Thought I didn't click it, been getting a ton of spam anyway, figured I accidentally clicked it...now I'm not so sure again.

I'm here, would be great to catch up!

Understandably so, given it's easier to operationalize sensation than it is something more integrative, global, and context-dependent like emotions.

Introspection isn't useless, but e.g. introspection did not teach us how the visual system worked and I'd argue if we had clung to introspection too tightly we'd still not understand vision as well as we do. Something like that might be happening with emotion research.

The underlying idea here I agree with is that hypotheses about emotions are at high risk of being framed more by introspection on the part of the researchers than prior objective evidence (but they'll go to great lengths to convince you -- and themselves! -- otherwise).

My favorite is PCR, which essentially underlies the entire trillion-dollar biotech industry. It grew out of (NSF funded) research on bacteria living in Yellowstone hot springs!

Wait, most blue state universities don't say anything publicly either! (At least in an institutional capacity.)

This builds on influential work by @foxmdphd.bsky.social, @shansiddiqi.bsky.social, @desmondoathes.bsky.social, and many others. It would not have been possible without the support of UIowa, Stanford, and generous funding from the NIH/NIMH.

It’s important to be clear that we only had two neurosurgical patients to test these effects, so these findings need replication. But these data so far seem to align with a major hypothesis in the field: DLPFC TMS specifically alters population-level neural activity in the sgACC. 5/