Emotion+1

This week, instead of having reading quizzes, let's make it officially a college-style assignment. Here are the instructions:

Below, //**please comment twice for each of this week's readings**//: //Note: In the example below, "Jane D and Joe S" have only complete 1/3 of the assignment. They would need to response twice under the "Moral Judgement Fails Without Feelings" and "Emotions" to completely fulfill the requirements for this assignment. What I've given you below is purely for your understanding, which I feel you will be able to get without me doing the entire thing! :-)//
 * one comment should be a question or an interesting observation that you would like to discuss with each other regarding the text.
 * your second comment should be a response to another person's question or observation. I've put an example with imaginary people in red and orange text below for you to see.

=__"Ruling Passions"__= Jane D: According to this reading, Daniel Goleman believes that "emotional intelligence" should be taught in schools. What would this look like? Joe S: In response to Jane D, I think we already see this to a certain extent in school when we are given a "citizenship" grade. The school system tries to mold us into good "citizens." Joe S: It is interesting that this article focuses on the role of schools in building a person's emotional intelligence. It makes me wonder about what the most influential factors are in the construction of someone's emotional make-up... Jane D: In response to Joe S, I think our parents and our families are the greatest influence on who we become as emotional beings because we are around them more than any other people. N.Cuevas: Jane D, I agree with your comment because our parents are actually our greatest influence in our personality since we are basically a reflection of who they were in the past. We learn most of our manners at home since parents educate the basic "knowledge of emotions" when we are really young. N.Cuevas: Is it worth it to apply the "emotional intelligence" in our school, or would it only destroy individuals' originality about their own emotions and personality? A.Castaneda: Ms.Cuevas, I completely agree that by commencing the "emotional intelligence" you are only limiting the student to its fullest capacity to develop and transform an original personality and emotions.

A.Castaneda: I personally found Daniel Goleman's belief to pursue the act of teaching students "emotional intelligence" because it slowly creates a dependent mind of the adolescent unable to think and form a personality of its own. M.Getch:For the sake of argument, since we all seem to be in agreement here I would like to discuss the benefits of Goleman's ideology. More importantly for a society that is so steadfast against bullying, we may be able to root the problem out completely using this. As well as open the minds of hundreds of children.

M.Getch: I think its interesting that Goleman is attempting to indoctrinate youth and is labeling it as "emotional intelligence". I'm insulted that he finds our generation so callous. More that that though is his VAST over-generalization. We are not all decent people, but as a combined sum, which is how we are supposed to interact we may be "emotionally intelligent". What really makes me mad is that he seems to think that training an entire generation to think and say what our society believes is the best way to "remedy" the emotion problem. Absolutely not! If we want a generation of perfect youth capable of complete understanding, then what do we sacrifice. In the words of Mat Bellamy "Paradise comes at a price, that I am not prepared to pay". Goleman's motives are more than noble, they're selfishly garish. .

E.Tenort: In response to Getch, are you not also indoctrinated to believe what you do but some book or person- something. None of your thoughts or emotions you posses you could have obtained without someone's influence. Our generation is extremely callous and I think we do need a cure for the emotional problem with most of our peers. And to answer your question of, "what do we sacrifice?" we sacrifice all the snokies of the world, all the domestic violence (which is most prominent in our generation), all of the teen suicides.With the way our generation is indoctrinated I do not think you should be so mad at Goleman for wanting to do it in a different direction.

G.Yanez: It is extremely interesting how Goleman attempts to teach our generation "emotional intelligence", however, is it that important for our society to learn to use its feelings

J.Carvajal:How should we learnd how to use our feelings Mr.Yanez?

J. Olivas: Of course it's that important Mr. Yanez! It's the difference between a person snapping one day and going on a killing spree and that person being a successful individual in life. It's the difference between the impulse of having fun and the discipline of doing what needs to be done. It is the difference between the kid punching Ms. Eddy and him not punching her. Of course it's that important!

G.Yanez: In response to Getch, I don't believe Goleman tries to indoctrinate our society, but instead, he attempts to teach us how to use our emotions in a clever way with the ultimate goal of becoming better human beings.

E.Gutierrez: Mr.Yanez, could you please define the word clever? Whenever the word is used i immediately associate irony, sarcasm, and wit with it as well. Wouldn't the education of "emotional intelligence" encourage limiting these techniques that are trademarks of an abundance of individuals to prevent certain statements that prove perfectly reasonable to most but insult some small groups on the side?

