I think the perspective on emotions that I relate with the most is the perceptual view of emotions. Like the book states, “External objects and events, as well as physiological reactions, have no intrinsic meaning.” (p. 174) This means that specific actions or events that happen are not linked with emotional reactions. The theory explains that each event is seen subjectively from the persona and depending on the situation and circumstance, and emotional reaction happens. Before a fight a persons ands may be shaking because they are scared. But that same person hands may be be shaking on the day of graduation because of the joy they are experiencing. This shows how the situation is the determining factor in what the emotion is rather than the physical reaction that is caused by the emotion. I related most with this perception because i can relate to my own experiences with it.
I agree with the book about “external objects and events, as well as physiological reactions, have no intrinsic meaning,” and agree with the example you give about how a person’s hands could be shaking because they are scared, before a fight, or shaking because they are feeling profound joy. What I am wondering though, is if it’s possible that those responses have been conditioned and therefore do have intrinsic meaning? Most people would have anxiety before a fight, I think if you asked a large group of people if they would be scared before going into a physical fist fight, the overwhelming majority would say yes. So people expect that physiological response. Similarly, if you asked people if they were nervous and feeling anxiety and joy (at the same time) over graduating on graduation day, I think a lot of people would also say yes. I think our emotions are driven a lot by conditioning, which drives the physiological response. Just my $.02 thought.
ReplyDelete