The Science of Pixar's ‘Inside Out’(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The Science of Pixar's ‘Inside Out’
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/opinion/sunday/the-science-of-inside-out.html
7 comments
This was great. Thanks for sharing.
This is interesting to hear from science's PoV:
> "First, emotions organize — rather than disrupt — rational thinking. Traditionally, in the history of Western thought, the prevailing view has been that emotions are enemies of rationality and disruptive of cooperative social relations.
> But the truth is that emotions guide our perceptions of the world, our memories of the past and even our moral judgments of right and wrong, most typically in ways that enable effective responses to the current situation."
Is it generally accepted that the Logic 'vs' Emotion dichotomy is a false one?
> "First, emotions organize — rather than disrupt — rational thinking. Traditionally, in the history of Western thought, the prevailing view has been that emotions are enemies of rationality and disruptive of cooperative social relations.
> But the truth is that emotions guide our perceptions of the world, our memories of the past and even our moral judgments of right and wrong, most typically in ways that enable effective responses to the current situation."
Is it generally accepted that the Logic 'vs' Emotion dichotomy is a false one?
I don't know if its generally accepted yet, but I wish it was, and hope it one day is. For the last few years, I've found that Emotions vs Logic is very analogous to Magic vs Science.
"Magic is just Science we don't understand yet"
"Emotions are just Logic you don't understand yet"
When people believed Magic existed, and it was uncontrollable by the majority there were negative outcomes. Those with magic, exploiting those without it. Those without magic, fearing and killing those with it.
However, when the general attitude changed to: Although we don't know the science behind it yet, everything happens for a reason. It gives people hope that they can uncover that reason. They are also less prone to being exploited by it and reduces the chances of fearing it. Succinctly, believing in Science democratizes access to "Magic".
Similarly, if a person believes emotions are outside reason and therefore outside their control, they are more likely to succumb to them. Meanwhile, believing emotions are controllable, not only provides hope for people that dislike their current emotional state, but it is also directly proportional to increasing the belief that you are also in control of your response to those emotions.
"Magic is just Science we don't understand yet"
"Emotions are just Logic you don't understand yet"
When people believed Magic existed, and it was uncontrollable by the majority there were negative outcomes. Those with magic, exploiting those without it. Those without magic, fearing and killing those with it.
However, when the general attitude changed to: Although we don't know the science behind it yet, everything happens for a reason. It gives people hope that they can uncover that reason. They are also less prone to being exploited by it and reduces the chances of fearing it. Succinctly, believing in Science democratizes access to "Magic".
Similarly, if a person believes emotions are outside reason and therefore outside their control, they are more likely to succumb to them. Meanwhile, believing emotions are controllable, not only provides hope for people that dislike their current emotional state, but it is also directly proportional to increasing the belief that you are also in control of your response to those emotions.
Magic has been very influential even to this day. It totally changed the "game" of games with its innovative business model. I learned a few weeks ago that Richard Garfield initially created Magic just so he could fund publishing his "real" game RoboRally which I find hilarious.
Sadly, no. Anyone who's studied human emotion know that the dichotomy doesn't make sense (especially if studying the neural basis of emotions [1]). I hope this movie will help to shift some of that mindset.
[1] My PhD was the interaction between human emotion and decision-making but even defining 'emotion' was tricky.
[1] My PhD was the interaction between human emotion and decision-making but even defining 'emotion' was tricky.
Any place we can see some of your research? And any chance non-PhDs will be able to understand any of it?
As another datapoint, people with brain damage causing them to experience very little emotion have great difficulty making decisions, to such a degree that their lives can quickly fall apart. Emotions appear to be an essential element of well functioning human cognition.
[deleted]
No its not, but how do you account for feeling about something that goes against your logic? Ie quitting a job without finding another. How is emotion guiding logic in every case?
Emotions motivate you to act to improve your situation instead of do nothing. They may be illogical, but they kickstart the thinking process. Logic is useless if you don't wake up and use it. Emotions are the first past filter to bring issues to your attention.
The emotion doesn't tell you 'quit without finding another job' it says "I don't like this" which prompts you to use your logic to change your environment.
