all the entities that an individual can conceive, and this facilitates comparing changes in the flow of energy being invested by the individual into different entities over time. Other arrangements of the entities along the z-axis are possible so long as they accomplish this aim of organizing entities.

The third dimension organizes the multiple entities that are being valued for the same purpose.

Multiple Purposes

The fourth dimension, the x4-axis, organizes every purpose that the individual possesses.

The different purposes that all of the entities are being valued for are organized along the fourth dimension.

To make comparisons easier, valuations of an entity for a purpose and its complementary purpose are organized along the fourth dimension, the x4-axis. Returning to the earlier example of the tree being valued for four different purposes, four dimensions are also sufficient to model the individual’s valuation of a single entity for the aforementioned purposes:

  1. The tree’s capacity to provide shade on a hot day
  2. The tree’s capacity to provide enough leaves to make a leaf pile to jump in
  3. The tree’s capacity to provide a picturesque backdrop for a wedding photo
  4. The tree’s capacity to release pollen that triggers allergies in the individual

A hypothetical plot of the individual’s valuation of the tree for the fulfillment of four separate purposes throughout the course of a year. If other objects were to be valued for these same four purposes, they would be aligned along the green axis (z-axis) for different entities.

The valuation of the tree for its ability to fulfill these four purposes is extended out along the fourth dimension, the x4-axis for Multiple Purposes. The complements to these purposes would also be extended out along this axis as they are purposes themselves. Alternatively, if one wished to compare a purpose to its complementary purpose they can optionally be graphed on the same graph in order to make comparisons easier; they are still two separate values for separate emotions and would be on opposite sides of the x-axis due to having an Appraisal that is the opposite of the original purpose (i.e., +1 or -1). Being able to easily observe changes in the flow of energy invested into entities, across time, and for different purposes, is the ultimate aim, regardless of the setup chosen.

Vicarious Valuations

The fifth dimension, the x5-axis, organizes vicarious valuations for instances where the self imagines itself as another person or thing. This dimension concerns empathy and is generally not used for Category I emotions, as all valuations for Category I Emotions would normally be collapsed on zero of the x5-axis. Category II, Category III, and Category IV Emotions make use of the x5-axis, as empathy is involved for nearly all of the emotions in these categories.

The fifth dimension organizes vicarious valuations that the self makes when it imagines itself as an other, and concerns empathy.

Positive and negative real numbers may be used to organize vicarious valuations along this dimension and distance from the origin can be considered a parallel for the self’s Identification Level with the target (e.g., an optional coefficient along the base of the function) and another means of organizing the flow of vicarious valuations across time. For example, going from positive to negative values along the x5-axis, each integer may be chosen to represent half the magnitude of the previous identification level of the previous whole number, with an Identification level of zero being equivalent to identifying with another person at the same level as oneself, an Identification level of negative one being half the magnitude as the self, and an Identification level of negative two being one quarter the magnitude as the self. Mathematically, this would be written as two taken to the power of the Identification level and is illustrated below. A scale by a factor of ten could alternatively be used as well, like the Richter Scale:

2“Identification Level”(graph below), or alternatively, 10“Identification Level”

Graph of the self’s identification with a target and the effect on magnitude. A displacement of 0 (blue) indicates the self identifies with an other to the same degree as the self. A negative displacement (red) indicates less identification relative to the self, whereas a positive displacement (green) indicates more. This is a scale by a factor of two, though a factor of ten could be used similar to the Richter Scale.

As seen in the image, if one desired, negative values for an Identification level would indicate when an individual is identifying less with an other than they would if the self were in the same situation (e.g., reduced empathy). In contrast, positive values for an Identification level would indicate when the individual is identifying more with an other than they would if the self were in the same situation (e.g., excessive empathizing).

Although the variables of “Identification Level” and Self-Distinction both concern empathy, they represent different concepts. Self-Distinction confirms that empathizing is occurring, while Identification Level is a gauge for the intensity to which an individual is empathizing or distancing themself from the target.

