English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

my sources are questionable to say the least. what do you think?

2006-10-19 16:54:10 · 2 answers · asked by QnA 2 in Social Science Psychology

2 answers

I may not understand that much about the study of emotion, but as far as I know, emotion is not really learned.

There are tons of tales of people who have felt emotions and formed subconscious reactions of some sort in their fetal stage.

For example, one person I know used to run and hide at any sudden loud sound i.e. slamming of a door (rather amusing in a way I'm embarrassed about, to see an old man dive for the table). I learned later on that his mom lived in England during the Blitz of WWII and was carrying him at the time. At that stage, he didn't know what a bomb was but the loud sudden noises scared him anyway.

Another thingthat causes me to question the aforementioned theory is the general meaning of the smile. If the smile evolved from a pre-battle intimidation tactic, then wouldn't the general reaction to a smile be fear? And in that case, what reaction was used to signify attraction/ happiness/ pleasure/ friendliness?

Good luck finding the truth.

2006-10-19 17:17:45 · answer #1 · answered by Studier Alpha 3 · 0 0

It is a natural reaction-see the babies, they cry, smile, fear without their parents teaching them. Smiling, I think can still be a pre-battle intimidation tactic because the enemy may seem to be so assured that they are going to win the battle, then their smile may impose fear.

2006-10-20 00:05:21 · answer #2 · answered by Monzi 2 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers