Fwd: Re: [xmca] Emotion at Work

>Michael, perhaps you could clear this up for me. I had the feeling from
>your paper that you thought that people acted so as to maximise emotional
>valence. Could you clear that up for me. That would be wrong, wouldn't it?
>Andy
>At 05:44 AM 10/08/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>>This categorical analysis was done by Klaus Holzkamp (Grundlegung der
>>Psychologie [Foundations of Psychology], 1983), I use his results to
>>interpret the data at hand. Also, look into Jonathan Turner's work, I
>>think he says pretty well the same thing. Holzkamp, if some have
>>forgotten, rigorously takes Leont'ev's work a step further, really
>>using the method outlined by Marx, the evolutionary / cultural-
>>historical, much more so than probably Yrjö has done--I am thinking
>>of the latter's presentation of the evolution of activity (Expansive
>>learning, 1987) and the earlier work by Klaus Holzkamp.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Michael
>>
>>
>>On 10-Aug-07, at 12:24 AM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>
>>Continuing the discussion on Michael's R's paper Emotion at Work ...
>>I have a problem with the claims the paper makes about the
>>relationship between emotional payoffs and valences, on one hand, and
>>motives, on the other. It seems to me that it is vital to
>>differentiate between the needs and motives generated objectively by
>>an activity, and the needs and motives that are generated
>>subjectively by a person engaged in an activity. Are the categories
>>and relationships suggested in this paper (emotions, payoffs,
>>valences, motivations, identity) helpful for distinguishing between
>>objective and subjective motives? Is it indeed vital to make this
>>kind of distinction?
>>
>>- Steve
>

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri Aug 10 06:36 PDT 2007