Is the idea of cognitive mediation correct that things in the world don’t cause emotions? (49)
ChesneyChristManchester, Greater Manchester, England UK7,144 PostsThere are no offences only offended people.. believing in arbeit macht frei or the sainthood of George Floyd could save you from the gas chambers. Buy into the gaslighting and you could be better off although it would preferable for humanity if the interpretation was to be stopped.
And yet a gentlemen allows a woman to maintain her fiction. Believing in arbeit macht frei and not getting gassed is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman. Everything may be working against you but the trick is to behave like it isn't. It's not fair, it's not right and yet the beautiful is the overcoming of an unfair situation. It's a triumph of the will thing not a matter of right and wrong.
ElysianFields: If the OP's headline grammatically made any sense, I would attempt an answer.
I’m sure that I would be elated to read any response from you. 
carry on!rohaan: Simplify, simplify: let’s get real—I am at the casino. I win a sizable jackpot. My emotions are ECSTATIC!! (event dictates emotion). But, if I LOSE—I’m bummed. (event dictates emotion)
Abstract and Figures. Cognition and emotion have long been thought of as independent systems. However, recent research in the cognitive and neurobiological sciences has shown that the relationship between cognition and emotion is more interdependent than separate.robplum: mediation
your driving along and someone cuts you off
The way we react to any given event is conditioned what we impute good/bad/or indifference. I think motivation has direct a impact upon outcomes. Engaging in road rage is hardly likely to produce positive outcomes.
Our motivation shapes outcomes a bit like tomato seed grows a tomato plant not an apple tree, positive thoughts have positive outcomes.
I shared a link on my facebook timeline this morning e.g.
"True peace cannot be achieved by force or by merely envoking the world „peace“. It can only be attained by training the mind and learning to cultivate inner peace. Peace is a a calm and gentle state of mind."
(the 17th Karmapa)
Yeah and we can initiate that road to peace when we throw out all those self help books which The self-help industry wants us to believe we should not care at all what other folk think… your driving along and someone cuts you off
The way we react to any given event is conditioned what we impute good/bad/or indifference. I think motivation has direct a impact upon outcomes. Engaging in road rage is hardly likely to produce positive outcomes.
Our motivation shapes outcomes a bit like tomato seed grows a tomato plant not an apple tree, positive thoughts have positive outcomes.
I shared a link on my facebook timeline this morning e.g.
"True peace cannot be achieved by force or by merely envoking the world „peace“. It can only be attained by training the mind and learning to cultivate inner peace. Peace is a a calm and gentle state of mind."
(the 17th Karmapa)
jac_the_gripper: It's not that deep, Ro.
You have an understanding of winning, or losing, right? That's to do with your thoughts (cognition). You know if you win you get something, if you lose you forfeit something.
You start with perceiving your win, or loss: your eyes see the number on the dice, the picture and number on a card.
You then cognitively process the information you perceive: those shapes and colours your eyes perceives are translated into meaning, such as a rolled die falling so six dots face up, or a card reading the Jack of Diamonds.
You then process that information in it's context: You needed to throw a six to win, or a Jack means too many points and you've lost. This again is all to do with what you see and what you think.
The context of winning, or losing is also to do with your thoughts: if you win you can go on holiday, if you lose you can't pay your bills.
All those thoughts might be unconscious, sub-conscious, or conscious, but it doesn't matter. Whether you are aware of them, or not, you have to process the information - I've thrown the die, I need a six to win, the die has landed with six dots facing up, I have won, I get a lot more money back than I put in, I can go on holiday...
Yippy!
The emotion you feel is not as a direct result of winning, it's a result of your thought processes about winning. Your cognitions mediate between the event and the way you feel.
Now say you are a billionaire, life is one long holiday and you win $500k. The money is a drop in the ocean, you don't need it, but the act of winning is a pleasure in itself. Compare that with having six hungry kids, no job, no money, an eviction order and then winning $500k. While both scenarios involve winning $500k, the resulting emotions (mediated by cognitions) will likely be different. The billionaire is unlikely to whoop, cheer and break down in tears, the family man/woman is unlikely to only feel the pleasure of winning.
It's not the winning of $500K which produces the emotion, it's what you think about about winning the $500K that produces the emotion.
You have an understanding of winning, or losing, right? That's to do with your thoughts (cognition). You know if you win you get something, if you lose you forfeit something.
You start with perceiving your win, or loss: your eyes see the number on the dice, the picture and number on a card.
You then cognitively process the information you perceive: those shapes and colours your eyes perceives are translated into meaning, such as a rolled die falling so six dots face up, or a card reading the Jack of Diamonds.
You then process that information in it's context: You needed to throw a six to win, or a Jack means too many points and you've lost. This again is all to do with what you see and what you think.