E.Tenort: I think Goleman's idea is an okay one everyone is indoctrinated my only concern is how exactly will he indoctrinate toward religion, sexism, anti-gay ideals?

L. Silva: I agree with Mr. Tenort. There will always be those who think differently and oposses to what is thought to be the right way, and some even attempt to oppose indoctrination they believe is wrong. Isn't that what America is all about? Individualism.

L. Silva: The indoctrination of "emotional intelligence is not possible. How can one teach another how to feel? Curtis Wilson-Patterson: In response to Mr. Silva,emotional intelligence is not teaching one how to feel but rather teaching one how to identify,assess and control their emotions.So in that case emotional intelligence can be taught.

E.Gutierrez: It's absurd that "emotional intelligence" is considered as a subject that should be included in school's curriculums while the United States is failing to educate the future generation enough to learn to better itself individually.

J. Olivas: It's hard to tell where we would go with teaching emotional intelligence in schools. Perhaps rationality would be less appreciated over emotions as emotions took more of the spotlight or perhaps rationality would triumph because students could control their emotions and leading to less Van Goghs chopping off their ears and less Alan Turings committing suicides. I mention Alan Turing in particular because not only was he driven to commit suicide by being convicted by Britain of homosexuality but also because of his genius. The social stigma attached with being different, have it be one's sexuality or thoughts, would probably disappear as people would control their mockery by having an enhanced emotional intelligence, in particular empathy. Through empathy the people who plague people who are different would realize what the different people feel and thus be less likely to ridicule them.

M.Gutierrez:In response to Mr. Yanez I would have to say that it is important for us as a society to learn our emotions to better ourselves in the decisions we make but i dont think that a person should learn them from someone else. Our emotions are something we have to learn and develop by ourselves.

M.Gutierrez: I have to agree with Ms.Gutierrez because we as a society have not yet educated ourselves enough for us to even think about "emotional Intelligence" This is the funniest photo ever! []

J.Carvajal:What type of education do we need in order to understand "emotional intelligence"? Curtis Wilson-Patterson: I believe the emotional intelligence teaching in schools is a good ideal. However I believe there is a diffference between emotions and emotional intelligence in that true emotions cannot be taught because it's a feeling that comes from within,a way one expresses his and or her feelings.(Emotions can be taught on but not as though thats necessarily what one will feel;emotions come naturally).

E. Peterson: This article talks about how teachers should teach students about "emotional intelligence", but I was wondering, would that work? Would teaching students to feel the "right" emotions be possible since we all feel different emotions for different reasons. Also would the emotions that the teacher places in his/her teachings affect the way we learn of this "emotional intelligence."

E Peterson: I agree with Mr. Silva's comment how could someone possibly plant an emotion in ourselves and tell us to feel that for this purpose. As I mentioned before everyone feels certaion emotions for different reasons and they're all rational. Being "taught" to feel a certain emotion at certain times would be like taking away our right to feel our own emotions, unnatural. =__"Moral Judgement Fails Without Feelings"__=

N.Cuevas: According to the reading, most civilians would not personally harm an individual even if this person's life can save many more. Is this thinking based on emotion or in ethics? Lets say that we where living on a previous time period, would you risk every Castle Park student's lives if Hitler was in our school and the cost of our lives would save many more?

J.Carvajal:I thik that the reading was based on emotions in my opinion

A.Castaneda: In response to Ms. Cuevas I believe that the mind of students and how the thinking of an individual is mostly based on their ethics and how they were raised. Also in my opinion, I would risk the lives of students if it means that many other lives will be saved, however I don't completely understand what role Hitler plays in this question?

N.Cuevas: Ms. Castaneda, I totally disagree with you. I believe that our actions are a combination of both but emotions have a greater impact because they construct how we feel about certain actions based on our experiences and somewhat our morals. OHHH and Hitler was the first name that came to my mind that would lead to arguments(PEPE.) Indeed, I would not be willing to give civilians' lives because we actually do not know if the deaths actually had an effect because we cannot perceive what will happen in the future, if Hitler actually had in mind killing more people or not and besides because I do not want to be the person who carries the deads in my mind and conscience. We would be trying to eliminate violence with more violence!

J. Olivas: I see your point there at the end, Nancy. It's comparable to how we kill to show killing is wrong in our society(death penalty). If you had with complete certainty, knowledge that you would save app. 6 million people by sacrificing our school though, would you do it?

G.Yanez: Should we put first our emotions than our unique ability to use reason when making important descisions?

L. Silva: Mr. Yanez, I believe we should put first our ability to use reason when making important decisions because resoning through problems brings out the best decision, while putting our emotions first will most likely just satisfy us, allowing us to keep living our lives without that awful feeling we get for not doing what our gut-feeling told us to.

G.Yanez: In response to Castaneda, I would not risk anyone life, but mine. The other students have control over their lives, who are we to decide over the lives of others? I would rather sacrifice myself attempting to set an example, I guess that'd be a better way to encourage others to sacrifice themselves in order to save a larger number of lives.

J.Carvajal:i agree with Mr.Yanez because i would also risk my life in order to save some ones life.

A.Castaneda: Mr.Yanez I do agree with you in who are we to determine the lives of others. However in regards to your decision of sacrificing your life in order to save many other lives is completely unselfish however since you are not confronted with that situation it's easy for you to say that, but in the moment you're in that situation I will assure to you that you will think twice your decision. It's easier to say it than to do it!

G.Yanez: Castaneda, of course it's easy for me to say that when I am not in that situation, I was just hypothetically speaking. My point was only to say that we can only decide for ourslves and not for others.

E.Tenort: The //Nature// study was done very well and I can vouch for the theory that people with damage to there frontal lobe have an easier time pushing the man. I was dropped as a baby and have a little valley which can be felt on my forehead, and I see absolutely no problem in pushing the fat person.

E.Tenort: Mr.Yanez I think your question cut us short in between two extremes. There needs to be a compromise then it come to things like that a strictly one or the other situation never shows. Even the fat person and the train example needs both to make the right choice weight the outcomes with both reason and emotion.

M.Gutierrez The article clearly states that if a person was in the position of sacrificing one person and saving the lives of many or letting the people die, the person would choose to let the people die because they would put their emotions and ethics into the situation instead of choosing the logical way and saving all those people. I personaly think that that is exactly what I would do if I was in that situation. But if we dont put our emotions into the situation would we not be mindless robots instead of humans.

M.Gutierrez: In response to Mr. tenorts response, if we dont put our emotions and ethics into the decisions we make then we wouldnt be human because our emotions are what separate us from humans and animals.

J. Olivas: Does anyone know where our perspective, as a society, of deliberately pushing someone into harm's way to save more people being wrong comes from? Curtis Wilson-Patterson: In response to Mr.Olivas, the perspective of pushing someone into harms way to save any comes from my personal morals and ethics which say that killing a person is wrong. Curtis Wilson-Patterson: In the scenario of the overweight man and the helpless workers I would not push the man. I don't believe it would be the right moral or ethical decision to push him. I believe if it was meant for the workers to live there would be some other means of saving them.

E. Peterson: After reading this article I thought about whether if I would push that person or not in order to save others, and as sad as it is I would not. Why? because people die ever second of our lives and we aren't superman so we cannot save them all. Pushing the man would consider you a murderer and either way someone dies so no happiness will come out of it, so why not keep the man alive and not be a murder and face the fact that people die every second of our lives. Therefor, emotions do play a major role in right from wrong.

E. Peterson: In response to Mr. Gutierrez's comment, emotions do not separate us from animals since animals to feel emotions and there are soldiers, assasins, and other people trained to not feel emotions, so are they not human? =__"Emotions"__= M.Getch: Paul Harkin raises excellent arguments for the defense of emotions. Whereas (me included) would immediately write off emotion he underscored that emotion is important.Often he references the ties between emotion and reason, how one affects the other. His opinions have definitely brought certain aspect into light. Perhaps it is emotion that comes out of knowing. We shouldn't deem one as separate form the other, but both as caused by each other.

M.Getch: Pepe frowns on emotional value, but he feels emotion. The contrast raises interesting questions. More notably, is his refusal to accept emotion a sign that he is missing something important to his reasoning. Maybe this is why utilitarianism is wrong, because it sacrifices emotion.

