Human capacity for emotional experiences of pleasure and pain spans an incredibly wide range of intensity, a minimum of two orders of magnitude between the most mild and the most intense experiences

Gómez-Emilsson, Andrés, and Chris Percy. 2022. “The Heavy-tailed Valence Hypothesis: The Human Capacity for Vast Variation in Pleasure/pain and How to Test It.” PsyArXiv. December 19. psyarxiv.com/krysx

Abstract: This paper proposes the "Heavy-Tailed Valence” (HTV) hypothesis: the notion that human capacity for emotional experiences of pleasure and pain spans an incredibly wide range of intensity, a minimum of two orders of magnitude between the most mild and the most intense experiences. We set out a thought experiment, the "integer experiment test", to demonstrate that such a capacity is not arbitrary: a wide range could not simply be mapped onto a narrow range without losing something tangible.

In directional support of the hypothesis, we discuss three stylized facts, based on heavy-tailed neurological functions, the application of pain/discomfort scales, and the existence of extreme events. We also present five intuitions against the hypothesis and suggest reasons to reject these counter-intuitions. Recognizing this theoretical ambiguity, we turn to specifying additional assumptions under which the hypothesis results in testable empirical claims.

A pilot survey (n=97) investigated how people describe their most intense experiences, finding tentative support for the hypothesis in preparation for a larger survey revised based on insights from the pilot. Over half said their most intense painful experience was at least three times more intense than the second most intense. Simulations further suggest an underlying heavy-tailed distribution of experience valences is more consistent with the survey responses. The results also raise doubts over the cardinal interpretation at the high end of 0-10 scales for pleasure or pain, with over 80% of respondents appearing to compress experienced intensity in order to report high values.

Finally, we discuss how a larger future survey could mitigate the limitations in the pilot study and discuss potential implications of the hypothesis for wellbeing economics, ethics, and personal life choices.