The context of winning, or losing is also to do with your thoughts: if you win you can go on holiday, if you lose you can't pay your bills.
All those thoughts might be unconscious, sub-conscious, or conscious, but it doesn't matter. Whether you are aware of them, or not, you have to process the information - I've thrown the die, I need a six to win, the die has landed with six dots facing up, I have won, I get a lot more money back than I put in, I can go on holiday...
Yippy!
The emotion you feel is not as a direct result of winning, it's a result of your thought processes about winning. Your cognitions mediate between the event and the way you feel.
Now say you are a billionaire, life is one long holiday and you win $500k. The money is a drop in the ocean, you don't need it, but the act of winning is a pleasure in itself. Compare that with having six hungry kids, no job, no money, an eviction order and then winning $500k. While both scenarios involve winning $500k, the resulting emotions (mediated by cognitions) will likely be different. The billionaire is unlikely to whoop, cheer and break down in tears, the family man/woman is unlikely to only feel the pleasure of winning.
It's not the winning of $500K which produces the emotion, it's what you think about about winning the $500K that produces the emotion.
i knew there was a reason I like you. Anyways, probably my biggest problem today is I generalize a mistake in behavior to a flaw in character. If iI didn’t have this problem I might stop taking things personally.
tomcatty: Abstract and Figures. Cognition and emotion have long been thought of as independent systems. However, recent research in the cognitive and neurobiological sciences has shown that the relationship between cognition and emotion is more interdependent than separate.
In response to: Abstract
Cognition and emotion have long been thought of as independent systems. However, recent research in the cognitive and neurobiological sciences has shown that the relationship between cognition and emotion is more interdependent than separate.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-009-0632-2Cognition and emotion have long been thought of as independent systems. However, recent research in the cognitive and neurobiological sciences has shown that the relationship between cognition and emotion is more interdependent than separate.
jac_the_gripper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-009-0632-2
I found it first
tomcatty: Zajonc argued that affect and cognition are processed independently and that affect has temporal priority over even basic cognitive processes. ... We agree with Bower's conception, and we extend it to suggest that cognitive processes are necessary for the processing, elicitation, and experience of emotions.
In response to: Zajonc argued that affect and cognition are processed independently and that affect has temporal priority over even basic cognitive processes. In contrast, Bower argued that cognitive processing could be used to understand emotional phenomena. We agree with Bower’s conception, and we extend it to suggest that cognitive processes are necessary for the processing, elicitation, and experience of emotions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366118/galrads: i knew there was a reason I like you. Anyways, probably my biggest problem today is I generalize a mistake in behavior to a flaw in character. If iI didn’t have this problem I might stop taking things personally.
Is that a mistake in your own behaviour, or someone else's?jac_the_gripper: Is that a mistake in your own behaviour, or someone else's?
Mea culpa I love watching old hands hen-pick each other apart. It's like the smell of napalm in the morning. 
tomcatty: I found it first
I research on the internet too, but I don't plagiarise, or pass off other people's work as my own.If I c&p something, I quote it and cite the source. I reword source information if I'm adding a snippet to my own writing.
Duplicity involves a lack of integrity which impacts upon how people view your contribution.
galrads: Mea culpa
Okay, so you make a perceived behavioural mistake, you perceive that to be a character flaw.What do you take personally? The above, or when other people say things? Both?
jac_the_gripper: I research on the internet too, but I don't plagiarise, or pass off other people's work as my own.
If I c&p something, I quote it and cite the source. I reword source information if I'm adding a snippet to my own writing.
Duplicity involves a lack of integrity which impacts upon how people view your contribution.
Well as it came under the heading of "other people ask"If I c&p something, I quote it and cite the source. I reword source information if I'm adding a snippet to my own writing.
Duplicity involves a lack of integrity which impacts upon how people view your contribution.
and show me a thesis that is completely origional, there aren't many.
Plagiarism is a difficult one to prove as the scouces are more often than not
suspect.
Jac, you must be a pleasure to live with. 
ElysianFields: Jac, you must be a pleasure to live with.
She has a big axe
tomcatty: She has a big axe
To grind? I couldn't agree more.Sort of reminds me of Kipling not to take your own personal circumstances and outcomes that seriously. If you meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same... Bob's your uncle.
Downside you might end up in prison.
Downside you might end up in prison.
More Threads
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
wanting beyond need
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
Ladies
Unions support Democrats!
Feel Good Music
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
the way you look
The weird and the random facts around the world
men's perspective towards women
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
Related Forums
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- wanting beyond need
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- Ladies
- Unions support Democrats!
- Feel Good Music
- Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
- the way you look
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- men's perspective towards women