One logical statement doesn't have to support another logical statement. We wouldn't be able to get logical paradoxes such as the Paradox of the Court without conflicts in logic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court
With regards to quitting a job without finding another, taken rationally you could argue that the individual has decided that in order to have the positive outlook required to land a new job they need to remove themselves from a negative environment they find themselves in. Such an outlook is logical, it recognises that emotional state has a large impact on confidence, and that confidence is a very useful attribute for landing a new job. Of course it could also be much simpler than that, that the individual just wants to improve their emotional state in the short term, not all logic has to apply eternally.
That's just a basic example. A more complex example is what we understand by 'truth'. To me, we know when something is true because we feel it, or in other words truth has an emotional response. Is that your experience also?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court
With regards to quitting a job without finding another, taken rationally you could argue that the individual has decided that in order to have the positive outlook required to land a new job they need to remove themselves from a negative environment they find themselves in. Such an outlook is logical, it recognises that emotional state has a large impact on confidence, and that confidence is a very useful attribute for landing a new job. Of course it could also be much simpler than that, that the individual just wants to improve their emotional state in the short term, not all logic has to apply eternally.
That's just a basic example. A more complex example is what we understand by 'truth'. To me, we know when something is true because we feel it, or in other words truth has an emotional response. Is that your experience also?
Another good set of comments about Inside Out can be found in the Neurologica Blog maintained by Steven Novella, M.D. He likes the movie for some of the same reasons that I like it.
"Inside Out – A Neuroscience Metaphor"
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/inside-out-a-ne...
"Inside Out – A Neuroscience Metaphor"
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/inside-out-a-ne...
Unfortunately, that article perpetuates the same (false) dichotomy between emotion and reason. It also suggests that emotions and higher-order functions are 'competing' for control.
The reality is that if the brain regions known to be involved in processing emotion are damaged/destroyed, then there are very negative consequences for your ability to make rational and well-reasoned choices. In other words, emotion (and emotional processing) is critical for logical thought to prevail. In that sense, I really like that the movie had emotions at the 'control panel' (I've yet to see it).
The reality is that if the brain regions known to be involved in processing emotion are damaged/destroyed, then there are very negative consequences for your ability to make rational and well-reasoned choices. In other words, emotion (and emotional processing) is critical for logical thought to prevail. In that sense, I really like that the movie had emotions at the 'control panel' (I've yet to see it).
Slightly OT, but hearing about this film instantly reminded me of a childhood comic strip called The Numskulls that appeared in various DC Thomson comics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Numskulls
http://www.fustar.info/2006/12/02/193/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+numskulls+comic+strip&ia=image...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Numskulls
http://www.fustar.info/2006/12/02/193/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+numskulls+comic+strip&ia=image...
Wow ... I hadn't thought of the Beano for god knows how long.
> One of us suggested that the film include the full array of emotions now studied in science, but Mr. Docter rejected this idea for the simple reason that the story could handle only five or six characters.
What is the full array of emotions? Having seen "Lie to Me" I know about the emotions expressed by microexpressions, but I do not know if there are more. "Joy" is not on that list. Either it is no emotion in the scientific world or expressed differently. Any good links?
What is the full array of emotions? Having seen "Lie to Me" I know about the emotions expressed by microexpressions, but I do not know if there are more. "Joy" is not on that list. Either it is no emotion in the scientific world or expressed differently. Any good links?
Every basic emotions researcher comes up with a different list. But most of the lists include some version of fear, anger, disgust, and joy (but not sadness). "Emotional Brain" by Joseph LeDoux, chapter 5 has more info on various lists. From the same book:
James Averill, a major proponent of social constructivism, describes a behavior pattern, called “being a wild pig”, that is quite unusual by Western standards, but is common and even “normal” among the Gururumba, a horticultural people living in the highlands of New Zealand. The behavior gets its name by analogy. There are no undomesticated pigs in this culture, but occasionally, and for unknown reasons, a domesticated one will go through a temporary condition in which it runs wild. But the pig can, with appropriate measures, be redomesticated and returned to the normal pig life among the villagers. And, in a similar vein, Gururumba people can act this way, becoming violent and aggressive and looting and stealing, but seldom causing harm or taking anything of importance, and eventually returning to routine life. In some instances, after several days of living in the forest, during which time the stolen objects are destroyed, the person returns to the village spontaneously with no memory of the experience and is never reminded of the event by the villagers. Others, though, have to be captured and treated like a wild pig - held over a smoking fire until the old self returns […]
Averill uses “being a wild pig” to support his claim that “most standard emotional reactions are socially constructed or institutionalized patterns of response” rather than biologically determined events.
James Averill, a major proponent of social constructivism, describes a behavior pattern, called “being a wild pig”, that is quite unusual by Western standards, but is common and even “normal” among the Gururumba, a horticultural people living in the highlands of New Zealand. The behavior gets its name by analogy. There are no undomesticated pigs in this culture, but occasionally, and for unknown reasons, a domesticated one will go through a temporary condition in which it runs wild. But the pig can, with appropriate measures, be redomesticated and returned to the normal pig life among the villagers. And, in a similar vein, Gururumba people can act this way, becoming violent and aggressive and looting and stealing, but seldom causing harm or taking anything of importance, and eventually returning to routine life. In some instances, after several days of living in the forest, during which time the stolen objects are destroyed, the person returns to the village spontaneously with no memory of the experience and is never reminded of the event by the villagers. Others, though, have to be captured and treated like a wild pig - held over a smoking fire until the old self returns […]
Averill uses “being a wild pig” to support his claim that “most standard emotional reactions are socially constructed or institutionalized patterns of response” rather than biologically determined events.
There is another popular view that replaces 'emotions' with neurochemicals. Basically, serotonin is an actual chemical with actual biological effects which fit's closely with specific emotions.
In this view emotions are shorthand to describe an incredibly complex system and as such fit biology into a social context. However, people's responses to said emotions fall under social conventions.
EX: Hunger is something you can directly study. But, peoples responses to hunger vary widely.
PS: This also extends to things like chemical intoxication. The loss of coordination when drunk is inherent, singing drinking songs is a social response.
In this view emotions are shorthand to describe an incredibly complex system and as such fit biology into a social context. However, people's responses to said emotions fall under social conventions.
EX: Hunger is something you can directly study. But, peoples responses to hunger vary widely.
PS: This also extends to things like chemical intoxication. The loss of coordination when drunk is inherent, singing drinking songs is a social response.
Sorry about the lack of links, but this os how i remember things.
Microexpressions representing emotions, as representes in 'lie to me' are a lie.
The scientist behind the research that inspired the show admites he faked his research. I am mobile right now, but if you search microexpressions here in HN you will find it
Edit: i found it http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Liars-Tell/149261/ and apparently my memory stretched the truth a little using the strong words 'admited' and 'fake'. But it is a debatable research
The scientist behind the research that inspired the show admites he faked his research. I am mobile right now, but if you search microexpressions here in HN you will find it
Edit: i found it http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Liars-Tell/149261/ and apparently my memory stretched the truth a little using the strong words 'admited' and 'fake'. But it is a debatable research
It's always fascinating to see the Pixar PR machine at work. "Guys, this July 4th weekend remember that there's a great family movie called Pixar's 'Inside Out!' Pixar made it, and it's family friendly, starring an eleven year old girl and these various situations that you can relate to. Scientists think emotions are good, but sometimes when they appear bad they're also good."
It was published July 3rd, too.
It was published July 3rd, too.
The science behind the movie was very clever. What has disappointed me is that Disney/Pixar keep on pushing the sexism gambit in their movies. This movie wasn't as bad as some of their others, but they are Consistently failing to address gender in a balanced way.
Does anyone male in this movie do/say anything good?
What about Frozen? The stupid (Wessleton) and nasty (Hans) are only male.
Brave? Same thread. The kings/Princes are all obnoxious and/or stupid.
Wreck-it-Ralph : Kowalski strikes Ralph across the face as a show of might and it's meant to be funny (ie. The modern assertive woman who bashes men as "humour")
Several of the tinkerbell movies where ratchet & clank are the typical stupid males (and in most of them, they are almost the only males). To be fair. They do portray the southern belle as a dimwitted hick too, which is the stupid southerner prejudice emanating from the U.S. civil war.
However, they did a great job with Tangled and Princess and the frog - there's a much better gender balance in those movies.
It's a shame. You take your kids to see a supposedly family friendly movie and you cringe at the sexism that is pushed by the writers and directors. Do you just shrug it off, wondering if this prejudice won't rub off on your kids - or do you highlight the sexism to your kids and ask how a large studio could be so consistent in their bias, despite their deep attention to the science. I can't help feel there is more sexism and more conscious sexism than there has ever been. It really makes me sad.