Multiple People or Lifeforms

The sixth dimension, the x6-axis, organizes all of the people or lifeforms that are valuing entities for the fulfillment of purposes they hold, and entities that they are vicariously valuing for the fulfillment of purposes held by others.

The sixth dimension organizes all of the people or lifeforms that are both valuing and vicariously valuing entities for multiple purposes held by the self and others.

For Category I Emotions concerning a single individual, only the first four dimensions are utilized. Category II and Category III Emotions utilize five dimensions, with the fifth dimension being a complex plane (for imaginary numbers). Most Category IV Emotions will utilize five dimensions as well. Utilization of the sixth dimensions is generally restricted to literature, film, and works of art told from a third person point of view that is omniscient. This would be a perspective that is capable of seeing inside the minds and thoughts of everyone and everything in a story.

3) Why is it necessary to balance or hold certain emotions in check, including ones that are generally considered positive such as happiness and euphoria?

SHORT ANSWER

If an individual intends to continue living, then emotions arising from the fulfillment of purposes related to primary drives will need to be held in check by the fulfillment of an opposing purpose in order to maintain homeostasis. If an individual does not intend to continue living, then no emotions or purposes need to be balanced or held in check.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

If the fulfillment of a particular purpose related to a primary drive is pursued ceaselessly, this will eventually lead to an imbalance with respect to the fulfillment of the individual’s other goals that are necessary to sustain life. Successfully not pursuing the acquisition of food, water, or sleep indefinitely will lead to death (e.g., a hunger strike, a thirst strike, or a sleep strike). Similarly, a bout binge of eating, drinking, or sleeping that goes unchecked will also lead to death.

However, the above would not necessarily be the case for the fulfillment of purposes related to secondary drives, as these do not always entail matters of life and death if they are pursued, such as seeking praise from one’s peers, seeking the acquisition of money, or seeking fame by being victorious in sporting events. Additionally, not pursuing the acquisition of any of the above indefinitely, or other secondary or learned drives, will not necessarily lead to death.

Most of the purposes or goals that a person possesses, both those related to primary and secondary drives, require the individual to be alive in order to both facilitate and realize their fulfillment. As it would follow, staying alive generally has a high priority to most individuals. Because life’s maintenance requires maintaining homeostasis, achieving a balance between all the drives the individual possesses also takes on a heightened importance to most lifeforms. In Affect Engineering, an individual’s impulse to stay alive by maintaining balance between all the drives possessed is called the Drive to Maintain all Drives; it is a parallel to the survival or self-preservation instinct, or even somewhat analogous to Sigmund Freud’s life instinct in psychoanalytic theory. In Affect Engineering, this would be the metaphorical equivalent of a ship’s navigator plotting a course that keeps a ship sailing (alive) by going in circles within a large lake so that the captain does not run it aground (death).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are cases where an individual chooses a course of action that directly opposes their own odds for survival. In Affect Engineering’s framework, an individual’s impulse to not stay alive by not maintaining a balance between all the drives possessed is called the Drive to Not Maintain all Drives. This entails holding the fulfillment of one particular purpose and the pursuit of one drive above the fulfillment of its opposing drive and the balancing of other primary drives at any cost indefinitely (i.e., beyond the point where life can be sustained). This is referred to as “breaking a double bind” in Affect Engineering (addressed in question #5 of Article two in this series, Reframing Anxiety as a Resource, Article 2 of 12). The Drive to Not Maintain all Drives in Affect Engineering, while not a direct parallel, occasionally functions in a somewhat similar manner to Freud’s death instinct, albeit with some reservations. Among other things, the Drive to Not Maintain all Drives also accounts for instances where a secondary drive may supersede in importance the balancing of other drives, including primary ones that are necessary for survival, or what might sometimes be called instances of sheer determination. As for the individual’s motivation to engage in this behavior, one explanation might simply be exploratory; if the boundaries at which point an individual might normally expect to perish are pushed further out beyond what was believed to be a limit, it may afford access to additional resources, status, self-actualization, or something else that is evolutionarily advantageous to the individual or their kin.

