Bravo, Dr. Lisa! Your research and insights are truly breaths of fresh air and so greatly needed today for many reasons. Your book on Five Lessons was life changing for me as a practicing therapist (and just as a human being). Am looking forward to devouring this book as well! Hope those that stubbornly resist your outside the box thinking don’t discourage your work going forward!
Thank you Politics and Prose for all the great work you've done and continue on with. These talks are so educational and refreshing. I'm no where close to Washington DC and almost of these talks I would have never had the opportunity to attend and listen to in person. I've learned so much from tuning into your channel. God Bless you all.
I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to explain reflexes as a process of our past experiences influencing our brain to generate a hypothesis about the future in response to its external circumstances. In fact, I think that is exactly what a reflex is. So I think Dr. Barrett nailed it but I don’t think she’s too far off from the classical theory of emotion. I will say this though: her model definitely encourages more control over one’s emotions which is exactly right
Thank you Dr Lisa for you work it gives us hope in the transformation of our Culture and our brain. I was thinking the way from the many angers show up with the unique of the expirience to understand how the brain make up many minds or many unfolding accordingly.
Feldman is absolutely right, at least on these issues. If you are sufficiently introspective you will see that she is actually right and many of us have been deluded about our own experience due to the classical (false) view. I think it will take time for society in general to come around because it appears counterintuitive. but as I say, through mediation and other practices where you investigate the self without illusions or denial. you will see a correspondence of your experience of your own emotions and the theory she is explaining here and in her book rather than the disconnection so many claim.
Lisa Feldman Barrett suggests that words should be seen as physical violence because they can cause stress, and therefor words need policing and appropriate censorship. Such a suggestion is an outrageous and ludicrous attack on free speech and debate, because this entails that we start policing words and debates in accordance with what might hurt people's feelings. Through such an action you are effectively implementing censorship of opinions and discussions to be aligned with peoples emotions. Discussions, disagreements and debates were never meant to be pleasant, comfortable little safe-spaces. They were meant to challenge people's ideas, opinions and views, which is indeed a stressful and unpleasant experience by nature. Lisa Feldman Barrett demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding of the potential repercussions of her suggestion because there is ALWAYS someone that is offended by someone's opinion and speech, almost regardless as to what that opinion/use of language may be. Following Lisa's suggestion means the level of censorship and word policing would completely annihilate free speech. I'd expect better from a qualified researcher and psychologist. The problem with the SJW religion of political correctness Lisa apparently is part of is that in promotes unquestionable intolerance in the name of 'tolerance', which makes it an oxymoron.
Hi toasteh, I'd like to refer you to the article she wrote that you're referring to. In this article you will see exactly what she said. You will see that she is not promoting censorship on any level, but rather inviting debate. She breaks down what happens when we experience abusive language, and how, if it becomes chronic, it can actually cause damage to us. I invite you to read her article firsthand, with an open mind, and perhaps you will see that she is not advocating censorship in any way. Link: www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html
+Mosey Ape As she states in the very article that you refer to: "We must also halt speech that bullies and torments". I completely agree that bullying and abuse should not be tolerated. But the problem is that these days *so many people* label mere critique of their own opinion/ideas and having these challenged as 'bullying and abuse'. So if word policing is introduced, where does it stop? Who gets to police it? Who gets to determine "You can't say that, remove that mans statement" on i.e the entity that is the internet? Should schools and work places do their best to stop bullying and abuse? Of course. But as soon as you introduce word policing and halting speech, you are setting a dangerous precedence that will *without question* be abused and pushed further and further by people who see it as a way to further and protect their own agenda. This tactic is *extremely* popular among feminists, SJW's, minorities etc these days. All of a sudden *everything* is sexist, *everything* is bigoted, *everything* is racist and everyone just needs to nod their heads to that or they are suddenly part of an intolerant hate group. We do not need or want a framework, particularly online, that stops people from saying certain things, particularly when context is everything. Furthermore, protecting people from opinions/speech that they perceive as hurtful isn't always positive, because you are taking away the experience of confrontation and stripping them of that learning process: Learning how to discuss, argue and defend your viewpoint with the use of logic and reasoning. Hell, even learning how to be proven wrong and changing your mind accordingly. By banning language and speech to favor emotions, you will effectively create wimps who are used to safe-spaces where their opinions are never challenged. That's not the world we live in. This world is brutal, and people need to learn how to handle themselves when conflict comes rather than just be protected from it. And in my humble opinion: Some people just need to be told they are a bloody moron from time to time, because if nobody does that person is never going to ask themselves the question: "Am I wrong?" or logically reflect on their standpoint.
I'm not sure where you're getting "word policing." She's not advocating that. I believe she's saying "We must also halt speech that bullies and torments" like, 'yeah c'mon this is no good it needs to stop. It's unaccetable.' And not in a way where we need to start censoring people to eradicate it at any cost. What I hear her saying is we need to stop this kind of bullying and tormenting because it actually harms us. Here's the whole quote which is important: "By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence." - A form of violence which she's scientifically proven happens and explains in the article. I get where you're coming from, but to me it sounds like this: We have all of the facts and data and agree that bullying can have extremely negative consequences, but rather than make an attempt to stop it, we'll let it continue because the innocent person needs to realize that this world is brutal. So rather than protect the innocent, we'll stand-by and allow the bully to do whatever they want. If Hitler was gaining his rise in modern day America, preaching his obvious, indefatigable, hateful 'solution,' would it be censorship to deny him access to a podium? "On the other hand, when the political scientist Charles Murray argues that genetic factors help account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores, you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided, but it’s only offensive. It is offered as a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not thrown like a grenade. There is a difference between permitting a culture of casual brutality and entertaining an opinion you strongly oppose. The former is a danger to a civil society (and to our health); the latter is the lifeblood of democracy." - From the article Yes, this world is ruthless, no doubt. But I believe that we as humans can decide to make it less. Why else do we have society if not to progress into a more peaceful world? Is that not what laws are in place for? To keep the peace? I don't believe that we should be inviting the next Hitler (god forbid) on to the podium in the name of free speech.
+Mosey Ape Since when have we not been trying to combat bullying and speech that interferes with us psychologically? What's new about the discovery that Lisa is advocating? What grips me is when she starts talking about halting speech/words that harms, so how are you going to do what without banning what can and cannot be said? Fight the bullies and their personality/need to cause harm, don't try and police what they/people say, because that can only end badly. I believe in completely free speech, even if it is Hitler's. All ideas/opinions must be allowed to be freely expressed and then challenged. That's not saying free speech comes without consequence. Banning people from saying/doing anything only gives power to what you are trying to ban and has never solved anything. You need to change people's minds by countering their ideas, not ban them from what they are allowed to say based of trying to protect people's feelings. All you accomplish by doing so is set a dangerous precedence for the expression of new and controversial ideas for all of us. Some people literally see all people who question i.e mass immigration and relevant data as racist and compare these to Hitler. Should these then be banned from doing so? Because western media sure have tried, and failed, in that respect. You seem to think that banning people from doing anything will stop them from doing so and eradicate their viewpoints/opinions. Such is blatantly ignorant, and if anything you are merely hiding it away and allowing it to grow in secret. We humans try to make our society more peaceful and calm, true, but that is not achieved with *any* form of censorship/restricted speech. Its achieved in an open forum for all input is allowed and where said input is challenged with reason and logic. As I said, treat the problem, not the symptom. The problem is the bully and why he is bullying, not what he/she is saying and whether or not they should be allowed to say it. By restricting any form of speech, you will eventually lose control, and some will use said restriction to further and protect their own agenda. We see the application of such in society today: Any mere mention of i.e immigration criticism, and people are more than happy to call you a racist to shut you up. Its an absolutely toxic way of "solving a problem" that I do not want to see expanded upon. We endure the negatives of free speech because the ramifications of any form of censorship/restricted speech are too costly and too vulnerable to be abused and intrude on our freedom and expression of new ideas.
If people were taught logical fallacies and cognitive biases and Rhetoric then we would not have to worry about hurting peoples feelings and could have intelligent debates.
Some of her comments in her book and elsewhere suggest that she has a personal thing against Paul Ekman. Are they enemies? Friends? I hope they can get along politely and well.
We now know that around 70% of our brain is already orginized from birth. Perception is an active process, we have known that since at least 50 years ago. To imagine, to see and to do is almost the same for the brain. Karl Friston is one of the leading scientists: Free Energy principle.
