Some mental factors (processes) are the link between cognition and emotion - such as basic imagery (body images), thoughts, and other cognitive associations and structures.

How exactly does the mind 'think' however? I could say that it uses images to think, and that these images are mostly unconscious. That would be similar to having a dream, in a dream simple images represent larger psychological ideas and life experiences. The images your mind uses to think are probably basic, similar to how a computer works with simple switches at the most simple level. The most basic and important mental images are used to represent more significant psychological 'code' or life experiences (like body images - since social interaction is important humans would be broken down in the mind into simple visualizations).

So I think that the mind basically thinks by breaking down the psychological factors of life into more simple images. If you have an interaction with someone, then that interaction is broken down into more simple body-images and other images that represent what occurred in the interaction. These images are probably unconscious, you would not notice in what order your mind is going through them or what they are exactly.

This means that your minds cognitions (such as images and thoughts) are going to influence your emotions. The real world is broken down into thoughts and visualizations (or psychological 'symbols') in your mind, and these mental processes influence your emotions.

There are other factors that make unconscious operations more complicated. kfkkkkffkdldkflldlkfkfk

A much longer emotion and cognition article of mine is also online - The Psychology Of Emotions, Feelings and Thoughts

How much can be said about the relationship between emotion and cognition? For the most part, people know how their thoughts influence their feelings. There are other cognitive processes such as attention and awareness of feeling - which fluctuate constantly and influence mental behavior significantly. However people don't need to know which activities, thoughts, or emotions change their attention or focus in such and such a way. For sure, there are significant emotional phenomena occurring constantly through various activities, but a fine-grained analysis of such events isn't necessary or helpful.

The principles by which emotion functions are fairly obvious and already part of the natural understanding that humans have. When an emotion gets large, one tries to reframe their thought(s) so that they place less emphasis on whatever it was they were overvaluing. Emotions get out of hand or large frequently, and when this occurs people have a natural way of making them small or managing them.

Of course humans have a natural way of managing their emotions, even the animals we evolved from have emotions. I don't think animals have to manage their emotions, they don't have complex cognition like humans do. Their emotions still might be considered to be fairly complex, however.

A dog might get out of control, in which case he/she might need to be calmed down. The basic principles by which emotion functions apply to animals as well as humans, because animals experience basic emotions in a way similar to humans.

Animals get happy, sad, angry, afraid, surprised etc. Those basic emotions occur in both humans and animals.

There are certain things a theory of emotion should explain. However there are only a few basic principles that govern how emotion functions. Such as the fact that large emotion needs to decrease after a period of time, otherwise your system would be overloaded.

However, there can't be that many things described in any theory of emotion, because how emotion functions is very simple. Emotions vary in intensity all of the time, and that is pretty much all that is going on.

Sherlock Holmes is a warm and friendly character trying to solve murders and robberies. There is a high contrast between someone warm and friendly trying to solve crimes. If you have a warm and friendly main character in a crime investigation, you can’t have a strongly evil villain because there would be too high a contrast and it wouldn’t work. Furthermore there was little character development in Sherlock Holmes; it was all investigation and logic. With no character development at all of the person committing the crime, you can’t have a strongly evil character. Then again each episode was too short to develop the characters that much, so it was basically a short thriller, a quick in and out of a highly intense crime, no character development, just the facts of the murder. Furthermore the crimes were usually economically motivated not personal, that is because for them to be personal you’d have to back that up with character development which didn’t exist. You have to have two opposing personalities for a personal crime, and there weren’t really any personalities in Sherlock. The crimes being economically, not personally motivated adds to the logical, non emotional tone of the series. Furthermore, when crimes are committed, the person committing them is less emotional during the action of the crime in order to do the deed. That is because one needs to isolate oneself from the drama of doing something bad. With personal crimes someone has an emotional relationship to the person, and therefore it is harder to be remote from the crime, and therefore that person appears softer. That softer appearance would lessen the intensity of the crime because it is a situation where the two people have an emotional relationship. The emotion makes the crime more emotional and less logical. Something emotional isn’t as scary as something logical because you add those fuzzy emotions in. Even if the emotion is hate, it still intensifies the interpersonal relationship. That is because with humans a hate on hate interaction is actually more amusing than scary. That is because humans aren’t aggressive, lions hating each other would be scary, but humans hating each other isn’t. Sherlock Holmes crimes were of cold calculation, not emotional interest. Take two monkeys that hate each other, it is amusing, that is what a human hating another human is like, funny. That is why there weren’t personal hatreds in Sherlock Holmes, it would have appeared amusing. In other crime stories the villain is usually at least looking for a goal of some sort, some greater aspiration of evil like to do more crime (a repeated criminal). But in Sherlock Holmes the criminals were mostly one time committers, not serial criminals. That is because a serial criminal would be too emotionally involved in committing crimes. A serial criminal is something to be emotional about, it is much more intense then someone just doing one crime. The lack of serial criminals also takes away from the emotional content in the series, and adds to the lack of character development of the potential criminals. Furthermore if someone was a serial murderer they would have been more suspected than the other potential criminals, throwing off the intensity of wondering “who done it?”. As a TV series, Sherlock Holmes was just something you sat down, watched for a short period of time, and finished, it wasn’t something you would get deeply or emotionally involved in, there were only two characters that repeated from each show to the next, most shows have a few more than that. Furthermore the details of Sherlock Holmes life were minimal, we weren’t even aware of where the main characters lived. The logical tone to the series, however, added to its suspense. If you made the series emotional then it wouldn’t be as scary, there needs to be that emptiness in your head that comes from logic and a lack of emotion, in order to add to the scary feeling. Emotion is comforting and safe, logic and clear thinking is potentially very scary if you put it in the hands of a criminal. So people sit down to watch a short, intense logical, scary, emotionless experience of Sherlock Holmes.

