Sources That Pertain to Emotions/Thoughts - What Comes First
Suzanne
I've been very intrigued by this recents round of e-mails and the
creation of this discussion group because for the couple of years that
I've been on the Research Workgroup teleconference calls, very few
people have been calling in. I was beginning to wonder if all the
people on the listserve really did exist - evidently you do.
Eric, I enjoyed your musings as well, and wish that I had more time to
contribute to that part of the discussion right now. I am, however,
way behind in my semeseter (I'm a graduate student at San Diego State
University). I was wondering, however, if you can post some of the
sources you were talking about who discuss which comes first emotions
or thoughts. I have been talking about this with my thesis chair for a
year and a half. As an advocate of Social Evolution Theory, he
believes very firmly that emotions are primary. I personally have
mixed results in myself. As I have learned to apply NVC, I find
myself, more and more, not reacting emotionally to former triggers.
Now, I do a lot less tranforming my emotions into giraffe thoughts,
and much more just thinking giraffe thoughts right away. What do you
all experience with this?
Suzanne
Eric Mosley
SDSU, cool! My son went to USD and also took some classes at SDSU.
I have an M.Ed. in counselor education and have read and studied
pretty widely on this. Most of the sources that immediately come to
mind deal with violence and aggression and include a lot of folks
like Freud, Jung, Montague, Fromm, Hendrick Van Loon, and Dave
Grossman to name a few that immediately to mind. "Deep Survival" by
Lawrence Gonzales was very interesting to me, and focused on the
emotions of survival in highly stressful conditions rather than
violence per se.
The single, most recent discussion and best meta source I know of on
the relationship between emotions and thoughts is "For The Love Of A
Dog, Understanding Emotion In You And Your Best Friend" by animal
behaviorist Dr. Patricia McConnell. This book is a study of emotions
in people and dogs, comparing, contrasting, noting research,
disagreements in the philosophic, psychology, and behavioral science
communities, and offering her own theories from her years of working
with dangerously aggressive dogs and their owners. She quotes Brian
Ratey, author of "Users Guide To The Brain" (I have it, and have not
read it yet) and Darwin's "Emotions In Man And Animals" for a sample
of the scope of her research resources. Her bibliography is
extensive, and she has a DVD set of a seminar she gave on the same
topics as contained in her book. I greatly enjoy both.
My own thinking on this has transformed a lot over the years. Until
I read McConnell I would have argued that all emotions come from our
cognitive perceptions. She provides extensive evidence, both
anecdotal and brain research based (using brain imaging technology)
that has convinced me that there is a whole lot more going on. Not
only do emotions (I won't go into the distinction that she draws
between emotions and feelings) sometimes precede and trigger
thoughts, physical movement can too. One of my professors in grad
school at VA Tech (David Hutchins) developed what he called a T-F-A
triangle. This is a visual presentation of the things that influence
our behavior, with Thinking, Feeling, and Action each one apex of the
triangle. He used this as an analytical tool in understanding how a
person functions and where they might typically find themselves on
the triangulated spectrum. I have returned to using that model more
now because there is more research to support that our physical,
emotional, and cognitive selves are interdependent, interactive, and
inter-response causal. My guess is that your thesis chair himself
falls heavily on the emotional side of this three sided spectrum,
coloring how he sees the world. I was on the thinking side, so saw
the world through that lens.
This is obviously one (maybe the primary?) stimulus for conflict no?
We see the world from our own inner world - no way else to see it
right? - and so we tend to think our way of seeing things is the one
and only right way to see them. Because we don't see things
differently it is hard to know there is a different way, equally as
valid as our own, to see and even to be. Thus our way of seeing and
being might be termed our strategy for functioning in the world, and
if everyone would just see and be like us, oh what a wonderful world
this would be... :) ... and oh so incredibly boring. :)
Ah, hope that's helpful,
with love,
Eric