How socially-derived are emotions?

[Cavernio]

Lots of emotions are socially derived, this is probably not a new thought anyone has had, and is possibly something you've studied. There are the obvious ones, like jealousy, envy their opposites like narcissism, etc.
But what about more basic ones, like happiness, sadness, love (supposed to love yourself, right?), etc? What causes happiness, sadness, love? Can we even have those base emotions being sequestered from other people physically and mentally? (ie: not thinking about other people.)
How much do we need to compare or have other people around us, in order to emotionally experience things?
What emotions do people like hermits experience?

I dunno, pretty standard question, seems pretty standard for answers too, but sometimes I wonder more about it, I wonder just how ingrained even base things, even base experiences that seem to relate only to me, at some point required other people around. An example of a base experience that to me seems unrelated to other people is something like, solving something or figuring out something. That experience is satisfying to me, and seems at first glance completely unrelated to anyone else. But is that actually true? And even if it is true, would that sort of satisfaction be enough for me to bother existing? Does it matter that perhaps these emotions are so ingrained with socialness because we've all had social interaction as infants and young children in order to be alive? I know that infants that are severely neglected end up being retarded, but is that because of a lack of interaction and doing things, or because of a lack of emotional interaction means there's not enough motivation for the infant to learn things for itself? Like, if we were to put human infants in, for lack of a better word, puzzle boxes and feed them etc, but made sure to not give them praise or scolding, would they still be retarded?

[Arch0wl]

The emotions themselves cannot be socially derived; they're physiological in their entirety. So a direct answer to this thread's question is "not at all."

But that's boring, and I think you're asking more about how much social interactions influence emotions.

To this end, I can't say I know how much. I do know that you can force pretty much any emotion given a sufficient stimulation of the area of the brain that produces that emotion. For example, Reach once referenced a study where researchers overloaded a participant on oxytocin or some similar thing by a tremendous amount, and one participant believed they were in love with the researcher.

From personal experience, I've taken a variety of hormones that are known to produce increases in libido, but whether they actually do is another matter entirely. With one hormone I wanted to have sex with everything and everyone (I think I slept with 5 people in a week at my worst), while with another hormone purported to increase libido I barely felt anything. In fact, my libido would have been increased as much by simply not masturbating for a day or two. And of course, interacting with someone I found tremendously attractive would have produced a strong libido effect regardless of what I took.

So perhaps the question is best thought of as "how much do social interactions stimulate areas of the brain and body that produce these emotions?" and to that I have no idea.

[Cavernio]

To your first sentence, no, that's not exactly the case. The development of physiology strongly interacts with the environment in the first place. Like if you block animal's eyes from receiving light during key points in development, they'll just be blind, as the brain structure involved for vision will not develop anymore.

[Arch0wl]

Even in that case, the eyesight wouldn't derive from environmental/social interaction, it would just have the capacity to be altered by it.

[Cavernio]

No, it's derived because of the interaction of the environment with physiology. It doesn't exist without light.

[Dynam0]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

Even in that case, the eyesight wouldn't derive from environmental/social interaction, it would just have the capacity to be altered by it.

Of course emotions are present at birth and are almost completely physiological responses; but the way I see it, a sort of filter is developed as an infant ages and this is through molding from the parent or environment. It becomes socially unacceptable to cry when hungry or when something is taken away, even though the child is experiencing emotions on that same continuum (sadness). It's even more pronounced in adults who often have to keep the expression of emotions at bay, or at the very least they express these in more subtle ways than bawling as a baby does.

I think it's more accurate to say that expressed emotions are a response to stimuli that have been interpreted by the brain. Different people may be able to perceive the same situation in almost the exact same detail, however the emotions that they react with or the interpretation of that situation may be a lot different. These interpretations are influenced heavily by individual values and beliefs which I think are molded by environment more than anything. I'd say on a basic level, emotions are mostly physiological in nature, however the magnitude to which these emotions are expressed is influenced by social constructs (values, beliefs, etc.).