4) How would instances of self-sacrifice be accounted for in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Instances of self-sacrifice would be modeled as scenarios where the individual opts to hold the fulfillment of one purpose above its complementary or opposing purpose beyond the point where their life can be sustained. This could occur for a number of reasons, but they all involve the breaking of a double in Affect Engineering, and the exaltation of the Drive to not Maintain all Drives over its opposing drive.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Instances of self-sacrifice, where the self voluntarily takes measures that lead to their own demise, are labeled “breaking a double bind” in Affect Engineering. These are also scenarios where the individual’s Drive to not Maintain all Drives is held above its opposite, the Drive to Maintain all Drives. This is exemplified in the following three examples regarding resolve, altruistic acts, and martyrdom coupled with belief afterlife.

Resolve: Determination to Succeed No Matter the Price

An individual determined to achieve a particular feat, such as reaching the summit of Mount Everest, becoming the first human to set foot on Mars, besting the free dive record or seeking any achievement that might potentially land their name in the Guinness Book of World Records for that matter, might be inclined to risk their own life in pursuit of the goal. The Drive to Not Maintain all Drives in Affect Engineering’s framework, essentially becomes an individual’s impetus for testing and pushing the bounds and limitations of their own body, or a high stakes game of brinkmanship.

The marathon, of course, is a well known example, having earned its name from the second of two runs by the Greek messenger Pheidippides, who first ran approximately 150 miles from Athens to Sparta and back to seek military assistance before the Battle of Marathon 490 BCE, covering the distance in about two days, and then later ran another 26 miles after the Battle of Marathon from Marathon to Athens to announce victory before collapsing and dying.

While death itself would not necessarily be the objective in such instances, an admittedly high level of resolve is required from an individual to ignore feedback from their own body imploring them to reverse course from whatever hardships are being imposed on their body by a chosen objective. These scenarios, where the self holds the pursuit of one purpose against its complementary purpose up to or even beyond the point where the double bind is broken, the Drive to Not Maintain all Drives, is a proverbial double-edged sword in Affect Engineering. It can lead to fantastic feats being achieved by an individual in some cases, or incredible folly, tragedy, or a death that would otherwise have easily been avoided in other cases.

For anyone who has seen the movie GATTACA (1997), directed by Andrew Niccol, this is exemplified spectacularly in the climactic scene where Vincent and his brother Anton compete against each other in their childhood game of chicken; both brothers both swim out into the ocean and whoever turns back first loses. During the scene, Vincent says the iconic line, “I never saved anything for the swim back.”

GATTACA “I never saved anything for the swim back.” (A five minute video clip of the scene from the movie)

Altruistic: Sacrificing One’s Own Life to Save Another’s

A parent sacrificing their own life to save the life of another, such as their own child or even the life or lives of complete strangers, are also examples of the Drive to Not Maintain all Drives. These are also scenarios that would typically involve empathy and the other Categories of Emotions (e.g., II and III) where the self’s own objectives that have the most priority to them are also linked to the outcomes of others around them, and they will be addressed in the coming articles.

Martyrdom: When Fanaticism Meets Belief in an Afterlife

Most world religions contain some sort of belief in an afterlife. If one looks a few centuries back into history, in most regions of the world death from disease, famine, warfare, and violence were all too common. Moreover, life expectancies were generally far shorter than they are today. Experiencing frequent trauma was likely inevitable, and belief in an afterlife would have afforded a measurable degree of relief by enabling individuals to split their investment of Anxiety (e.g., a resource in Affect Engineering) into two lives: one, over which they had seemingly little control due to the uncertainty around them; and a second one, an afterlife, that they could potentially exercise a greater degree control over through their actions or faith. This would be similar to the golfing example from article two of this series, where Anxiety was split between strokes depending upon the par level of a course.

On the surface, this would seem like an ideal way for managing stress to avoid over-mobilizing the investment of Anxiety into one’s present life. In a dangerous world where death could happen at any moment from a plague, a war, famine, or any number of environmental disasters from earthquakes and fires to floods and blizzards, belief in an afterlife would have been an effective psychological tool for conserving resources, and not becoming paralyzed from an over-mobilization of Anxiety. Affect Engineering’s framework would posit that throughout much of history, belief in an afterlife among organized religions served this function, and afforded everyday individuals a means for helping managing stress related to an uncertain existence in a perilous world.

