Healing the Reason-Emotion Split
Proposal review
Scarecrows, Tin Woodmen, and the Wizard
dc.contributor.author | Levine, Daniel S | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-05-14T12:20:40Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-05-14T12:20:40Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier | OCN: 1226764348 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/90203 | |
dc.description.abstract | Healing the Reason-Emotion Split draws on research from experimental psychology and neuroscience to dispel the myth that reason should be heralded above emotion. Arguing that reason and emotion mutually benefit our decision-making abilities, the book explores the idea that understanding this relationship could have long-term advantages for our management of society’s biggest problems. Levine reviews how reason and emotion operated in historical movements such as the Enlightenment, Romanticism and 1960s' counterculture, to conclude that a successful society would restore human connection and foster compassion in economics and politics by equally utilizing reason and emotion. Integrating discussion on classic and contemporary neurological studies and using allegory, the book lays out the potential for societal change through compassion, and would be of interest to psychologists concerned with social implications of their fields, philosophy students, social activists, and religious leaders. | en_US |
dc.language | English | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::C Language and Linguistics::CF Linguistics::CFD Psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::M Medicine and Nursing::MQ Nursing and ancillary services::MQU Medical counselling | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::Q Philosophy and Religion::QD Philosophy::QDT Topics in philosophy::QDTM Philosophy of mind | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::M Medicine and Nursing::MK Medical specialties, branches of medicine::MKM Clinical psychology::MKMT Psychotherapy | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JM Psychology::JMA Psychological theory, systems, schools and viewpoints::JMAF Psychoanalytical and Freudian psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JM Psychology::JMQ Psychology: emotions | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JM Psychology::JMR Cognition and cognitive psychology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Reasoning;Emotion;Decision-Making;Empathy;Rationality;Phenomenon Attentional Blink;Romanticism;Prairie Vole;Reason–emotion split;Attentional Blink;Decision-making abilities;Free Documentation License;Neuroscience;Vice Versa;Dark Triad;Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex;Orbitofrontal Cortex;Scarecrows;High NFC Individual;Partnership Interactions;Female Prairie Voles;Cognitive Empathy;Triune Brain Theory;Montane Vole;Steam;National Academies;Somatic Marker Hypothesis;Bonnet Macaques | en_US |
dc.title | Healing the Reason-Emotion Split | en_US |
dc.title.alternative | Scarecrows, Tin Woodmen, and the Wizard | en_US |
dc.type | book | |
oapen.identifier.doi | 10.4324/9781003014348 | en_US |
oapen.relation.isPublishedBy | 7b3c7b10-5b1e-40b3-860e-c6dd5197f0bb | en_US |
oapen.relation.isbn | 9781000334180 | en_US |
oapen.relation.isbn | 9781000334296 | en_US |
oapen.relation.isbn | 9780367856847 | en_US |
oapen.relation.isbn | 9781003014348 | en_US |
oapen.relation.isbn | 9780367856830 | en_US |
oapen.imprint | Routledge | en_US |
oapen.pages | 159 | en_US |
peerreview.anonymity | Single-anonymised | |
peerreview.id | bc80075c-96cc-4740-a9f3-a234bc2598f1 | |
peerreview.open.review | No | |
peerreview.publish.responsibility | Publisher | |
peerreview.review.stage | Pre-publication | |
peerreview.review.type | Proposal | |
peerreview.reviewer.type | Internal editor | |
peerreview.reviewer.type | External peer reviewer | |
peerreview.title | Proposal review | |
oapen.review.comments | Taylor & Francis open access titles are reviewed as a minimum at proposal stage by at least two external peer reviewers and an internal editor (additional reviews may be sought and additional content reviewed as required). |