“strong negative valence” appears to circumscribe exactly those cognitive events we might want to call “suffering”.
The advantage of defining suffering as one end of the valence scale (and presumably joy as the other end) is that it creates a scale.
It doesn’t define anything really though.
I am curious how they define suffering; that’s bound to have a big impact on the answer.
Indeed. I feel like most of the work is done in the definition itself, which is necessarily paradigmatic in this case.
They do spend considerable time discussing that in the article
I got the article now.
The advantage of defining suffering as one end of the valence scale (and presumably joy as the other end) is that it creates a scale. It doesn’t define anything really though.
Thank you for your review!