In Affect Engineering’s framework, this would have entailed the individual avoiding the over investment of Anxiety into their present life (i.e., the one they were living that was rife with uncertainty and had death lurking at every corner), and splitting it between an afterlife with certain promises should they behave in certain ways and believe in certain things. Nearly every world religion incorporates belief in an afterlife in one form or another, and from a purely objective standpoint, this would likely have been advantageous, at least from an evolutionary perspective regarding stress management.

However, on a darker note, it can and has often lead to a less than wholesome brand of fanaticism and zealotry if too much Anxiety is invested into the afterlife. Should the allure of what awaits in an afterlife be made to appear more appealing than what is transpiring in one’s present life, it could inspire an individual to not only throw away their own life for a route to something promised in the afterlife, but it could also inspire them to take measures to end the lives of others along the way. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of events in history where the promise of a paradisal afterlife has inspired, motivated, or absolved them from the murder of other people, along with the individual’s own life, effectively granted them what some might label a blank check on morality for any misdeeds or crimes they might have committed in the course of their life. Some examples include:

  • The Rhineland Massacres (1096): The slaughter of Jewish communities in the 11th Century by knights of the First Crusade, following Pope Urban II’s speech that promised remission of sins for anyone participating in the Crusade to retake Jerusalem from Muslim control.
  • A mass suicide or mass murder perpetuated by a charismatic or abusive cult leader, such as by Jim Jones in Jonestown, Guyana: The Jonestown Massacre (1978)

5) What factors will amplify, or alternatively, reduce the intensity of each Category I Emotion when they are modeled in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

All of the variables in the functions employed in Affect Engineering are modeled to influence an individual’s valuation of an entity for a purpose, which then could lead to amplifying or reducing the intensity of particular emotions.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Variables and changes to the variables that will amplify particular Category I Emotions are listed below.

Variables that Have a Major Influence (Base of the Function)

Existence

If an individual has no cognizance of an entity, that is to say, it does not exist to them, then all valuations for the entity are reduced to zero. No emotions are modeled to be felt for the entity with respect to any purpose until the entity exists to them.

Utility Components

Uniqueness (Answers the question, “Are there alternatives?”), Sufficiency (Answers the question, “Is it enough?”), and Sentiment (Answers the question, “How important is the purpose at hand relative to the purpose with the most priority?”). These three variables either amplify the valuation of an entity if they are all at their maximum value of one, or they reduce the valuation of an entity if they are near their minimum value approaching zero.

Variables that Have a Specific Influence (e.g., Coefficients Outside the Base of the Function that Are Discrete Variables)

Appraisal

The Appraisal variable determines which of the two function types is used (i.e., Avoidance of Pain or Pursuit of Pleasure). If it changes unexpectedly, it can be indicative of Surprise, a Category IV emotion; otherwise, it tends to flip at or near the level when Indifference is felt towards entities being valued for both a purpose and its complement (near homeostasis or equilibrium).

Self-Distinction normally equals +1 for Category I Emotions, and generally no empathizing takes place. As noted earlier, different levels or intensities of identification for Category II and III Emotions can be represented by a coefficient alongside the base of the function.

However, if an individual holds a valuation of an entity for a purpose, but the individual does not feel as if they fully identify with themself (e.g., they are detached from themselves), then setting Self-Distinction to -1 and using empathy would be warranted even though the purpose is held by the self. This could occur, for example, as a result of depersonalization, derealization or other related DSM-5 disorders.

Variables that Have a Catalytic Influence (e.g., Variables in the Exponent of the Function)

Harm, Benefit, and Efficacy Components

The influence of Harm and Efficacy Components is modeled to be similar across both functions depending on the setup of functions that are chosen. Harm and efficacy concern relationships and expectations between two entities that an individual is contemplating. Either Harm or Benefit is used for the functions, but not both. These are expressed as contingencies and their structure also depends on one’s choice of language. There are at least four pairs of functions for modeling Harm, Benefit, and Efficacy, but only one pair (i.e., two of the eight function setups) are needed to model all of the emotions in Affect Engineering.

Harm is expressed as a negative contingency to varying degrees: “When event A happens, then event B never happens. For example: “Whenever my neighbors practice playing the drums, I never sleep.” If it is not a perfect contingency, then probability becomes a factor. For example, “Whenever my neighbors practice playing the drums, I only sleep half the time.”

Benefit is expressed as a positive contingency: Whenever event C happens, then event D always happens. For example: “Whenever it rains, then the ground becomes wet.”

Harm components (e.g., threat susceptibility and threat severity), when maximized, are modeled to increase the Anxiety invested into entities for Avoidance of Pain functions, and reduce the Negative Anxiety invested into entities for Pursuit of Pleasure functions.

Benefit components (e.g., benefit susceptibility and benefit intensity), when maximized, are modeled to reduce Anxiety invested into entities for Avoidance of Pain functions, and increase the Negative Anxiety invested into entities for Pursuit of Pleasure functions.

Efficacy components (e.g., self-efficacy and response efficacy), may be modeled as the individual’s ability to prevent one entity from harming another entity, to prevent one entity from benefiting another entity, or to ensure that either of these happens instead as an alternative setup. If Efficacy components are held to be preventative with respect to one entity harming another entity, then when they are maximized they are modeled to reduce Anxiety invested into entities for Avoidance of Pain functions, and increase the Negative Anxiety invested into entities for Pursuit of Pleasure.

Alternatively, if Efficacy components are held to be preventative with respect to one entity benefiting another entity, then when maximized they are modeled to increase Anxiety invested into entities for Avoidance of Pain functions, and decrease Negative Anxiety invested into entities for Pursuit of Pleasure functions.

Depending on what nuances of language someone wishes to explore, any of the pairs listed above, or that are not listed, may be used.

Reasoning, Attention, Half-life of Attention, the Doubling Time of In-attention, and Time

Reasoning is modeled to be under executive control, and is a means by which an individual may regulate emotions directing attention. The manner this happens in also depends on how attention is being modeled in a function, and there are several ways that attention can be modeled.

The most straightforward way to model attention is with decay (e.g., half-lives, like in radioactive decay) over a specified amount of time. An individual’s reasoning faculties would be modeled to selectively direct and hold attention over a particular variable group at a somewhat constant level while permitting attention held over other variable groups to fall into attentional decay. For example, if reasoning is used to hold attention over Efficacy components while permitting attention held over Harm components to diminish, then this would reduce the Anxiety invested into an entity and perhaps give the individual the belief that the objective is more feasible than it might actually be.

The Doubling-time of Inattention is one alternative, albeit a similar one, to the use of a Half-life of Attention in Affect Engineering. It is a measure for how long it takes the attentional resources that are not directed towards some feature to double.

A third alternative for modeling attention is valuation resilience. This setup does not presume that attention towards something decreases, but rather, that attention reverts back towards its original level at the onset of a particular instance. Reasoning, in this case, must be used to forcibly direct attention away from or towards different components in a function at all times in order to manage attentional resources. This would be particularly useful if one did not wish to model forgetting in a function. If their working parts are all in order, machines and computers do not forget things in the sense that humans do. They can certainly be programmed to delete certain memories though, after a time, but this is more akin to a purge. With regards to humans and other lifeforms, valuation resilience as a form of attention would likely prove more useful for modeling traumatic events and post-traumatic stress disorders, as memories related to these events are typically intrusive, bringing the individual back to the traumatizing event.

Other Major Variables (e.g., Those on the Other Side of the Function)

Valuation

The y-value, or the measure for the affect felt for an entity with respect to a particular purpose, is on the other side of the function. This, however, does not always mean it would be the last variable known to the individual. It, the valuation, may even be perceived before a purpose has been detected for which the entity ability to fulfill it is known. For novel experiences where an individual has no idea of what is happening and no prior knowledge to pull from, such as the first time one gets a cut in the skin or breaks a bone in the body, or experiencing the first taste of ice cream or a cookie, then the affect would likely be felt first. A more physiological based approach to the mental construction of an emotion, beginning on the left side of the function, would be more appropriate in such cases. Thereafter, through introspection, self-reflection, and investigation, an understanding may evolve in the individual along with expectations about the self, the world, and their place in it.

