TFA reminds me of a story that Sting used to tell about "disarming" crazy and/or drunk people in NYC by quoting Shakespeare at them (e.g. yelling "My mistress' eyes are brighter than the sun!" directly at them). He claimed it worked every time.
As absurd as it sounds, their brains had to find something to associate that context with. He gave off a signal, and they had to interpret it somehow. Maybe it was so absurd and out of context it just switched the entire context of what they were being processed at the time.
We're like walking flash drives constantly associating, downloading and updating our storage.
Disarm people with absurdity. I'd rather not test it out though
> If you got this far, then you might be wondering what any of this has to do with Corporations using emotional insights that they collect from people.
I read the whole thing and I'm still not getting it.
More broadly, yes emotions are meant to be shared. As someone with emotions, I'm already aware of this. I'm broadcasting mine right now... underwhelm.
I read it that strong emotions have a signature that's processed differently in the context of data points vs the context of human interaction in meatspace.
It feels to me like an intro to a deeper insight that's missing the main body of the piece.
Yes, removing ambiguity can trim too much away. If we could describe what that is, it would not have been thrown away.
That is an interesting idea because we see this loss everywhere even in writing, photographs, etc. long before we ever considered "data points". It's such a profound loss that when an artist manages to capture even a tiny glimmer of emotional ambiguity they are hugely celebrated.
We are all starving for this while the world we build insists on throwing more and more of it away.
One of the things that I've noticed is there's an aversion to people noticing their emotions, companies analyzing that data, "men sharing their feelings" and the way that I've come to process these things is that at the end of the day they're all signals.
For example the gentlemen that we crossed. His rage, contempt, anger, disgust, whatever it may be, was a signal and the way that we interreacted had a profound impact on the other signals that came to surface.
I believe when we look at these signals from a functional perspective and truly consider the "subjective" nature of the signals, then it makes sense that they are some of the most important signals we have.
You put your hand in hot scolding water, most people immediately take note of the signal and act accordingly.
There's been a lot of devaluation on the actual supportive and objective nature of our own emotional and cognitive signals.
The mere idea that a corporation is tracking emotional data becomes absurd because at the end of the day, we're all kind of doing that ourselves. The tone of how we associate is a bit dysfunctional if you ask me.
I’m just gonna take this chance to drop a rec for Joe Hudson’s work for anyine interested in learning more about emotions and how to work with them in yourself and others. It’s been super impactful for me. (YouTube/podcast)
On this point in particular (that we’re broadcasting these signals), in one of the AoA courses I took there’s an exercise where you and a partner take turns guessing at the emotion the other person is feeling. You’re just staring into each others’ eyes on zoom, and one person is going “angry. sad. joyful. fear. Angry again.”
When I was the guesser I had no idea if I was even in the ballpark.
But when the other person was guessing my emotions, they were probably 70% accurate with what I was feeling. We discussed afterward and they had the same experience (I had apparently gotten most of them right). It was wild.
TFA reminds me of a story that Sting used to tell about "disarming" crazy and/or drunk people in NYC by quoting Shakespeare at them (e.g. yelling "My mistress' eyes are brighter than the sun!" directly at them). He claimed it worked every time.
As absurd as it sounds, their brains had to find something to associate that context with. He gave off a signal, and they had to interpret it somehow. Maybe it was so absurd and out of context it just switched the entire context of what they were being processed at the time.
We're like walking flash drives constantly associating, downloading and updating our storage.
Disarm people with absurdity. I'd rather not test it out though
I'd like to have these 5 minutes of my life back please.
What did reading this open up for you?
A new tab.
lol that brought some joy to me. Thank you for your time
> If you got this far, then you might be wondering what any of this has to do with Corporations using emotional insights that they collect from people.
I read the whole thing and I'm still not getting it.
More broadly, yes emotions are meant to be shared. As someone with emotions, I'm already aware of this. I'm broadcasting mine right now... underwhelm.
I read it that strong emotions have a signature that's processed differently in the context of data points vs the context of human interaction in meatspace.
It feels to me like an intro to a deeper insight that's missing the main body of the piece.
Yes, removing ambiguity can trim too much away. If we could describe what that is, it would not have been thrown away.
That is an interesting idea because we see this loss everywhere even in writing, photographs, etc. long before we ever considered "data points". It's such a profound loss that when an artist manages to capture even a tiny glimmer of emotional ambiguity they are hugely celebrated.
We are all starving for this while the world we build insists on throwing more and more of it away.
One of the things that I've noticed is there's an aversion to people noticing their emotions, companies analyzing that data, "men sharing their feelings" and the way that I've come to process these things is that at the end of the day they're all signals.
For example the gentlemen that we crossed. His rage, contempt, anger, disgust, whatever it may be, was a signal and the way that we interreacted had a profound impact on the other signals that came to surface.
I believe when we look at these signals from a functional perspective and truly consider the "subjective" nature of the signals, then it makes sense that they are some of the most important signals we have.
You put your hand in hot scolding water, most people immediately take note of the signal and act accordingly.
There's been a lot of devaluation on the actual supportive and objective nature of our own emotional and cognitive signals.
The mere idea that a corporation is tracking emotional data becomes absurd because at the end of the day, we're all kind of doing that ourselves. The tone of how we associate is a bit dysfunctional if you ask me.
One of the beliefs that I conjured up, is that we're broadcasting these signals whether we intend to or not.
There's a lot of conflict around sharing emotional signals intentionally without realizing we're already doing that.
I personally believe that emotions are best to be understood regardless of what party is considering them, businesses, partners, society, etc.
I’m just gonna take this chance to drop a rec for Joe Hudson’s work for anyine interested in learning more about emotions and how to work with them in yourself and others. It’s been super impactful for me. (YouTube/podcast)
On this point in particular (that we’re broadcasting these signals), in one of the AoA courses I took there’s an exercise where you and a partner take turns guessing at the emotion the other person is feeling. You’re just staring into each others’ eyes on zoom, and one person is going “angry. sad. joyful. fear. Angry again.”
When I was the guesser I had no idea if I was even in the ballpark.
But when the other person was guessing my emotions, they were probably 70% accurate with what I was feeling. We discussed afterward and they had the same experience (I had apparently gotten most of them right). It was wild.