Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,666
Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions
I just happened upon this tonight if anyone has any experience with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Plutchik | https://dragonscanbebeaten.wordpress...e-them-part-1/
With this diagram Plutchik demonstrates a selection of major human emotions, how they are related to each other, and how they are different too (or bipolar as he calls the emotions at opposite sides). At the center of this wheel there are eight basic emotions (as he refers to them) such as ecstacy and grief. Then each of these is connected to two more subtle emotions that lead to what Plutchik calls the eight advanced emotions – those around the outside. For this wheel to work well you need to cut it out and attach each of the ‘leaves’ to each other such that acceptance is alongside apprehension, for example, and annoyance next to boredom. The result is a three-dimensional cone shape. It’s a neat idea and one that’s used in many fields of psychology, and is also featured in dozens of different Wikipedia pages, for example.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
I don't have any experience with it. But, based on the quote and the links, I like that it groups emotions by polar opposites and includes degrees of emotions.
Some of the supposed emotions are what I think of as a mental state that includes emotionality, rather than being an emotion. For example, Trust as opposite from disgust seems like a strange definition to me. But, it depends on what is meant by "trust".
Where I have seen problems with definitions of emotions, in general, is people talking about good and bad emotions. I don't think there can be such a thing as a bad emotion. There are good and bad reactions to emotions, relative to something else.
When a description of an emotion seems to me to include reasoning, it becomes dangerous. I have had conversations where someone says that it is not healthy to accept anger. But, what they mean by anger includes rational justification of the emotion. In that sense, accepting anger would mean accepting your justification for you anger, which would likely escalate the negative reaction to the justification and the emotionality.
If you exclude the reasoning from what is identified as anger, then there is emotionality that can be called anger that is neither good nor bad, it's just mentality.
Also, I don't think that there are discreet emotions. I think of emotionality as like drops of color in water that swoosh together continuously. You don't have one emotion then switch to another emotion. That wheel groups the opposites as discreet. That doesn't seem right to me.
And, I don't think emotionality is independent of other mental functioning. I like Abert Ellis's description of what our emotionality is not: We think-move-sense-feel all together continuously, rather than having separate emotions and reasoning.
Some of the supposed emotions are what I think of as a mental state that includes emotionality, rather than being an emotion. For example, Trust as opposite from disgust seems like a strange definition to me. But, it depends on what is meant by "trust".
Where I have seen problems with definitions of emotions, in general, is people talking about good and bad emotions. I don't think there can be such a thing as a bad emotion. There are good and bad reactions to emotions, relative to something else.
When a description of an emotion seems to me to include reasoning, it becomes dangerous. I have had conversations where someone says that it is not healthy to accept anger. But, what they mean by anger includes rational justification of the emotion. In that sense, accepting anger would mean accepting your justification for you anger, which would likely escalate the negative reaction to the justification and the emotionality.
If you exclude the reasoning from what is identified as anger, then there is emotionality that can be called anger that is neither good nor bad, it's just mentality.
Also, I don't think that there are discreet emotions. I think of emotionality as like drops of color in water that swoosh together continuously. You don't have one emotion then switch to another emotion. That wheel groups the opposites as discreet. That doesn't seem right to me.
And, I don't think emotionality is independent of other mental functioning. I like Abert Ellis's description of what our emotionality is not: We think-move-sense-feel all together continuously, rather than having separate emotions and reasoning.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,666
You make some interesting points. The first thing I noticed about after it's prettiness was remorse being an opposite to love. Most people would think of hate, or fear even. Speaking as a person with long held and valid trust issues, disgust as it's opposite doesn't seem so strange to me.
I agree with you there, after much trial and error, error and trial throughout my drinking years. Hopelessness and despair as a justification for drinking, drinking as a justification for anger, anger as a justification for assclownery etc.
Heres is where it's gets interesting. The wheel of discreet emotions are only a basis for the theory. The next stage is in 'blending of emotions' much similar to what you have described above.
I can't find a good visual for it but this article attempts to cover it somewhat https://dragonscanbebeaten.wordpress...m-part-2-of-2/ [For example, “Optimism” is a blend of both “Anticipation” and”Joy”]
Originally Posted by BobArctor 
When a description of an emotion seems to me to include reasoning, it becomes dangerous. I have had conversations where someone says that it is not healthy to accept anger. But, what they mean by anger includes rational justification of the emotion. In that sense, accepting anger would mean accepting your justification for you anger, which would likely escalate the negative reaction to the justification and the emotionality.
