I read it that strong emotions have a signature that's processed differently in the context of data points vs the context of human interaction in meatspace.

It feels to me like an intro to a deeper insight that's missing the main body of the piece.

Yes, removing ambiguity can trim too much away. If we could describe what that is, it would not have been thrown away.

That is an interesting idea because we see this loss everywhere even in writing, photographs, etc. long before we ever considered "data points". It's such a profound loss that when an artist manages to capture even a tiny glimmer of emotional ambiguity they are hugely celebrated.

We are all starving for this while the world we build insists on throwing more and more of it away.

One of the things that I've noticed is there's an aversion to people noticing their emotions, companies analyzing that data, "men sharing their feelings" and the way that I've come to process these things is that at the end of the day they're all signals.

For example the gentlemen that we crossed. His rage, contempt, anger, disgust, whatever it may be, was a signal and the way that we interreacted had a profound impact on the other signals that came to surface.

I believe when we look at these signals from a functional perspective and truly consider the "subjective" nature of the signals, then it makes sense that they are some of the most important signals we have.

You put your hand in hot scolding water, most people immediately take note of the signal and act accordingly.

There's been a lot of devaluation on the actual supportive and objective nature of our own emotional and cognitive signals.

The mere idea that a corporation is tracking emotional data becomes absurd because at the end of the day, we're all kind of doing that ourselves. The tone of how we associate is a bit dysfunctional if you ask me.