What do you think?
Rate this book
The Origin of Emotions, Version 1.0 by Mark Devon
The Origin of Emotions identifies the purpose, trigger and effect of each emotion.
Mass Market Paperback
1 person is currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 27, 2016
This book is a challenge. It’s hard to figure out what Devon’s “theory” is and how it all works. And he provides one nugget sentence after another, with minimal explanation in his power-point format.*
Devon provides us with an evolutionary “purpose” for his key emotions, which he says in one place is to “direct our behavior” or to “direct the behavior of others.” Elsewhere he defines purpose to mean that which has an individual, genetic or group benefit. A counter way to understand what he puts forward is that there’s no difference between the genetic, individual or group levels. The latter are extensions of the former and help us in our role as genetic replicators. The group is an extension of the genetic apparatus and the individual’s body that houses it (as in Dawkins’ Extended Phenotype), and social emotions (the “group emotions”in Devon’s terms) evolved because the group was necessary for the individual’s survival.**
In his emotions schematic, Devon asserts that emotions are a conception, a sensation, a reflex and an involuntary or voluntary expression. This categorization can be debated, and should be. The main problem to highlight is his argument that each of these categories of emotions is “triggered” by an outside stimulus. In this view the self is a passive being, waiting to be poked from the outside. Outside stimuli do generate emotional responses, but a deeper question is why the self is triggered? Why does it care? If we are about survival and replication, do emotions push us outward to get what we need and push against what we don’t need? The “trigger” is not an external object per se but lies inside because objects have positive or negative meaning for us. Once that “assessment” (typically unconscious) of relevancy is made, energy is released (or is felt or displayed short of actions) in the form of active and reactive behavior that links object to internal need (or “anti-need”). This perspective raises a broader question whether our typical definition of emotions is too narrowly confined. No matter whether behavior is instinct or conscious choice, might emotions be conceived at their core as the value-laden “reason” or motive force, expressed in a range of ways, that underlies our behavior (seeking, defending) including the conscious choices we make?
As a final point, Devon tries to place a “purpose” on every “emotion” he identifies. This takes evolutionary psychology too far. It could be that laughter is because something is just funny, with no survival benefit. It could be that crying expresses “grief” energy over disappointment or loss and has no other meaning than this. As with sexual selection, many traits probably evolved without having a survival benefit. The key is that they do not have a detrimental effect.
*“I am a management consultant,” he writes. “I was first exposed to evolutionary theory as part of an MBA course at Harvard.” This might explain his choice of format as well as his many black and white, precise statements, about human emotion, as if they are all standardized “units.”
**Devon reiterates a commonly stated division in evolutionary theory between kin group and non-kin groups, with support for kin being driven by the need to promote genetically kindred genes whereas non-kin support provides reciprocal benefits. If individual survival depends on a connection to the group, is there a need for this typical kin, non-kin division for group-oriented behavior? Could it be that the individual’s extensive suite of social emotions evolved to align (imprint?) it with a group (i.e., Darwin’s description of tribalism) for the survival benefits it provided and that, typically, in the early days especially, the group was kin-based?
Devon provides us with an evolutionary “purpose” for his key emotions, which he says in one place is to “direct our behavior” or to “direct the behavior of others.” Elsewhere he defines purpose to mean that which has an individual, genetic or group benefit. A counter way to understand what he puts forward is that there’s no difference between the genetic, individual or group levels. The latter are extensions of the former and help us in our role as genetic replicators. The group is an extension of the genetic apparatus and the individual’s body that houses it (as in Dawkins’ Extended Phenotype), and social emotions (the “group emotions”in Devon’s terms) evolved because the group was necessary for the individual’s survival.**
In his emotions schematic, Devon asserts that emotions are a conception, a sensation, a reflex and an involuntary or voluntary expression. This categorization can be debated, and should be. The main problem to highlight is his argument that each of these categories of emotions is “triggered” by an outside stimulus. In this view the self is a passive being, waiting to be poked from the outside. Outside stimuli do generate emotional responses, but a deeper question is why the self is triggered? Why does it care? If we are about survival and replication, do emotions push us outward to get what we need and push against what we don’t need? The “trigger” is not an external object per se but lies inside because objects have positive or negative meaning for us. Once that “assessment” (typically unconscious) of relevancy is made, energy is released (or is felt or displayed short of actions) in the form of active and reactive behavior that links object to internal need (or “anti-need”). This perspective raises a broader question whether our typical definition of emotions is too narrowly confined. No matter whether behavior is instinct or conscious choice, might emotions be conceived at their core as the value-laden “reason” or motive force, expressed in a range of ways, that underlies our behavior (seeking, defending) including the conscious choices we make?
