is this legit? proofs?

Shame ayy lmao

>>7978145
body heat?

>>7978145
This is supposed to be thermal camera images of the variance from 'neutral' when undergoing those emotions?

>>7978145
>People drew maps of body locations where they feel basic emotions (top row) and more complex ones (bottom row). Hot colors show regions that people say are stimulated during the emotion. Cool colors indicate deactivated areas.

>>7978155
If so this can easily be tested by wrapping a hot towel around your head and sticking a ice pack down your pants and see if you experience a strong contempt.

>>7978160
>The team carried out a series of experiments during which candidates were subjected to words, movies, facial expressions and short stories online, all designed to instill different basic and complex emotions. The emotion was never directly uttered in the medium used, so as not to bias the results. The subjects were then asked to colour in the silhouettes in the areas of the body where they experienced an increase (in red and yellow) or decrease (in blue or black) in sensitivity. They were not asked to identify places where they felt a physiological output, such as a rapid heart rate or a rising temperature. Instead, the team was looking for an instantaneous reaction that could be consciously identified by the participant.

They're self reporting changes in sensitivity, not measuring temperature.

>>7978167
How did they trigger love and depression ?

>>7978167
>>7978156
Yeah should have mentioned that in OP my bad. My actual question was whether

>>7978155
>thermal camera images of the variance from 'neutral' when undergoing those emotions?
have confirmed this yet

>>7978174
Thermal camera, increased blood flow, whatever.

Ah I should pay more attention to how I phrase my inquiries next time

sage

File: received_bWVzc2FnZV9ibG9iX2F0dGFjaG1lbnQ6MzQzNjQyOTEyNDU5MTEw.jpg (3KB, 113x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 113x125px

>>7978145
>psychology
>is this legit? Proof?
Hahahahahahaha

>>7978160
fucking kek

>>7978145
what the fuck is even being measured, what is the unit

>>7978145

This is legit, this is how mood rings work. They simply change color based on your body temperature to indicate how you are feeling.

>>7978228
The SI unit of feels, the feelojoule.

How were they able to determine someone was in a neutral state?

>>7978245
They probably started their measuring at the beginning of a new calendar year when everybody had just received a clean psychological slate.

File: gold.gif (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>7978145
>people with depression are -15 degrees

>>7978145
>is this legit?
Questionable.

The reason is that IRL the eyes are kept at a remarkably constant temperature but here the temperature reading is all over the place.

>>7978244
Lol'd. The fJ.

>>7978393
Seems from anon H's post above they aren't measuring temperature, but 'sensitivity', however this is defined.

>>7978145
All emotional responses are caused by the same release in hormones in junction with psychological association with the stimulus. The physiological reaction to each emotion should be exactly the same, give or take the intensity of the emotion, only differing in psychological reaction. Your body temperature changes the same when you're mad, happy, scared, anxious, etc. This can be referred to as "emotional response" and can only be tied to a specific emotion when the stimulus of the person is accounted for.

If this image refers to body temperatures, and not all of those are emotions per se, then the ones that are actual emotions should all be the same. This is not legit.

>>7978145
I didn't know spiderman was so ashamed to do his job

>Proofs
>s

Stop this.

>>7978245
Prolonged exposure to the colour beige.

File: Fixed.png (127KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 500x333px

>>7978145
Fixed the image for you.

>>7978145
I like how contempt makes your dick shrink

>>7978756
kek

>>7978145

Google: "Bodily maps of emotions by Lauri Nummenmaa"

If you want the full paper to see if it is legit or not.

You should have access to it.

Personally I think it is all bullshit, because it is so heavily about emotion and self reporting with absolutely nothing biochemical about it I've read through the article, which is what I am used to.

They don't really define what 'reduced activity' or 'increased activity' are or what any of the emotions are specifically. You would have to be someone in that area of research who knows what the specifics are.

I can't comment on the methods or statistics they used.

Emotion and feeling research is not my thing, but I would take this paper with a huge amount of skepticism.