@Josikins: Hi there. I just wanted to say that while I like the way this effect is described, and definitely think it is an important subjective effect, I can't help but think this name is a bit strange and could do with some minor improvements.
I was around for when this effect was named "Emotion enhancement" and saw it changed to "Emotionality enhancement", presumably because the idea that something as basic as emotions can be "enhanced" strikes most people as an intuitively strange idea, though understandable in the context of hallucinogenic experience. I can see why "Emotionality enhancement" was chosen as a replacement, but I still think it sounds a bit inaccurate and unscientific.
Recently I came across the concept of "affect" in psychology. According to wikipedia, affect is described as "the experience of feeling or emotion. Affect is a key part of the process of an organism's interaction with stimuli. In other words, it is not the emotion itself, of which there exists no real scientific consensus, but rather the intensity or dullness in which it is experienced. Hence why "heightened affect" or "dull affect" are recognized scientific phenomenon while "heightened emotion" isn't.
Based off this, I suggest renaming both the "Emotionality enhancement" and "Emotionality suppression" components into "Affect enhancement" and "Affect suppression" and reworking the descriptions of each to include information of how each differ and relate to the experience of one's emotions or emotionality feeling enhanced or suppressed while under the effect of a psychoactive substance. This I think will not only make the effects sound less awkward and confusing, but more scientifically legitimate as well.
Just my 2cents. -- April (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2017 (CEST)
@April: Hey there. thanks for the message! I actually slightly prefer the sound of emotion enhancement to emotionality enhancement. However, it is an accurate term. Here's a wikipedia article for it . I would not change it to affect enhancement as although that word may be accurate, it is not well known. The subjective effect index exists to serve as a universal terminology set for the average person so it's important that the component titles and effect descriptions are kept relatively simple. Most people would not immediately be able to assume what "affect enhancement/suppression" entails based on the name but would likely be able to make an accurate guess using its current title.
what do you mean by this suggestion "reworking the descriptions of each to include information of how each differ and relate to the experience of one's emotions or emotionality feeling enhanced or suppressed while under the effect of a psychoactive substance"? Thanks again for the message
--Josikins (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2017 (CEST)
- @Josikins: Thanks for the response, Josie. I wasn't aware that "emotionality" was an established term. Interesting.
- I get what your point about 'affect' being a bit too obscure for the average person, even if it may be more accurate. It's a very complicated and controversial topic so I don't think it's all that important to nail this down (though I still do take issue with the implication that emotions -- rather than the experience of emotions -- is something that can be "enhanced", although I do agree 'emotion enhancement' does sound better).
- What do you think about changing "emotionality enhancement" and "emotionality suppression" into "Increased emotionality" and "Decreased emotionality"? Emotionality as described in the wikipedia page is described as "the observable behavioral and physiological component of emotion" in which case I don't think it makes sense to say that an external, objective measure can be 'enhanced' in the same way an innate subjective response or feeling can be described.
- The reworking part was simply to add a little bit to the beginning of the component to give the reader a brief description on the subtle difference between "affect" and "emotion" so as to reduce confusion and add some nuance to the description. I think rework may have been too strong of a word in that context. I think the component description itself is solid. Thanks for hearing me out. I appreciate it! --April (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2017 (CEST)