I think Lisa may have missed the lecture where it is both nature and nurture... we are born with constructions of the self and the world and how emotions need to guide us through through life. It is from the basis of these built in constructions that we then adapt to better suit our environmental needs and if we become a master of emotions/feelings we can actively construct their relationships to our internalise constructs of self and the world. This is why there IS a universal underpinning for emotion and why it is slightly different for each person. Also one cannot measure subjectively felt sensations through physiological markers and compare it across people. Only with the same person. People do not have the same subjective expereinces for the same physiological response... honestly neither does the same person if their constructs of self and world change enough within a given time frame.
I'm just starting your book and ma'am you should go to jail haha you're breaking down everything I learned about emotions I really love your work!! Thank you for all what you're doing for science >3
Obviously clever people but that final comment about "Do you have any advice on how we can control our emotions in the next 4 years?" (An obvious reference to Trump) shows them to be immature, emotions basket cases that can't apply the theories that they purport to understand. I'd have answered, "Grow up! And read my book."
Provocative but suspect stuff, The 'conflict between reason/rationality and emotion is a strawman. A strong basis for emotional universals-- happy, sad, fear, anger, surprise, excitement, contempt with cultural, local influences for sure. Harkens back to discredited ideas of tabula rasa, radical behaviorist nonsense--it's all learned, 'constructed', and when the learning is dysfunctional, can be reconstructed.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Just brilliant!!Listening to her and reading her writing is so revealing about how our brain works!
Beautifully put forward, loved the depth of thought and research!
Incredible. She's truly making an important contribution to science.
but too many ADS!!!
Bravo, Dr. Lisa! Your research and insights are truly breaths of fresh air and so greatly needed today for many reasons. Your book on Five Lessons was life changing for me as a practicing therapist (and just as a human being). Am looking forward to devouring this book as well!
Hope those that stubbornly resist your outside the box thinking don’t discourage your work going forward!
A great presentation, and the Q&A is outstanding 👍
Finish reading her new book. Great insights and new way of seeing how emotions work. Loved the book and the explination was great.. Thank you ....
Thank you Politics and Prose for all the great work you've done and continue on with. These talks are so educational and refreshing. I'm no where close to Washington DC and almost of these talks I would have never had the opportunity to attend and listen to in person. I've learned so much from tuning into your channel. God Bless you all.
I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to explain reflexes as a process of our past experiences influencing our brain to generate a hypothesis about the future in response to its external circumstances. In fact, I think that is exactly what a reflex is. So I think Dr. Barrett nailed it but I don’t think she’s too far off from the classical theory of emotion. I will say this though: her model definitely encourages more control over one’s emotions which is exactly right
Loved this. Enough said read her book, so good.
Iris Juliete - Could you tell me the name of the book, please?
ok, it just showed up on the screen 😉
Minor socialist - that is a good question. I guess it had 😌
Lisa is a great person to study and learn from
I have understood this concerning myself, since I was about 5. My Mom found it quite fascinating to watch me.
Thank you Dr Lisa for you work it gives us hope in the transformation of our Culture and our brain. I was thinking the way from the many angers show up with the unique of the expirience to understand how the brain make up many minds or many unfolding accordingly.
Why, when constructed emotion theory is full of holes, do intelligent people find is so compelling?
Thank you so much! So much psychological truth and skillful wisdom in this talk. Really helped me.
Feldman is absolutely right, at least on these issues. If you are sufficiently introspective you will see that she is actually right and many of us have been deluded about our own experience due to the classical (false) view. I think it will take time for society in general to come around because it appears counterintuitive. but as I say, through mediation and other practices where you investigate the self without illusions or denial. you will see a correspondence of your experience of your own emotions and the theory she is explaining here and in her book rather than the disconnection so many claim.
It seems to me that the Gestalt psychologists were saying these things in the early 1900s.