[Cavernio]

Ok, well, clearly my first few sentences of the OP weren't as generally agreed upon as I thought.

Lots of emotions we have are defined by what happens in the world around us to make those emotions though. The emotion of jealousy ONLY exists when there is an environmental situation that leads to jealousy. There is a necessity of understanding and interpretation, in my mind, for that emotion to exist. I do not believe the qualia of being jealous can ever exist without these other factors initiating it. Specifically though, it requires another being. We are only jealous when other beings exist, usually only people.
How many emotions involve other beings for them to exist? As I mentioned before, even uncomplicated emotions like love is something we generally only feel for someone else.

I furthermore do not believe that we as humans necessarily even have the capacity for jealousy without some base learning and understanding and care at a very young age. Emotions, in my mind, would develop much like any other of our senses. I think that fear, satisfaction, positive anticipation and negative anticipation are probably the only emotions that people innately have; every other emotion seems able to revolve and evolve around those.

I was not trying to separate emotional reactions from the experience of emotions in my discussion, I was only referring to the emotional experience. However, now that it's been brought up, I find that the only way I personally can control emotional reactions is to control the emotions themselves. I mean, not completely, but if I don't my emotional reactions can easily be far too strong for me to control my reactions. Therefore I am usually emotionally distant and work on being that way, because that's how I can function. I don't think this is how most people function though, at least not mentally healthy people.

[M0nkeyz]

My thoughts on the matter, I think they are largely socially derived. Feelings like empathy and words like ''justice'' are largely dependant on where you were born. I feel deep down inside people are like sponges. You can teach them to feel empathy and love for certain things and hate and dislike for other things.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Lots of emotions we have are defined by what happens in the world around us to make those emotions though. The emotion of jealousy ONLY exists when there is an environmental situation that leads to jealousy.

Even if this set of emotions is elicited by other people, the emotions themselves exist independently. The emotions don't cease to be when a person isn't experiencing them.

For example: I release hormone x after sex with person y. These hormones exist elsewhere; they produce a specific effect on my brain.

You're basically positing emotions as platonic things, as ideas or concepts distinct from a physical thing that corresponds to the label, and confusing the experience of the emotion with the emotion. The experience of the emotion is socially derived, but then that's trivially true, because all experiences involving other people are. The emotion itself isn't; given sophisticated enough technology you could hook a machine to somebody and induce jealousy at a non-human thing.

[Cavernio]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

Even if this set of emotions is elicited by other people, the emotions themselves exist independently. The emotions don't cease to be when a person isn't experiencing them.

For example: I release hormone x after sex with person y. These hormones exist elsewhere; they produce a specific effect on my brain.

You're basically positing emotions as platonic things, as ideas or concepts distinct from a physical thing that corresponds to the label, and confusing the experience of the emotion with the emotion. The experience of the emotion is socially derived, but then that's trivially true, because all experiences involving other people are. The emotion itself isn't; given sophisticated enough technology you could hook a machine to somebody and induce jealousy at a non-human thing.

Emotions seem to be defined as what one experiences, no? In any case, I disagree that, if the person were not socially developed enough such that they would not be able to experience emotion x as a result of socialness, that we could still artificially create that emotion via brain science. I mean, I suppose we could theoretically, at some point, stimulate the brain to perceive social interaction that doesn't exist and create it that way, (afterall, imagination does this for us) but we'd simply be faking social interaction which then causes the emotion, and not eliciting it in a social vacuum.
In regular, functional adults, sure we could probably elicit nearly the whole gamut of emotions via brain electrodes without going through a social middle ground, but in an infant or young child? No way.

I also find it interesting that you yourself have chosen in your example of jealousy, that even artificially it's being created towards something. Some sort of idea of a being or object outside oneself that is necessary for jealousy. From what I'm understanding about what you're saying, to necessitate having an object that one must feel jealous of/about supports my perceptions/idea, and weakens yours'. If I held your stance, I would say that the emotion of jealousy could be able to be elicited without requiring it to be centered about anything or anyone. Which is also somewhat tied to the concept that I don't think understanding or interpretation of an emotion is necessary for the experience of it. (Note that this idea isn't support of your idea though either; there exist people who do not seem to realize that they experience emotion while all the while noting that their bodies react emotionally even though there seems to be a deficit or block of the mental perception of it.)