What about Toy Story, Incredibles, Cars, Up... Oh wait they completely invalidate your point, I get why you left them out.
Or are you saying the sexism bias came in after the acquisition? So it's a Disney thing? Ignoring the fact that they are a company based around a massive Princess franchise, you are wondering why they like to manufacture princesses?
Did you forget the two male leads in Frozen? (Kristof and Olaf).
Do you point out the sexism in almost every facet of life to your kids? Or does this dilemma just hit you at disney movies? If your children are daughters, do you explain to them they should expect less from the world, because historic statistics show they are going to get less? Or if they are sons, do you explain how they will get more simply by being male?
Or are you saying the sexism bias came in after the acquisition? So it's a Disney thing? Ignoring the fact that they are a company based around a massive Princess franchise, you are wondering why they like to manufacture princesses?
Did you forget the two male leads in Frozen? (Kristof and Olaf).
Do you point out the sexism in almost every facet of life to your kids? Or does this dilemma just hit you at disney movies? If your children are daughters, do you explain to them they should expect less from the world, because historic statistics show they are going to get less? Or if they are sons, do you explain how they will get more simply by being male?
The trailer completely turned me off seeing the movie. I don't think I'm going to bother watching it, or showing it to my kids. Especially after "Up!" and "Wall-e" failed to deliver.
The trailer was ridiculously sexist in a way I don't think is helpful to anyone. The sexism was extremely negative IMHO. Surely you'd agree that the level of sexism shown isn't really necessary?
While we're at it, can hollywood please stop using "they've drunk too much coffee and are now 'wired'" as a joke in kids movies. Overdosing on drugs isn't all that funny...
edit: Downvote me? Why not respond instead.
The trailer was ridiculously sexist in a way I don't think is helpful to anyone. The sexism was extremely negative IMHO. Surely you'd agree that the level of sexism shown isn't really necessary?
While we're at it, can hollywood please stop using "they've drunk too much coffee and are now 'wired'" as a joke in kids movies. Overdosing on drugs isn't all that funny...
edit: Downvote me? Why not respond instead.
An interesting aspect in the movie (spoiler a little) is that the premise of the move from Minnesota to SF is because the dad got a new job. They touch on it a little in the movie that it is startup related (from what I remember - not necessarily a Silicon Valley startup but a new venture of sorts) and he is spending a lot of time on it. To the point where some of the girls memories in the past include all three of them and her newer memories have events with only just mom because dad is working.
Is this a stereotype of sexism or is this more accurate to real life?
Another item in the movie is that both parents were big into ice hockey, which does sort of break the stereotype about women don't do sports because they are fragile or whatever type of BS (after watching women's world cup games I think they play tougher than men's in some way - less extent of the fake-injury crap).
Trailers are meant to tease people into wanting to see the movie. If you reviewed trailers for a bunch of movies I'm sure you will see a lot of stereotypes in play. What was it in the Inside Out trailer that set off this remark?
Is this a stereotype of sexism or is this more accurate to real life?
Another item in the movie is that both parents were big into ice hockey, which does sort of break the stereotype about women don't do sports because they are fragile or whatever type of BS (after watching women's world cup games I think they play tougher than men's in some way - less extent of the fake-injury crap).
Trailers are meant to tease people into wanting to see the movie. If you reviewed trailers for a bunch of movies I'm sure you will see a lot of stereotypes in play. What was it in the Inside Out trailer that set off this remark?
Neither of those examples for me, are sexist. They're accurate examples of what happens in life.
The trailer shows the dad, not listening to his wife, acting dumb, daydreaming about sports, and then clumsily asserting the law with his daughter. I just thought it was lazy and not well done at all.
Maybe I'm being hypersensitive about it. It was a total turn off to bother seeing the movie though.
From the sounds of it though from reviews, it doesn't sound like a movie I'd enjoy though. It sounds like a movie created for adult movie critics rather than for enjoyment.
The trailer shows the dad, not listening to his wife, acting dumb, daydreaming about sports, and then clumsily asserting the law with his daughter. I just thought it was lazy and not well done at all.
Maybe I'm being hypersensitive about it. It was a total turn off to bother seeing the movie though.
From the sounds of it though from reviews, it doesn't sound like a movie I'd enjoy though. It sounds like a movie created for adult movie critics rather than for enjoyment.