Lisa Feldman Barrett suggests that words should be seen as physical violence because they can cause stress, and therefor words need policing and appropriate censorship. Such a suggestion is an outrageous and ludicrous attack on free speech and debate, because this entails that we start policing words and debates in accordance with what might hurt people's feelings. Through such an action you are effectively implementing censorship of opinions and discussions to be aligned with peoples emotions. Discussions, disagreements and debates were never meant to be pleasant, comfortable little safe-spaces. They were meant to challenge people's ideas, opinions and views, which is indeed a stressful and unpleasant experience by nature. Lisa Feldman Barrett demonstrates an extreme lack of understanding of the potential repercussions of her suggestion because there is ALWAYS someone that is offended by someone's opinion and speech, almost regardless as to what that opinion/use of language may be. Following Lisa's suggestion means the level of censorship and word policing would completely annihilate free speech. I'd expect better from a qualified researcher and psychologist. The problem with the SJW religion of political correctness Lisa apparently is part of is that in promotes unquestionable intolerance in the name of 'tolerance', which makes it an oxymoron.
Hi toasteh,
I'd like to refer you to the article she wrote that you're referring to.
In this article you will see exactly what she said. You will see that she is not promoting censorship on any level, but rather inviting debate. She breaks down what happens when we experience abusive language, and how, if it becomes chronic, it can actually cause damage to us. I invite you to read her article firsthand, with an open mind, and perhaps you will see that she is not advocating censorship in any way.
Link: www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html
+Mosey Ape As she states in the very article that you refer to: "We must also halt speech that bullies and torments". I completely agree that bullying and abuse should not be tolerated. But the problem is that these days *so many people* label mere critique of their own opinion/ideas and having these challenged as 'bullying and abuse'. So if word policing is introduced, where does it stop? Who gets to police it? Who gets to determine "You can't say that, remove that mans statement" on i.e the entity that is the internet? Should schools and work places do their best to stop bullying and abuse? Of course. But as soon as you introduce word policing and halting speech, you are setting a dangerous precedence that will *without question* be abused and pushed further and further by people who see it as a way to further and protect their own agenda. This tactic is *extremely* popular among feminists, SJW's, minorities etc these days. All of a sudden *everything* is sexist, *everything* is bigoted, *everything* is racist and everyone just needs to nod their heads to that or they are suddenly part of an intolerant hate group. We do not need or want a framework, particularly online, that stops people from saying certain things, particularly when context is everything. Furthermore, protecting people from opinions/speech that they perceive as hurtful isn't always positive, because you are taking away the experience of confrontation and stripping them of that learning process: Learning how to discuss, argue and defend your viewpoint with the use of logic and reasoning. Hell, even learning how to be proven wrong and changing your mind accordingly. By banning language and speech to favor emotions, you will effectively create wimps who are used to safe-spaces where their opinions are never challenged. That's not the world we live in. This world is brutal, and people need to learn how to handle themselves when conflict comes rather than just be protected from it. And in my humble opinion: Some people just need to be told they are a bloody moron from time to time, because if nobody does that person is never going to ask themselves the question: "Am I wrong?" or logically reflect on their standpoint.
I'm not sure where you're getting "word policing." She's not advocating that. I believe she's saying "We must also halt speech that bullies and torments" like, 'yeah c'mon this is no good it needs to stop. It's unaccetable.' And not in a way where we need to start censoring people to eradicate it at any cost. What I hear her saying is we need to stop this kind of bullying and tormenting because it actually harms us.
Here's the whole quote which is important:
"By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence." - A form of violence which she's scientifically proven happens and explains in the article.
I get where you're coming from, but to me it sounds like this:
We have all of the facts and data and agree that bullying can have extremely negative consequences, but rather than make an attempt to stop it, we'll let it continue because the innocent person needs to realize that this world is brutal. So rather than protect the innocent, we'll stand-by and allow the bully to do whatever they want.
If Hitler was gaining his rise in modern day America, preaching his obvious, indefatigable, hateful 'solution,' would it be censorship to deny him access to a podium?
"On the other hand, when the political scientist Charles Murray argues
that genetic factors help account for racial disparities in I.Q. scores,
you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided, but it’s only
offensive. It is offered as a scholarly hypothesis to be debated, not
thrown like a grenade. There is a difference between permitting a
culture of casual brutality and entertaining an opinion you strongly
oppose. The former is a danger to a civil society (and to our health);
the latter is the lifeblood of democracy." - From the article
Yes, this world is ruthless, no doubt. But I believe that we as humans can decide to make it less. Why else do we have society if not to progress into a more peaceful world? Is that not what laws are in place for? To keep the peace? I don't believe that we should be inviting the next Hitler (god forbid) on to the podium in the name of free speech.