The brain develops because it experiences. Without experience, the brain and perception as we know it, is non-existent.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Emotions seem to be defined as what one experiences, no?

no.

In any case, I disagree that, if the person were not socially developed enough such that they would not be able to experience emotion x as a result of socialness, that we could still artificially create that emotion via brain science. I mean, I suppose we could theoretically, at some point, stimulate the brain to perceive social interaction that doesn't exist and create it that way, (afterall, imagination does this for us) but we'd simply be faking social interaction which then causes the emotion, and not eliciting it in a social vacuum.

I bolded the relevant part, because that's the bit that actually explains why you disagree. You wouldn't even need to "trick the brain to perceive social interaction", by the way, and I don't know where you're introducing this idea that the emotion doesn't exist without jealousy. You'd simply stimulate whatever neurological impulses are that induce the effect.

In the bolded part, you're bundling the social phenomenon that induces the emotion + the emotion itself as a single phenomenon and claiming that this is the emotion. It really doesn't matter if you fake the interaction or not because the emotion would exist anyway. You seem to think that this makes the emotion more real; if you believe that the position that emotions are inexorably tied to social phenomena, this would make sense, but it wouldn't make the position less of a packaging of two distinct phenomena as a single one.

If this bundling actually worked, you'd have something like "social interaction that causes emotion is socially derived", which is trivially true.

sure we could probably elicit nearly the whole gamut of emotions via brain electrodes without going through a social middle ground, but in an infant or young child? No way

Why not?

Your answer, by the way, should appeal to something physiological -- e.g. similar to reasons why you could not elicit a developed sperm ejaculation from an infant, because post-puberty physiology is a requisite.

I also find it interesting that you yourself have chosen in your example of jealousy, that even artificially it's being created towards something. Some sort of idea of a being or object outside oneself that is necessary for jealousy. From what I'm understanding about what you're saying, to necessitate having an object that one must feel jealous of/about supports my perceptions/idea, and weakens yours'. If I held your stance, I would say that the emotion of jealousy could be able to be elicited without requiring it to be centered about anything or anyone. Which is also somewhat tied to the concept that I don't think understanding or interpretation of an emotion is necessary for the experience of it. (Note that this idea isn't support of your idea though either; there exist people who do not seem to realize that they experience emotion while all the while noting that their bodies react emotionally even though there seems to be a deficit or block of the mental perception of it.)

Right, because jealousy is a concept. "Jealousy" comprises a set of phenomena we use a word to describe. The phenomena themselves include several real independent-of-us things, one of which is an emotion. The concept of jealousy, and the real things it makes up, are separate things. "Jealousy" doesn't exist as some single real thing in the way that oxytocin does, basically; it's just a linguistic shortcut to refer to real things without knowing precisely what those things are. "Love" is similar, as are most fuzzy words.

The brain develops because it experiences.

It's an organ. Neurologically, this isn't necessarily true.

[Cavernio]

I've not said anything about physiologically stimulated emotions being more or less real. Don't read between the lines when it comes to talking to me about things like this, because there's nothing between them.


"Why not?

Your answer, by the way, should appeal to something physiological -- e.g. similar to reasons why you could not elicit a developed sperm ejaculation from an infant, because post-puberty physiology is a requisite."

Anyways, no, I don't have 'proof' of anything, because accurately measuring emotional states so far is impossible. Furthermore, even if we could measure them, the ethics surrounding the experiments necessary to solidly determine whether I or you is correct would, hopefully, prevent them from being done. What I can do, however, is point towards other neurological development studies and make hypotheses that align with the results of knowledge we DO have.

For instance, vision simply doesn't develop without light, and the physiology necessary for the development of vision stops working after a certain point in time. Plenty of studies about that, famous one was done on cats. We also automatically learn language, but only at certain points in time, whereas afterwards we suddenly have to make conscious effort into doing so.
Also, kids and animals raised in pauce environments end up underperforming on a variety of measures of things, to the point of mental retardation. Look into studies on underfunded orphanages, there's a well-known one on some place in eastern Europe circa 1960 I think. Also, look into any studies about rats and rich vs. poor environments.
Regarding emotional states, there are definitely strong ideas about the environmental impact of poor parenting on things like personality disorders, involving messed up emotional states. Abusive, cold or inconsistent parenting, especially at very young ages, is known to play important roles for the development of personality disorders.

1. Our brains are highly plastic. Given that emotions are a part of the nervous system, it follows that emotions, too, are highly plastic, 2. Given that some things core to our physiology, eg: vision, can completely fail to develop if there's nothing to stimulate it's growth, 3. Given that poor environments can affect the development of other complex systems like intelligence, I don't see why emotions would be any different.

I don't know why I'm being put on the ropes here anyways. You certainly don't have concrete proof that we can even physiologically elicit emotions with electrodes, yet you nevertheless strongly believe that you can. But you have not mentioned proof. (Of course, we're both agreed on this point, but that does not give it any more proof.)
Nor do I understand why your overall assumption that the brain just develops all these things no matter what the environment a person grows up in, is the standard that I somehow have to debunk. It's your standard, but you haven't exactly put forth any scientific claims regarding your own beliefs, just said 'this is how the brain is, obviously we can theoretically plug things into the brain and elicit emotions, this is proof.' I daresay you're pleading to circular logic.


""Jealousy" doesn't exist as some single real thing in the way that oxytocin does, basically; it's just a linguistic shortcut to refer to real things without knowing precisely what those things are."

Come again? Jealousy isn't real, it's just a referral to something real...??

I actually currently believe that consciousness and qualia are tangible, as it makes no sense for intangible things to exist. This is, of course, purely philosophical musing, and is not based in anything scientific...yet :-p

[Kokonoe Rin]

I believe that where you came from and how you came up can have a very heavy effect on your emotions, mainly because where I was born and where I live now are as different as how I felt then and how I feel now.

In an attempt to explain without throwin some sort of pity party, I was born in a very violent area with drug usin/dealin parents. Basically everyone in my family had this "thug" mentality about them. Because of this and just how the surrounding area was overall I rarely felt bouts of happiness or sadness or even anger for that matter. As a child I was rather "blank" and my sense of justice was based on what I considered respect. I was very violent but not because people made me upset, it was more of a "law of the land" thing. You've disrespected me, I pretty much have to hurt you. That's just how it was.

Movin on to later years in life when I moved with my nana to a small country town where everyone knew everyone, and was very friendly, I grew out of most of my old habits and learned that things were not really the way I thought they were. It was around this time that I begin to feel more happiness, occasional sadness, and the occasional anger I reckon.

I'm not 100% if I'm addressin this correctly, but what my overall point here is that the way I felt about things, and the way things, situations, and people affected me was heavily based on the kind of world I lived in. This is no longer the case now that I am a grown man, but growin up I feel culture played a very heavy role on my emotions.

Hope I thought this out well enough.

[stargroup100]

Originally Posted by Kokonoe Rin

I believe that where you came from and how you came up can have a very heavy effect on your emotions, mainly because where I was born and where I live now are as different as how I felt then and how I feel now.

In an attempt to explain without throwin some sort of pity party, I was born in a very violent area with drug usin/dealin parents. Basically everyone in my family had this "thug" mentality about them. Because of this and just how the surrounding area was overall I rarely felt bouts of happiness or sadness or even anger for that matter. As a child I was rather "blank" and my sense of justice was based on what I considered respect. I was very violent but not because people made me upset, it was more of a "law of the land" thing. You've disrespected me, I pretty much have to hurt you. That's just how it was.

Movin on to later years in life when I moved with my nana to a small country town where everyone knew everyone, and was very friendly, I grew out of most of my old habits and learned that things were not really the way I thought they were. It was around this time that I begin to feel more happiness, occasional sadness, and the occasional anger I reckon.