To every person there are going to be basic psychological traits that would say to compose the majority of who that person is, and these traits could be called the fundamentals of their psyche. At first glance it might seem like just a standard personality analysis would show what the fundamentals of their psyche are, but a deeper look into their mind is needed. There are only a few personality types, yet two people with the same personality type could be completely different. Therefore there needs to be more to analyze about someone other than what their personality type is. There needs to be more tests or questions available to lay people that they can use to analyze themselves in a way in which they can understand.

The 16 personality types don’t address deeper questions people should asking about themselves that would truly separate out each individual, not just 16 different types. For instance the statement from the descriptions of the personality types “interested in how and why things work” could be made more elaborate. Interested in how and why what things work? That could be broken down into interested in how: politics, mechanics, psychology, cognitive science, math, English, history, foreign language, the sciences, any subject, any aspect of psychology, or any aspects of any of those subjects.

The statement “can be depended on to follow through” is included in a description of the personality types as well. But to follow through in what instances? In social ones? In a work environment? For personal goal setting?

The descriptions of the personality types are broad and could be misinterpreted and people could classify themselves as things that they aren’t if they don’t look closely enough. For instance, saying “detached and analytical” could be interpreted to mean “logical in all cases, cold and cruel”. In reality that person might be slightly detached or slightly analytical, the two don’t necessarily go together. And it could mean detached and analytical in only some instances or in some subject matters. Someone can be analytical in one subject area but not in another. Or only analytical when it comes to academics, versus social situations. A psychologist might be analytical when it comes to emotional things, but not analytical with say, science.

“Does not like conflict” could mean personal conflict, group conflict, or wars and even political movements, like say the conflict between being communist or being for democracy.

“Risk takers who live for the moment” could only be applied in certain situations. In fact, the questions “when does this apply exactly?” and “how does this go into effect” could be applied when analyzing everything said about the personality types.

“Loyal and faithful” – someone may only be loyal and faithful to their friends, and put down their enemies - does “loyal and faithful” mean weak?

“Uncomplicated in their desires” – Does this mean that the person doesn’t like doing things as much since they have simpler desires? Or does it mean that they are simpler people? That when they want to do something, they aren’t picky? What instances does this apply, someone might be picky in some instances, but not in others. If someone is uncomplicated in their desires, does this imply that they are simpler at analyzing things since they might not see as many details, like how they wouldn’t see details in what it is that they want? Does it imply a lower emotional intelligence since someone with a high emotional intelligence would probably be more specific about what it is that they want, since they know more about what it is that they want. Or does it mean that they want to live a simpler lifestyle?

“Stable and practical” – those two might not necessarily go together, just because someone is stable doesn’t mean that they are also practical. Someone looking at the description of the personality types might not question that if they read the description, they might just then start assuming that if they are stable, they are going to be practical. Analyzing a personality needs to be done critically, with caution and a questioning mind (especially when reading blanket statements about what that type of personality is – one shouldn’t take a personality analysis and assume that they are going to be exactly like that). Also, it shouldn’t be assumed that that analysis is all that that person is (if it is even accurate) one could go into much more detail, and no one is probably just completely one personality, (even if certain traits are likely to go together) but it is logical that they are mix of many, many different things.

“Well organized and hard working” – again, do the two necessarily go together - someone can be hard working but not be organized. Someone could be well organized in many different things, not just in academics and common life, but in specific fields and at specific tasks, that isn’t specified. Also, hard working, but does this mean that they are passionate about their work or that they want to do it? Or just that they do it when they have to? Do they want to be organized as well?

“Extremely thorough, responsible, and dependable” – once again the three might not go together, but it should also be noted that maybe they do work well together in some people. Does the person like having those traits? That question ties into a larger question, what are their main goals with their personality? What are they trying to achieve socially with their personality, or otherwise with their personality? Just describing traits doesn’t show the intent or motivation of the person. In fact, if you look at it that way, by asking “what is this person trying to achieve” you get a much closer and “together” or “whole” look at who that person is. All of the descriptions of the personality traits don’t address if the person is trying to achieve that. People should take the personality traits and analyze if that is who they want to be. The more they think about who they are, the more answers they will find.

“Well developed powers of concentration” – does that statement mean that the person is also more calm and better at meditating? Does it mean that they are also more detached since they can separate themselves from emotional swings? Does it mean that they can perform certain tasks better because of this concentration? Which tasks?