+Mosey Ape Since when have we not been trying to combat bullying and speech that interferes with us psychologically? What's new about the discovery that Lisa is advocating? What grips me is when she starts talking about halting speech/words that harms, so how are you going to do what without banning what can and cannot be said? Fight the bullies and their personality/need to cause harm, don't try and police what they/people say, because that can only end badly.
I believe in completely free speech, even if it is Hitler's. All ideas/opinions must be allowed to be freely expressed and then challenged. That's not saying free speech comes without consequence. Banning people from saying/doing anything only gives power to what you are trying to ban and has never solved anything. You need to change people's minds by countering their ideas, not ban them from what they are allowed to say based of trying to protect people's feelings. All you accomplish by doing so is set a dangerous precedence for the expression of new and controversial ideas for all of us. Some people literally see all people who question i.e mass immigration and relevant data as racist and compare these to Hitler. Should these then be banned from doing so? Because western media sure have tried, and failed, in that respect.
You seem to think that banning people from doing anything will stop them from doing so and eradicate their viewpoints/opinions. Such is blatantly ignorant, and if anything you are merely hiding it away and allowing it to grow in secret. We humans try to make our society more peaceful and calm, true, but that is not achieved with *any* form of censorship/restricted speech. Its achieved in an open forum for all input is allowed and where said input is challenged with reason and logic.
As I said, treat the problem, not the symptom. The problem is the bully and why he is bullying, not what he/she is saying and whether or not they should be allowed to say it. By restricting any form of speech, you will eventually lose control, and some will use said restriction to further and protect their own agenda. We see the application of such in society today: Any mere mention of i.e immigration criticism, and people are more than happy to call you a racist to shut you up. Its an absolutely toxic way of "solving a problem" that I do not want to see expanded upon.
We endure the negatives of free speech because the ramifications of any form of censorship/restricted speech are too costly and too vulnerable to be abused and intrude on our freedom and expression of new ideas.
If people were taught logical fallacies and cognitive biases and Rhetoric then we would not have to worry about hurting peoples feelings and could have intelligent debates.
Awesome 👏🏾. Really awesome 👏🏾. Thank you. Extremely interesting
Some of her comments in her book and elsewhere suggest that she has a personal thing against Paul Ekman. Are they enemies? Friends? I hope they can get along politely and well.
We now know that around 70% of our brain is already orginized from birth. Perception is an active process, we have known that since at least 50 years ago. To imagine, to see and to do is almost the same for the brain. Karl Friston is one of the leading scientists: Free Energy principle.
Daniel Siegel's so-called "Hand Model" of the brain is from hence on in - completely wrong then?
I think Lisa may have missed the lecture where it is both nature and nurture... we are born with constructions of the self and the world and how emotions need to guide us through through life. It is from the basis of these built in constructions that we then adapt to better suit our environmental needs and if we become a master of emotions/feelings we can actively construct their relationships to our internalise constructs of self and the world. This is why there IS a universal underpinning for emotion and why it is slightly different for each person. Also one cannot measure subjectively felt sensations through physiological markers and compare it across people. Only with the same person. People do not have the same subjective expereinces for the same physiological response... honestly neither does the same person if their constructs of self and world change enough within a given time frame.
You sir, do not follow the lemmings over the cliff.
I'm just starting your book and ma'am you should go to jail haha you're breaking down everything I learned about emotions I really love your work!! Thank you for all what you're doing for science >3
Obviously clever people but that final comment about "Do you have any advice on how we can control our emotions in the next 4 years?" (An obvious reference to Trump) shows them to be immature, emotions basket cases that can't apply the theories that they purport to understand. I'd have answered, "Grow up! And read my book."
✌
Provocative but suspect stuff, The 'conflict between reason/rationality and emotion is a strawman. A strong basis for emotional universals-- happy, sad, fear, anger, surprise, excitement, contempt with cultural, local influences for sure. Harkens back to discredited ideas of tabula rasa, radical behaviorist nonsense--it's all learned, 'constructed', and when the learning is dysfunctional, can be reconstructed.
Give her a lapel Mike so she can be heard . the sound makes her message unintelegable
Yikes! Not convincing, sorry…
Thank god I didn't buy the book. Very poor science. And an even worse conclusion.
Move on already... Boring