Preview

The next article, eight, will explore the Category II Emotions in Affect Engineering in greater detail.

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

Next: Article 8 of 12: Category II Emotions: Inter-personal Emotions or the Four Degrees of Empathy

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

No comments

On the Nature of Emotions: Cognitive Appraisals in the Context of Affect Engineering (Article 3 of 12)

  By ,

Cognitive Appraisals in the Context of Affect Engineering

This is the third 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 a cognitive appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium between a purpose and its complementary purpose in Affect Engineering?
  2. What are Positive Anxiety and Negative Anxiety in Affect Engineering?
  3. Why are there two sets of functions in Affect Engineering?
  4. What happens when equilibrium between a purpose and its complementary purpose are not sought, and when might this occur?

What is a cognitive appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium between a purpose and its complementary purpose in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

A cognitive appraisal, or Appraisal for short, in Affect Engineering concerns whether the acquisition of an entity is deemed to lead towards balancing the success to failure rate between fulfilling a purpose versus fulfilling its complementary purpose (i.e., two opposing goals), bringing it closer to the ideal for the individual, or towards unbalancing the success to failure rate between the purpose and its complementary purpose.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The survival related need to assess whether or not objects and events in an environment will help or hinder the individual’s effort to balance the fulfillment of opposing objectives is what Appraisals address in Affect Engineering’s framework. If, for example, a glass of water is considered by an individual for the fulfillment of the purpose of hydrating versus not hydrating or dehydrating, then there are two things that are taken into consideration in Affect Engineering.

First, the glass of water is given a valuation by the individual for both the purpose of hydrating and also for the purpose of not hydrating (i.e., dehydrating). This upholds the 1:1:1:1 Ratio established in the second article of this series. In most cases, the individual would recognize (i.e., from past learning) that the glass of water is more valuable for helping the individual to hydrate if it is consumed than it is for helping the individual to not hydrate if consumed. For instance, based upon the glass of water’s Sufficiency for the fulfillment of the purpose of not hydrating, at bare minimum another entity would be required for the glass of water to be sufficient for dehydrating, (e.g., heat to vaporize it). The two valuations of the glass of water by the individual are separate because they are for two different and opposing purposes. An individual who has learned that water alleviates thirst would be expected to give the glass of water a higher valuation for the purpose of hydrating, while giving the glass a water a valuation closer to its existential value (i.e., base valuation for existing) for the purpose of not hydrating.

The individual’s valuation of the glass of water will tend to be larger for the purpose of hydrating (LEFT) than for the purpose of not hydrating (RIGHT). Subsequently, the emotion felt for the former will be given more weight by the individual, while the latter’s influence would be offset completely, but is nonetheless present.

Secondly, the individual’s current state of being and where it is relative to their ideal success-to-failure rate for the two purposes (e.g., striking a balance or maintaining homeostasis) will need to be determined. If the individual is very thirsty, then the glass of water’s acquisition would be expected to lead towards a restoration of equilibrium. As stated in the previous paragraph and image, the glass of water would still have a valuation for the purpose of not hydrating (dehydrating), but this valuation would be dwarfed and offset by the valuation of the glass of water for the fulfillment of the purpose of hydrating. This would persist as long as the individual considers water to be more useful for hydrating than dehydrating oneself.

For a very thirsty individual, the individual would be expected to give the glass of water a positive Appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium (larger value to far left) and a coefficient of +1.

The smaller valuation (on the right), for the purpose of not hydrating, would be given a negative Appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium, and a coefficient of -1.

Alternatively, if the individual was overly hydrated with liquid already, to the point that consuming more water would lead away from equilibrium, then the Appraisals would flip. The glass of water would be given a negative Appraisal for the fulfillment of the purpose of hydrating, as drinking the water would lead to the individual feeling waterlogged and move them away from equilibrium/homeostasis. For the complementary purpose of not hydrating, the glass of water would have a positive Appraisal, as dehydrating oneself in this case would lead towards a restoration of equilibrium between the purpose and complementary purpose.

For an overly hydrated individual, the individual would be expected to give the glass of water a negative Appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium (larger value on the right) and a coefficient of -1.

The smaller valuation (far left), for the purpose of not hydrating, would be given a positive Appraisal towards the restoration of equilibrium, and a coefficient of +1.

Appraisals are incorporated into Affect Engineering as a discrete variable (equaling +1 or -1), and their use means that Anxiety is of two types in its framework: Positive Anxiety and Negative Anxiety). Positive Anxiety, in this case, means the Anxiety invested in an entity has a positive Appraisal, and the individual expects that fulfillment of the purpose in consideration will lead towards restoring equilibrium or balancing fulfillment of the purpose against fulfillment of its complementary purpose (i.e., opposing purpose).

Negative Anxiety is in contrast to this, and means the Anxiety invested in an entity has a negative Appraisal; the individual expects that fulfillment of the purpose in consideration will lead away from restoring equilibrium, and will unbalance fulfillment of the purpose against fulfillment of its complementary purpose (i.e., opposing purpose).

To summarize, in Affect Engineering Appraisals concern the individual’s assessment of whether or not fulfilling the purpose at hand will lead towards its fulfillment being balanced or unbalanced against fulfillment of its opposing purpose. What makes Appraisals somewhat tricky to grasp in Affect Engineering’s framework is the notion that an entity or object is always considered to be valuable both for doing and not doing the same action, but to different degrees (e.g., water cannot be highly useful for both hydrating and dehydrating oneself). This is necessary to adhere to its 1:1:1:1 Ratio. On another note, Primary Appraisals (e.g., concerning evaluations and threats or harm) and Secondary Appraisals (e.g., concerning efficacy and coping mechanisms) as proposed by Richard S. Lazarus, are incorporated in a different manner as separate variables within Affect Engineering’s framework, as mentioned in the second article of this series, and they will be examined in more depth later in this series as other variables and concepts are introduced.

What are Positive Anxiety and Negative Anxiety in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Positive Anxiety in Affect Engineering concerns increases and decreases to negative affect with respect to a single purpose for the individual. Negative Anxiety in Affect Engineering concerns increases and decreases to positive affect with respect to a single purpose for the individual.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

Due to Affect Engineering’s adherence to its 1:1:1:1 ratio as a principle, Positive Anxiety and Negative Anxiety are concerned with different types of affect.

Positive Anxiety in Affect Engineering is concerned with increases and reductions to negative affect (e.g., generally corresponding to negative feelings and emotions). In the case of Positive Anxiety, positive here is in reference to whether fulfillment of the purpose will lead towards a restoration of equilibrium between the purpose at hand and its complementary purpose (i.e., yes, for the purpose at hand in this case).

In contrast, Negative Anxiety in Affect Engineering is concerned with increases and reductions to positive affect (e.g., generally corresponding to positive feelings and emotions). In the case of Negative Anxiety, negative here is in reference to whether fulfillment of the purpose will lead towards a restoration of equilibrium between the purpose at hand and its complementary purpose (i.e., no, for the purpose at hand in this case).

The example of the glass of water being valued by an individual for the purpose of hydrating will be considered again. For an individual who is extremely thirsty, any threat of harm to the glass of water (e.g., a rival who wants to drink it first) would be expected to raise the individual’s investment of Positive Anxiety into it for the purpose of hydrating, and subsequently raise negative affect felt if they are unable to procure the glass of water, especially if no other water sources are available nearby. If, however, the individual is able to acquire the glass of water despite the threat of harm, a reduction in the Positive Anxiety invested into it for the purpose of hydrating would be expected, as well as a reduction in negative affect felt. Both of these valuations of the glass of water would be for the specific purpose at hand, hydrating, as its value for the complementary purpose (i.e., not hydrating), would be smaller and negligible due to being offset.

