I’m a counterexample. I feel no status-regulating emotions (that I’m aware of).
For any innate drive, there is (and has to be) an innate parameter converting its output into units of valence. And, like any innate parameter, we should expect this parameter to be at least somewhat different in different people (and to be heritable).
Take hunger drive as an example. I think in some people, if the hypothalamus has evidence of slight malnourishment, it translates into strong valence boost for a-plan-to-eat-soon; in other people, the setting of some important parameter is lower, so if the hypothalamus has evidence of substantial malnourishment, it translates into a modest valence boost for a-plan-to-eat-soon. For example, my own children seem to feel almost no desire to eat when they’re hungry; instead they just get progressively more cranky, for quite a while. (I’m sure if they went a whole day without food, they would feel hungry like anyone; also, once they actually start eating, then they “realize” they were hungry.) A more famous example is the well-known differences among dog breeds in food drive. Another example: I think some people just inherently feel pain to be more aversive and distressing than others, in general, holding the physical injury fixed, because of innate “connection strengths” in their brain (or innate sensitivity of the peripheral nerves or whatever). I sometimes get very morally outraged when people misattribute those kinds of innate differences to strength-of-character or whatever.
So by the same token, I think there’s a human-universal calculator in (probably) the hypothalamus that calculates how much evidence of me-having-high-status are evinced by a certain thought, and there’s a conversion factor F such that X units of status-evidence converts to F·X units of valence, and I guess your brain happens to have a low F (so low that the status-calculator has no noticeable downstream effects at all), whereas most other people have somewhat higher F, and some people have much much higher F.
(More realistically, there are probably several innate adjustable parameters that can affect status-drive—not just the one final “conversion factor into units of valence” step, but also stuff upstream of that.)
For example, my own children seem to feel almost no desire to eat when they’re hungry; instead they just get progressively more cranky, for quite a while.
Can relate. Same with my kids. Many responses to stimuli seem to be expressed less for my kids and me.
I’d say this points more to a general sensual input weighing though and less to a specific status thing (which would be hard to weight as such abstract things have no absolute grounding).
For any innate drive, there is (and has to be) an innate parameter converting its output into units of valence. And, like any innate parameter, we should expect this parameter to be at least somewhat different in different people (and to be heritable).
Take hunger drive as an example. I think in some people, if the hypothalamus has evidence of slight malnourishment, it translates into strong valence boost for a-plan-to-eat-soon; in other people, the setting of some important parameter is lower, so if the hypothalamus has evidence of substantial malnourishment, it translates into a modest valence boost for a-plan-to-eat-soon. For example, my own children seem to feel almost no desire to eat when they’re hungry; instead they just get progressively more cranky, for quite a while. (I’m sure if they went a whole day without food, they would feel hungry like anyone; also, once they actually start eating, then they “realize” they were hungry.) A more famous example is the well-known differences among dog breeds in food drive. Another example: I think some people just inherently feel pain to be more aversive and distressing than others, in general, holding the physical injury fixed, because of innate “connection strengths” in their brain (or innate sensitivity of the peripheral nerves or whatever). I sometimes get very morally outraged when people misattribute those kinds of innate differences to strength-of-character or whatever.
So by the same token, I think there’s a human-universal calculator in (probably) the hypothalamus that calculates how much evidence of me-having-high-status are evinced by a certain thought, and there’s a conversion factor F such that X units of status-evidence converts to F·X units of valence, and I guess your brain happens to have a low F (so low that the status-calculator has no noticeable downstream effects at all), whereas most other people have somewhat higher F, and some people have much much higher F.
(More realistically, there are probably several innate adjustable parameters that can affect status-drive—not just the one final “conversion factor into units of valence” step, but also stuff upstream of that.)
Fair enough.
Can relate. Same with my kids. Many responses to stimuli seem to be expressed less for my kids and me.
I’d say this points more to a general sensual input weighing though and less to a specific status thing (which would be hard to weight as such abstract things have no absolute grounding).