Difference between revisions of "Are Emotions Natural Kinds"
(abstract) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[ | <hide> | ||
[[keyname::2006-Barrett]] | |||
[[author::Barrett, L.F.]] | |||
[[year::2006]] | |||
[[cite/author::Barrett 2006]] | |||
[[title::Are Emotions Natural Kinds?]] | |||
[[published in::Perspectives on Psychological Science]] | |||
[[cite/source::''Perspectives on Psychological Science'', 1, 28-58]] | |||
[[abstract::Laypeople and scientists alike believe that they know anger, or sadness, or fear, when they see it. These emotions and a few others are presumed to have specific causal mechanisms in the brain and properties that are observable (on the face, in the voice, in the body, or in experience) – that is, they are assumed to be natural kinds. If a given emotion is a natural kind and can be identified objectively, then it is possible to make discoveries about emotion. Indeed, the scientific study of emotion is founded on this assumption. In this article, I review the accumulating empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the view that there are kinds of emotion with boundaries that are carved in nature. I then consider what moving beyond a natural-kind view might mean for the scientific understanding of emotion.]] | |||
</hide>{{page/spec/target}} | |||
Latest revision as of 16:49, 25 July 2020
Are Emotions Natural Kinds?: Barrett, L.F. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 28-58 (2006).
Abstract
Laypeople and scientists alike believe that they know anger, or sadness, or fear, when they see it. These emotions and a few others are presumed to have specific causal mechanisms in the brain and properties that are observable (on the face, in the voice, in the body, or in experience) – that is, they are assumed to be natural kinds. If a given emotion is a natural kind and can be identified objectively, then it is possible to make discoveries about emotion. Indeed, the scientific study of emotion is founded on this assumption. In this article, I review the accumulating empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the view that there are kinds of emotion with boundaries that are carved in nature. I then consider what moving beyond a natural-kind view might mean for the scientific understanding of emotion.
Responses
| Date"Date" is a type and predefined property provided by Semantic MediaWiki to represent date values. | Author | Lead-in | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emotion is Natural but Categories are Not | 20 September 2006 | Nancy Alvarado | Barrett argues against the construct of emotion by conflating the basic-emotions perspective in neural physiology with a type of category discussed in reference philosophy... |
... more about "Are Emotions Natural Kinds"
Laypeople and scientists alike believe tha … Laypeople and scientists alike believe that they know anger, or sadness, or fear, when they see it. These emotions and a few others are presumed to have specific causal mechanisms in the brain and properties that are observable (on the face, in the voice, in the body, or in experience) – that is, they are assumed to be natural kinds. If a given emotion is a natural kind and can be identified objectively, then it is possible to make discoveries about emotion. Indeed, the scientific study of emotion is founded on this assumption. In this article, I review the accumulating empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the view that there are kinds of emotion with boundaries that are carved in nature. I then consider what moving beyond a natural-kind view might mean for the scientific understanding of emotion.r the scientific understanding of emotion. +
Barrett 2006 +
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 28-58 +