My ideas align with many well-established findings in current research. While some genetics studies appear to challenge my view that genes play a minimal role, the strength of their conclusions has been widely debated.
What’s similar:
1. "Baseline emotions" and "beliefs" in my theory are similar to what researchers describe as schemas, core affect, and physiological arousal.
2. It’s well established that childhood experiences shape and sensitize emotional reactions later in life.
3. Current theory agrees that stored childhood memories determine how adults evaluate and respond to their experiences.
What’s different. I propose that:
1. Genetics has very little influence on emotional development. Some - but not all - researchers believe genetics plays a major role.
2. Infants "imprint" faces, a specific, biologically fixed process that happens early in life. Researchers often talk instead about “attachment” or “bonding."
3. Emotions are shaped only by interactions with people whose faces are imprinted. Most experts believe emotions are shaped by both genetics and a wide range of early relationships.
4. Interactions with people whose faces are imprinted shape emotions in very specific ways (described in the How Personality Develops section), some of which are not described in current psychological models.
5. Unconscious baseline emotions such as fear shape personality in everyone.
6. Childhood experience determines musculoskeletal coordination proficiency. Experts believe that genetics plays a large role.
7. Looking at pictures of people whose faces are imprinted
* Resets the emotional makeup that formed in childhood,
* Changes beliefs so they are more consistent with the entire range of a person's adult experience,
* Improves musculoskeletal coordination which raises physical skill levels to college or professional levels, depending on other biological factors such as size and percent of fast twitch muscle fibers.