J. Olivas: I frown upon emotion because of what it does when put to the extreme. It causes murder, rape, suicide and violence in general. On the other extreme of emotion which is bliss and ecstasy, though it causes drug addiction, laziness, stupidity, and other negative effects. I see none of these negative things with rationality. Oh contraire, as rationality brings about what is deemed good in this world. It brings medicine to people regardless of race and color, it brings scientific discoveries, it brings us closer to utopia.

E. Gutierrez: (I despise using a film's prologue to prove a point but my laptop's battery is about to run out and i cant think of anything else under the pressure D:) In I, Robot, Will Smith's character, Del Spooner, and a little girl are both sinking deeper and deeper into a river because of a car accident. While Spooner pleads with a robot to save the girl instead of him, the robot concludes rationally that Spooner's chance of survival outweighs the girl's. Del is saved and the little girl drowns. From that day forth Spooner feels an incomparable hatred toward the android race and all those who work to "perfect" it. Would it have been better for the child to live instead of the the hostile man with constant regret towards his own life?

E.Tenort:Pual Harkin raises unfinished and incomplete arguments against the idea of emotions as feelings. His first argument says that the feelings within emotions are similar but that proofs nothing of course they are that is why we group them together in the category of emotions. His second is that the feelings drived from emotions do not proof the emotion. His example is the scared man and the lion but he fails to include what is left of the emotion if the feelings are taken away. In his third argument he fails to recognize believes as feelings of faith.

J. Olivas: I think everyone can agree that emotion is good to some extent but can anyone outline their thoughts on when it becomes a negative thing? I already did above but would anyone else like to try?

J.Carvajal: No one can exactly outline thier thoughts when it comes to a negative emotion.

E.Gutierrez: I can't exactly think of another example for when reliance on emotion presents a negative outcome, however i can remember an incident from when i was 3 years old very clearly that might prove emotional impulse positive in some instances. When i was a toddler my grandmother often drove me around with my cousin in faulty used cars. On this particular day i had forgotten to fasten my seat belt and was leaning on the door when it opened while my grandmother was on the free way. When she heard the door open and saw me falling through the rear view mirror, she took both hands off the wheel and reached back to pull me onto the front passenger seat. Meanwhile the car swerved and crashed into man speeding and switching lanes. Once i was safely fastened in the front seat, my grandma maneuvered the car so that the back door would close on itself and swerved to the side to wait for a police cruiser following behind the man previously speeding. If my grandma would've thought logically, she could have just moved the car to the right so the door would've closed and i wouldn't have fallen out, or she could've just let me fall so the man and his wife wouldn't have been physically injured. She would've sacrificed one life to save two from inconvenience/death right?

N.Cuevas: Are emotions considered feelings/sensations or are they attached to logic/reason? Curtis Wilson-Patterson: In response to Mr. Cuevas, emotions are considered feelings that are expressed. However everyone expresses their emotions differently. For example if a person is feeling angry than they will in some way express that anger whether their reaction may seem positive or negative in nature. A.Castaneda: Ms.Cuevas, in my opinion emotions are based heavily on feelings rather than sensations, however emotions are biased while logic and reason are not. N.Cuevas: I agree with you because we tend to feel things that are sometimes ilogical but I as well believe that there is a balance between the relationship of emotions with sensations and feelings. A.Castaneda: To what extent does sensations end and feelings begin?

J.Carvajal: I agree with Mrs.Castaneda because our emotion are based on our feelings. Curtis Wilson-Patterson: Emotions are something that comes from within. They can be influenced by ones belief systems and morals and ethics as well.

E. Peterson: In response to Mr. Carvajal, couldn't feelings be based on emotions?, for example if I say "I am happy because I do not feel tired today" that would be emotions based on feelings, but if I say "I don't feel tired today so I am happy" that shows feelings based on emotions.

E. Peterson: Reading this article brought me to think this, is there no right or wrong within emotions? Lets say I killed someone because if I did not then they could harm my family. It is correct in my eyes because that emotions of fear and worry is no longer there and now i am happy and i no longer have to worry. So because my emotions caused me to kill someone what was once wrong (to kill) became right to me because now my emotions are positive and my family is safe. Now the family of that person who I have just murdered is no longer happy but sad, angry, full of vengeance because what I did according to their emotions and perspective was not right but wrong. There are billions of other examples that make this question spring up, so is there right or wrong with in emotion?