As a final point, Devon tries to place a “purpose” on every “emotion” he identifies. This takes evolutionary psychology too far. It could be that laughter is because something is just funny, with no survival benefit. It could be that crying expresses “grief” energy over disappointment or loss and has no other meaning than this. As with sexual selection, many traits probably evolved without having a survival benefit. The key is that they do not have a detrimental effect.
*“I am a management consultant,” he writes. “I was first exposed to evolutionary theory as part of an MBA course at Harvard.” This might explain his choice of format as well as his many black and white, precise statements, about human emotion, as if they are all standardized “units.”
**Devon reiterates a commonly stated division in evolutionary theory between kin group and non-kin groups, with support for kin being driven by the need to promote genetically kindred genes whereas non-kin support provides reciprocal benefits. If individual survival depends on a connection to the group, is there a need for this typical kin, non-kin division for group-oriented behavior? Could it be that the individual’s extensive suite of social emotions evolved to align (imprint?) it with a group (i.e., Darwin’s description of tribalism) for the survival benefits it provided and that, typically, in the early days especially, the group was kin-based?
August 7, 2008
question: who between men and women are more prone to jealousy?
answer: men! in fact women CANNOT be jealous.
this is the kind of stuff that the book is made of. believe it or not i found this quasi-textbook unputdownable...and at the end i was left gasping for more...read it in three days flat (work days!). at some point i felt like Devon is revealing too much for normal human interaction, but i think one is left better of if they understand why they behave the way they do and why others behave the way they do.
the most interesting was the emotion Devon calls 'cute'. never heard of it before but had sure experienced it. it is that feeling you get when looking at a baby (less than 33 months i think?)....
answer: men! in fact women CANNOT be jealous.
this is the kind of stuff that the book is made of. believe it or not i found this quasi-textbook unputdownable...and at the end i was left gasping for more...read it in three days flat (work days!). at some point i felt like Devon is revealing too much for normal human interaction, but i think one is left better of if they understand why they behave the way they do and why others behave the way they do.
the most interesting was the emotion Devon calls 'cute'. never heard of it before but had sure experienced it. it is that feeling you get when looking at a baby (less than 33 months i think?)....
March 18, 2012
This is a terrible book, with an author that lacks the ability to write in a succinct, clear way. For someone who was supposedly attending Harvard, the writing is juvenile and in dire need of an editor.
The observations and conclusions the author makes are shallow and childish. While, the idea of evolutionary pathways for emotions is a fascination topic, the author makes it clear he has not read any sort of current research in sociology, sexuality or evolution. The author cites few references, offers no empirical evidence and has obvious personal biases that color his views. The overall viewpoint of human emotions is too simplistic and largely ignores factors other than reproductive biology.
The observations and conclusions the author makes are shallow and childish. While, the idea of evolutionary pathways for emotions is a fascination topic, the author makes it clear he has not read any sort of current research in sociology, sexuality or evolution. The author cites few references, offers no empirical evidence and has obvious personal biases that color his views. The overall viewpoint of human emotions is too simplistic and largely ignores factors other than reproductive biology.
August 4, 2008
I liked his book for what I've read in the pdf though I found it realy technical and i would love to work on a book about emotions with him because with the internet and sophisticated combinations possible + what's depicted in art forms such as NO theater is way wilder. All because I once did a video art project about emotions and would want to evolve it to another level.
Nowdays it's even possible to get in touch and relate emotionnaly with our own subpersonalities using techniques such as voicedialogue and even the transcendent ones so I'd say lot of reaserch needs to be done.
Nowdays it's even possible to get in touch and relate emotionnaly with our own subpersonalities using techniques such as voicedialogue and even the transcendent ones so I'd say lot of reaserch needs to be done.
January 30, 2008
Fascinating take on how emotions evolved to further drive humans continued existence. A little cold and it does take some of the "magic" away but interesting none the less. Would have scored it higher if the author had presented some references to his research.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews