Who Needs Emotions? The Brain Meets the Robot

340 conclusions
Absence of N and N’s secretary → mild disappointment → news
that message had been left that meeting had been cancelled →
fury → curt response to offer to set new appointment; abrupt
return to my office (5)
It is perhaps worth considering to what extent the “overthe-top”
level of annoyance here labeled “fury” was targeted
rather than diffuse. It was not targeted at my secretary—the recollection
of her absence served to explain why I had not received
the message (it had been left on the voicemail, which she would
normally relay to me), not to blame her for being away. It was
the cancellation of the meeting, not the loss of the message, that
annoyed me; and this fury was directed at N and his secretary.
However, in their absence, the “bearer of bad tidings” received
the immediate brunt of my anger. I do not think anyone unconnected
with this news would have received an overt action beyond
seeing the facial expression of this strong negative emotion.
Note the immense difference from (1). This dramatic overreaction
is not a response to the cancellation alone but seems to
be a case of “state dependence” (Blaney, 1986). In this case, the
cumulative effect of earlier negative emotional states was “to
blame” (recall the earlier comment that the present emotional
state can be modulated by the emotional states evoked by the
recall of associated episodes).
6. As I walked, I simultaneously felt fury at the double cancellation
and shame at my own rude behavior, as well as realizing that
another appointment had to be made. I felt tight and constricted.
After a minute or two in my office, unable to concentrate and with
my thoughts dominated by this stew of emotions, I decided to return
to N’s office.
fury → realization that behavior was inappropriate → fury mixed
with shame → recognition that an apology is due to the
secretary and that another appointment must be made (6)
The emotional state of fury provides a strong drive for a set
of violent behaviors. Here, we see the internal battle between
the acting out of this aggression and the social imperatives of
“correct” behavior. This provides another example of the competition
and cooperation that is so distinctively the computing
style of the brain (Arbib, 1989). Note the role here of social
norms in judging the behavior to be inappropriate with the concomitant
emotion of shame, providing the motivation to take a