That part with the dad not listening is a very small part of the movie. My guess is they included it in the trailer to show some funny part that appeals to moms.
This exact scenario does happen in real life so I don't see that as sexist.
I get where you're coming from though. A lot of sitcoms have a theme around big stupid oaf of a man being the plot line.
This exact scenario does happen in real life so I don't see that as sexist.
I get where you're coming from though. A lot of sitcoms have a theme around big stupid oaf of a man being the plot line.
As I kind of indicated in my first comment... the world is a well and truly sexist place. I kind of think outrage at disney movies is misplaced. How about outrage at governments? or companies?
Wait - so because the world may be sexist, we should show children extremely one dimensional stereotypical mother and father figures in movies? I can't remember the last pixar/disney movie that has been so outright sexist from the outset.
But then I guess these days, it's totally fine as long as you're being sexist against men, and painting them to be idiotic uncaring imbeciles who never listen and can't do anything useful.
But then I guess these days, it's totally fine as long as you're being sexist against men, and painting them to be idiotic uncaring imbeciles who never listen and can't do anything useful.
I don't think this is a new thing. As I said, Disney are in the business of Princesses.
Cinderella - The prince was an idiot, he couldn't even recognise a woman he danced with all night.
Beauty and the Beast - All the male characters were majorly flawed and weak in some way, whilst Bella was strong, kind, brave, compassionate.
This trend isn't new... nor alarming.
Is your suggestion to NOT show children things you disagree with? What is the desired outcome? Do you think they are some how "damaged" by points of view you don't like?
Cinderella - The prince was an idiot, he couldn't even recognise a woman he danced with all night.
Beauty and the Beast - All the male characters were majorly flawed and weak in some way, whilst Bella was strong, kind, brave, compassionate.
This trend isn't new... nor alarming.
Is your suggestion to NOT show children things you disagree with? What is the desired outcome? Do you think they are some how "damaged" by points of view you don't like?
"princess" movies are substantially less sexist than the trailer for inside out IMHO. I guess it's just a sign of the times.
Frozen was a good movie with powerful female roles which pushed against the stereotypical princess movie. I like it. But the trailer for Inside out is just screaming "Men are dumb idiots who can't be good fathers".
I can see I'm fighting a torrent of koolaid though, so I'll leave it.
Frozen was a good movie with powerful female roles which pushed against the stereotypical princess movie. I like it. But the trailer for Inside out is just screaming "Men are dumb idiots who can't be good fathers".
I can see I'm fighting a torrent of koolaid though, so I'll leave it.
Dismissing opposing view points as koolaid is a bit weak. Just accept people don't agree with you. It's okay. We can both be right and wrong here.
I see it as a comedy, not a statement on modern day gender roles. People relate to stereotypes even if they don't live them. Children relate to them, it doesn't matter that it's the dad or the mum, every child has had a moment when their parent doesn't pay attention to them, or over reacted, or they over reacted, so the scene will resonate.
You can still teach your children to recognise stereotypes for what they are. Rather than boycotting exposure to them.
I see it as a comedy, not a statement on modern day gender roles. People relate to stereotypes even if they don't live them. Children relate to them, it doesn't matter that it's the dad or the mum, every child has had a moment when their parent doesn't pay attention to them, or over reacted, or they over reacted, so the scene will resonate.
You can still teach your children to recognise stereotypes for what they are. Rather than boycotting exposure to them.
Definitely agree on the science side - but I'd have to differ on the sexism argument. True, Pixar and Disney have recently taken small steps to balance the almost overwhelmingly boy/male as hero model with Brave and Frozen, but we're a loooong way from thinking that there's a dearth of independent, forceful male characters.
I thought Tangled was Disney's finest moment. Two strong leads and lots of humour, plus Maximus the horse. I cringe at some films, I have a son and a daughter and I hate it when males are stupid and females are just holding out for a hero. But these type of films deal with stereotypical character types that are quickly recognised. The geeky kid has glasses, the princess is pretty, the muscular hero often doesn't pick up an non-verbal cues. What really freaks me out is the way the characters' eyes (especially princesses) are getting bigger every year!
"It's All In Your Head: Director Pete Docter Gets Emotional In 'Inside Out'"
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/10/413273007/its-all-in-your-head...