RE: [huml] Re: a random citation

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I think it was more in the way of the odd occurence that she turned 
up the reference, but I may ask her later.

What is nagging at me right now is that I think the model these folks 
are building would be better served if they used the terms: 
InitialEmotion, and SubsequentEmotion in their format of course, 
rather than as the compound terms I have just coined. Primary and 
Secondary don't build a picture of the progression they are 
describing, especially not in the sense of a crescendo/dimuendo, 
which our intensity-range values can quantify, as implied by their 
description. Their usage also not how I envisioned/envision building 
a secondary HumanML vocabulary from the base complexType Emotion. I 
was thinking of primary emotions being the least complex, as opposed 
to the more complex as their usage describes.

Ciao,
Rex

At 3:19 PM -0500 9/4/03, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>I pulled Constance from the cc list just in case she
>doesn't want to be in this loop.  If she does, add her
>to your reply.
>
>One point is that given a theory like this, a simple
>set of polar opposites for emotional state ranking is
>insufficient.  Either that, or we have to model the
>secondary emotion as the extreme polarization of the
>primary.  However, we use intensity as an offset
>value from neutral and I don't think that is adequate
>for modeling the emergence of the secondary.  We'd have
>to give this some thought as to the right way to represent
>this and what values affect it.  The author of that page
>suggests that one value is time (fear can become anger).
>So the event timeline is important here.
>
>A second point is that emotional management via using
>sign sets to evoke other emotions is probably a valid
>approach.  It fits into the theory that emotions have
>only other emotions as opposing forces and that manipulation
>of the sign set is one means for the intellect as the
>selector to manage emotions.  It is a trick question I
>ask people:  what is the opposite of emotions?  Adults
>usually reply, intellect.  Children usually reply,
>other emotions.  Children have a more correct model
>and that is also an intrigueing bit of information
>given one asks why do adults believe that they can
>oppose their emotions with their intellects, and is
>that a symptom of a dysfunctional personality.
>
>len


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request