The rival threatens the same glass of water being valued for a purpose and its complementary purpose. More Positive Anxiety (LEFT) and subsequently, more negative affect, is at stake because of the Appraisal of the glass of water (i.e., the individual is thirsty, and drinking the water would lead towards homeostasis).

Alternatively, if the individual is overly hydrated (i.e., drinking the glass of water would lead away from homeostasis), then any specific threat of harm to the glass of water would reduce the Negative Anxiety invested into it for the purpose of hydrating, and lower the positive affect felt at the prospect of having extra water in their system, with respect to this single purpose of hydrating. However, if the individual expects they will be able to successfully acquire the water despite the threat of harm posed by a rival who intends to drink it first, an increase in Negative Anxiety invested into the entity for this single purpose of hydrating, as well as positive affect felt, would be modeled in the framework of Affect Engineering.

The rival threatens the same glass of water being valued for a purpose and its complementary purpose. More Negative Anxiety, and subsequently, more positive affect, is at stake because of the Appraisal of the glass of water (i.e., the individual is overly hydrated, and drinking the water would lead away from homeostasis).

It bears mentioning that in Affect Engineering’s framework, the successful fulfillment of one purpose always comes at the expense of fulfillment of the complementary purpose, and these two purposes are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive. For example, an individual cannot hydrate and dehydrate themselves at the same time, but they are always doing one or the other. For an overly hydrated individual, continuing to hydrate will normally increase the sense of urgency held for the complementary purpose, as maintaining equilibrium and homeostasis becomes jeopardized the more that one purpose is held above its opposite. This would happen if the individual intends to continue living by maintaining homeostasis, as most goals held by an individual also require the individual to be alive in order to successfully achieve them. There are exceptions to this, nonetheless.

Why are there two sets of functions in Affect Engineering?

SHORT ANSWER

Two sets of functions are needed to help model and classify emotions depending upon the Appraisal of the entity towards the restoration of equilibrium between fulfilling a purpose and fulfilling the complementary purpose or opposing goal.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

The Appraisal variable in Affect Engineering is used to determine which function type is used to model a valuation for an entity as it relates to the fulfillment of a purpose held by an individual. The two function types in Affect Engineering’s framework are the Pursuit of Pleasure functions, and the Avoidance of Pain functions.

Functions with a positive Appraisal in Affect Engineering concern changes to negative affect and are used when the individual determines that fulfillment of the purpose at hand would lead toward restoring equilibrium between it and its complementary purpose. These are referred to as the Avoidance of Pain Functions.

Functions with a negative Appraisal in Affect Engineering concern changes to positive affect and are used when the individual determines that fulfillment of the purpose at hand would lead away from restoring equilibrium between it and its complementary purpose. These are referred to as the Pursuit of Pleasure Functions.

There are of courses parallels and contrasts between the two functions that are worth examining based upon the classification methods for different emotions in Affect Engineering, such as between guilt and sadness, or between anger and happiness. Moreover, where equilibrium is believed to be, that is to say, what the idealized failure to success rate is between a purpose and its opposing purpose, is not assumed to be constant between individuals.

What happens when equilibrium between a purpose and its complementary purpose are not sought, and when might this occur?

SHORT ANSWER

When equilibrium between the fulfillment of a purpose and its complementary purpose is not sought, the individual is in danger of perishing if a primary drive is involved. This could occur if an individual seeks to fulfill a purpose and the successful fulfillment of the purpose can only come at the expense of the individual’s own life.

IN DEPTH EXPLANATION

An individual might choose to hold the fulfillment of one purpose above its complementary purpose, even at the risk of death, if they possess a high degree of resolve to achieve a certain aim or perform a specific action. This could happen in cases of martyrdom (i.e., sacrificing oneself for a cause), or altruistic sacrifice, as in the case of an individual putting their own life in jeopardy or even in the line of fire in order to save someone else, a group of people, or even inanimate objects.

Preview:

The next article will address emotional regulation in Affect Engineering. Though the classifications and descriptions for specific emotions have not been covered yet — they will be in the second half of this article series — the mechanisms proposed to influence them can be addressed before then.

Previous: Article 2 of 12 Reframing Anxiety as a Resource

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