↓ Skip to main content

Authenticity Anyone? The Enhancement of Emotions via Neuro-Psychopharmacology

Overview of attention for article published in Neuroethics, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Authenticity Anyone? The Enhancement of Emotions via Neuro-Psychopharmacology
Published in
Neuroethics, May 2010
DOI 10.1007/s12152-010-9075-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicitas Kraemer

Abstract

This article will examine how the notion of emotional authenticity is intertwined with the notions of naturalness and artificiality in the context of the recent debates about 'neuro-enhancement' and 'neuro-psychopharmacology.' In the philosophy of mind, the concept of authenticity plays a key role in the discussion of the emotions. There is a widely held intuition that an artificial means will always lead to an inauthentic result. This article, however, proposes that artificial substances do not necessarily result in inauthentic emotions. The literature provided by the philosophy of mind on this subject usually resorts to thought experiments. On the other hand, the recent literature in applied ethics on 'enhancement' provides good reasons to include real world examples. Such case studies reveal that some psychotropic drugs such as antidepressants actually cause people to undergo experiences of authenticity, making them feel 'like themselves' for the first time in their lives. Beginning with these accounts, this article suggests three non-naturalist standards for emotions: the authenticity standard, the rationality standard, and the coherence standard. It argues that the authenticity standard is not always the only valid one, but that the other two ways of assessing emotions are also valid, and that they can even have repercussions on the felt authenticity of emotions. In conclusion, it sketches some of the normative implications if not ethical intricacies that accompany the enhancement of emotions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 3%
Portugal 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Russia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 74 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 18 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 12%
Psychology 9 10%
Arts and Humanities 9 10%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Other 24 28%
Unknown 9 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2023.
All research outputs
#3,723,485
of 25,117,541 outputs
Outputs from Neuroethics
#236
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,109
of 101,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroethics
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,117,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 101,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.