I'm not 100% if I'm addressin this correctly, but what my overall point here is that the way I felt about things, and the way things, situations, and people affected me was heavily based on the kind of world I lived in. This is no longer the case now that I am a grown man, but growin up I feel culture played a very heavy role on my emotions.

Hope I thought this out well enough.

This is a great little personal account. I haven't read into this thread too much in detail, but I'll add my views. I think this is a very classic example of a person in those conditions (transitioning from poor conditions to better conditions) adapting, and this adaptation affecting their emotions.

In this sense, I really do think adaptation plays one of the largest roles in this, which makes emotions heavily dependent on environment (which includes social factors). When people reach a state of stability, and their environment is fairly consistent, there aren't really any intense emotions involved. Strong emotions are triggered as a result of dramatic change. Experienced something that felt amazing? You feel happy. Tragedy strikes you suddenly? You feel grief. It's your body and brain's way of trying to make sense of how to handle the situation, and sometimes that pressure helps people cope or even solve the problem.

In a society where people are nice to each other and help each other, it's understood that cooperation is the norm. As soon as someone commits some sort of atrocity, everyone sees it as a threat and a disruption to their way of life, and so that is condemned, and people get angry and hurt. However, in a society where these kinds of atrocities are normal, in an area where crime is common, people are not likely to trust each other. That kind of environment is much more dangerous, and when your own life is at stake, you remain impartial to these things, which no longer surprise you, in order to have a more rational control over yourself. Everyone has a "zone" of expectations and stability, and anything past that will trigger intense emotions, and everything will adjust that "zone" (by any amount in any direction) in order to keep the person within that zone as much as possible.

Although there are physical things that can play a role, generally speaking most of these don't compare to the impact of that the environment has, simply because of how powerful the human body and mind is at adaptation. Anything that can physically change the body dramatically are the result of extended abnormal function, or some substance that can shock the body that has not adjusted to it.

[vidyamohhls]

your information is related with emotions. that's very nice details.

[RNGRX]

okay who's alt is this

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

... accurately measuring emotional states so far is impossible. Furthermore, even if we could measure them, the ethics surrounding the experiments necessary to solidly determine whether I or you is correct would, hopefully, prevent them from being done. What I can do, however, is point towards other neurological development studies and make hypotheses that align with the results of knowledge we DO have.

For instance, vision simply doesn't develop without light, and the physiology necessary for the development of vision stops working after a certain point in time. Plenty of studies about that, famous one was done on cats. We also automatically learn language, but only at certain points in time, whereas afterwards we suddenly have to make conscious effort into doing so.

Also, kids and animals raised in pauce environments end up underperforming on a variety of measures of things, to the point of mental retardation. Look into studies on underfunded orphanages, there's a well-known one on some place in eastern Europe circa 1960 I think. Also, look into any studies about rats and rich vs. poor environments.

Regarding emotional states, there are definitely strong ideas about the environmental impact of poor parenting on things like personality disorders, involving messed up emotional states. Abusive, cold or inconsistent parenting, especially at very young ages, is known to play important roles for the development of personality disorders.

Even then, this wouldn't make the emotions socially-derived.

The emotions still happen because of your physiological configuration. If I were to read what you're saying in the most charitable way, and give it the most contribution to the conclusion they would support, you're at most saying that environmental changes predispose your body to evoke some type of feeling over another.

But the feeling itself is still a physiological response that the environment didn't create. Your environment doesn't reorganize your brain to create new emotions.

""Jealousy" doesn't exist as some single real thing in the way that oxytocin does, basically; it's just a linguistic shortcut to refer to real things without knowing precisely what those things are."

Come again? Jealousy isn't real, it's just a referral to something real...??

The emotions that 'jealousy' refers to are real. They are physiological responses from the brain.

The word 'jealousy' is our understanding of these responses as we've understood their function in a social context. The actual emotion would exist as part of our physiological toolbox regardless of whether anyone actually provoked jealousy in us.