Originally Posted by BobArctor
Also, I don't think that there are discreet emotions. I think of emotionality as like drops of color in water that swoosh together continuously. You don't have one emotion then switch to another emotion. That wheel groups the opposites as discreet. That doesn't seem right to me.
I can't find a good visual for it but this article attempts to cover it somewhat https://dragonscanbebeaten.wordpress...m-part-2-of-2/ [For example, “Optimism” is a blend of both “Anticipation” and”Joy”]
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
To me it seems that optimism is a behavior that includes emotion but it's not itself an emotion. The same goes for trust and anticipation etc.
That distinction only matters if people are attributing some value to optimistic behavior and confusing it with the emotional content that is typically coincidental with that behavior.
Thinking that one should amplify or attenuate the emotional content of those mental states and behaviors, because the emotional content can be recognized in those states and behaviors, is confused, I think.
That distinction only matters if people are attributing some value to optimistic behavior and confusing it with the emotional content that is typically coincidental with that behavior.
Thinking that one should amplify or attenuate the emotional content of those mental states and behaviors, because the emotional content can be recognized in those states and behaviors, is confused, I think.
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,666
I'm not entirely sure I understand your first paragraph. Although maybe I do, I am quite tired. Optimism is a feeling surely. Because if it is just a thought it is hardly worth a scoot is it.
Agree with everything else you said though. Oh but people do, lots of people! Around me at least, and F' them anyway I have wasted the most of my life in trying to negotiate and compromise with said people.
This wheel and theory would be useful to someone who is working in the field, putting a thesis together or studying psychology is what I was thinking last night. It's interesting and seems to be well thought out. The most useful parts I found personally were in some of his postulates.
Agree with everything else you said though. Oh but people do, lots of people! Around me at least, and F' them anyway I have wasted the most of my life in trying to negotiate and compromise with said people.
This wheel and theory would be useful to someone who is working in the field, putting a thesis together or studying psychology is what I was thinking last night. It's interesting and seems to be well thought out. The most useful parts I found personally were in some of his postulates.
Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 105
I think of mentality as many things combined. Emotionality and reasoning together with other things make up mentality.
One part of hearing talking people's mentality is an internal dialog. For example, I form the words "I will have a banana".
Another part is various process that people call reasoning. If a car is about to hit me, and I jump out of the way, typically I don't form words "I am going to jump out of the way of the car". But, my mind processed information and decided on an action.
A similar process is various forms of simpler reaction. If my pants fall down in public, I blush.
Another part is sensation. If a breeze rises, I sense it.
Another part is feeling, which is very difficult to describe.
Combinations of these all happen to me at the same time and are not really separate from each other and are my mentality.
Then there is behavior which involves mentality.
Optimism, for example, is a word describing what some mentality concerns. Having mentality about something is a form of behavior, I think. The reaction aspect of optimism can be described separately from the feeling I have coincidentally with my optimism behavior.
The feeling that occurs with my optimism behavior isn't necessarily only felt when I am behaving with optimism. In that sense it's separate from the behavior.
In other words, optimism it's not only a thought and it's not only an emotion.
The distinction can be important some times and I gave anger as an example. If I am angry the justification part of the reasoning part of that behavior is dangerous, but the feeling part is equally good as any other feeling. So, I want to attenuate (note for analysis) the angry thought process and accept the feeling part.
When no distinction is made between the aspects of anger, it can lead people to think they need to block their anger which can be very dangerous.
One part of hearing talking people's mentality is an internal dialog. For example, I form the words "I will have a banana".
Another part is various process that people call reasoning. If a car is about to hit me, and I jump out of the way, typically I don't form words "I am going to jump out of the way of the car". But, my mind processed information and decided on an action.
A similar process is various forms of simpler reaction. If my pants fall down in public, I blush.
Another part is sensation. If a breeze rises, I sense it.
Another part is feeling, which is very difficult to describe.
Combinations of these all happen to me at the same time and are not really separate from each other and are my mentality.
Then there is behavior which involves mentality.
Optimism, for example, is a word describing what some mentality concerns. Having mentality about something is a form of behavior, I think. The reaction aspect of optimism can be described separately from the feeling I have coincidentally with my optimism behavior.
The feeling that occurs with my optimism behavior isn't necessarily only felt when I am behaving with optimism. In that sense it's separate from the behavior.
In other words, optimism it's not only a thought and it's not only an emotion.
The distinction can be important some times and I gave anger as an example. If I am angry the justification part of the reasoning part of that behavior is dangerous, but the feeling part is equally good as any other feeling. So, I want to attenuate (note for analysis) the angry thought process and accept the feeling part.
When no distinction is made between the aspects of anger, it can lead people to think they need to block their anger which can be very dangerous.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