“Usually interested in supporting and promoting traditions and establishments” – does this mean long standing traditions and establishments more so than new ones? That would make this person more conservative instead of liberal. Or is it just someone who likes things that are ordered and structured, which are likely to be things like traditions and establishments?

“They work steadily towards identified goals” – does this make this person more organized since it is identified goals that they are working towards, instead of more motivated which would mean working towards all goals. The fact that they work towards “identified” goals means that they also might make more goals for themselves? Does that mean that they are more motivated about life as well?

“They can usually accomplish any task once they have set their mind to it” – that statement shouldn’t be taken literally, maybe it means that they are very determined, not necessarily that they are very skilled. It might be they can’t accomplish any tasks in certain fields at all.

“Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems” – does this mean that the two go together? That someone is just a better person if they are loyal to their peers, so then they are also therefore going to stand by their values? If you aren’t loyal to your friends does that mean that you might not also be loyal to yourself (which might mean being loyal to your internal value system). If you are loyal to your own value system does that mean you respect your own ideas more? Someone could have not decided which values to take on in life but still might have the value of being loyal to their peers and is strongly attached to only that value.

The next statement following the last one - “loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done.” So they might only respect their own opinions, but not other peoples opinions or the opinions of a law or a rule? So they respect their own opinions, their peers, but not the people who write the laws. What if they have a value that is also a rule or a law, and it gets in the way of something they want done? Why are they loyal to their friends but not loyal to laws? Does this make them evil or good people? What exactly is going on here?

“Have an exceptional ability to turn theories into solid plans of action” – does that mean that they are reliable people that are practical? Or does it mean that they act on what they say? Does it mean that they are less frivolous since they don’t just theorize but also actually plan? Are they less silly then?

References

Quotes are from personalitypage.com (January 3, 2008)

In order to quantify beauty we first need to come up with a scientific measure of attractiveness. Why are some things ugly and other things attractive? Attractive means appealing and why do some things cause pleasure visually while others don’t. You can compare attractive objects to find the answer! Some pretty things have an organization to them, a structure to them like a messy room wouldn’t be pretty because there isn’t any structure. With structure it’s easier to separate the objects in your head so it’s not confusing and it’s easy and pleasurable to “think” about (maybe you see confusion so the emotion is created in your mind, and you become confused). What about a star versus a circle? The star is more complicated than the circle. That is why it is more beautiful (a simple circle is clearly very plain compared to a star, so maybe because there is more think about with the star it is stimulating and therefore beautiful. Just think of your mind as a computer, the star would take more processing power to analyze. So what about a circle versus a square? The circle is one line but the square is 4 lines that’s why the circle is more appealing, it isn’t as jagged or rough so feel more cozy with the circle. A square looks flat and that’s unattractive for similar reasons. Rough things might seem unattractive because when you touch them they feel bad (or you could say they are less wholesome in your mind causing them to generate more pain because people want to feel comforted). So your opinion is biased. A circle is easy to think about because you only have to think about one line. Since the star has more lines than the square and it’s more beautiful, so maybe a triangle is prettier than a square (because a triangle looks like a star)? But a triangle is prettier than the circle because it is more complicated. So a square is too complicated, a star is just complicated enough, a triangle is a little less complicated than that, and the circle is too simple. So in order of prettiness there is star, triangle, circle, then square.

You can take that analysis of basic shapes and apply it to all other objects because all objects consist of some pattern of those basic shapes or shapes similar to them. Like the cushions of a couch might be pleasant because they are round and we described the circle as more pleasant than a square because it is round.

More Examples:

A dog would prettier (or cuter, more appealing) than a circle because it’s more complicated than the circle, the circle is too easy to think about. A dog is much more interesting because it has many more lines that flow nicely and is cute. The star, however, is more pretty than the dog because it’s more complicated, the dog might be cuter but since the triangle is structured it is more perfect and therefore more appealing in a pretty way, instead of a cute way like the dog. The dog is one wandering line but a triangle is more structured and structure is going to generally be considered to be more pretty and appealing. The star/triangles however with its structure is harsher to look at with the sharp edges, a dog doesn’t have any sharp edges. Like wrinkles might be considered to be uglier than a plain face because the plain straight face is cleaner and more structured.

There is more than just lines that makes something beautiful and ugly, however like color and brightness and texture. Crystal is usually more pretty than glass, it is because it is shinier and brighter so it catches your eye, you don't have to try hard to focus on it, so it’s easier to think about and therefore more beautiful. If you could only see in black and white you would probably think the world is uglier than it is with color because with color you can more easily separate objects because they are more different from each other with all the colors. You could also compare it to seeing in just say green and blue. Black and white are also less bright than the rest of the colors, so it would be harder to see things because they wouldn't stand out as much and it would be harder to see. Therefore it would be harder to think about the objects causing less pleasure and cause you to name them as uglier. That's probably why the color gold is usually prettier because it is very shiny and attractive, it draws the eye and is easy to notice (hence think about). So there are different factors in beauty one is color/brightness the other is its structure and what shape the object takes and how big it is.

Start with what you have there (above) and try t