I'm not sure on which platform to ask this question:

Is it possible to exchange emotional energy between two bodies via acts of goodwill? Two examples of acts of goodwill are: Help someone with their groceries, and buy someone a thoughtful gift. Is it possible that in these examples, both bodies gain emotional energy, which both bodies can store and then have the ability to dispatch subsequently to other bodies?

Science has proven that doing an act of goodwill for someone else benefits both parties.

So what if the human network stopped doing acts of goodwill? Would the network suffer in some way? For example, I do know that babies die if they are not held. What if all bodies in the network lost the ability to do acts of goodwill to another?

Would all the babies die?

If so, that would be very dangerous to society, because we would all go extinct. So shouldn't we be looking into this?

Thanks to the late great David Hawkins, MD, Ph.D., we have proof that emotions have measurable energy and can either foster or negate actual cell life. Dr. Hawkins’s groundbreaking work, as explained in his book Power vs. Force, shows how a person’s log level--the measurable energy level in their magnetic field--increases as that person experiences more positive emotions. Hawkins’s most interesting finding was that cells actually died when the log level was below 200, where the emotions of scorn, hate, anxiety, shame, regret, despair, blame, and humiliation reside. So it’s key to regulate and manage our emotional state, not just for our overall well-being (and that of those around us) but also for our physical health.


  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think that there could be some truth in your hypothesis, especially when you look at the experiments of Dr. Masaru Emoto where the opposite can badly affect others. He proposes that thoughts and actions could affect water within our bodies, therefore affecting their physical health. (See also, Emoto, 2004) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 16, 2018 at 14:15

1 Answer 1


I would not consider David Hawkins to be a credible source. His PhD was from a degree mill that was shut down by court order. He has been flagged by the Cult Education Institute and Quackwatch.

Emotional energy is not quantifiable in a physical sense. Most studies on the subject use a proxy for physical well-being such as vagal tone (Kok et al., 2013) or corrugator EMG/galvanic skin response/etc. (Witvliet et al., 2001). The general consensus of these studies are that forgiveness and pro-social behavior do lower both perceived (patient-described) and physiological markers of stress. That is, that being a pro-social person seems to be actually healthy.

In terms of emotional neglect leading to poor health, the most infamous experiments were performed by psychologist Harry Harlow, which he reported in "The Nature of Love" in 1958. His experiments focused primarily on maternal bonding, demonstrating that infant monkeys will most often choose the comfort of a mother-monkey effigy over food. These studies do seem to indicate that there is something crucial about positive socio-emotional contact that promotes well-being in primates.

Many psychologists and social neuroscientists are researching the effects of pro-social behavior, neglect, and stress. There are scientific journals dedicated to the subject (viz. Child Abuse & Neglect).

If you are interested in the question of why everyone doesn't stop behaving in a cooperative manner, there are many papers on the subject. Researchers are indeed looking into the matter:

  • Behavioral economists want to understand how collaboration builds economic societies. That is, the balance between pro-social behavior and selfishness that drives economics. (Bowles & Gintis, 1998)

  • Sociologists and social policy researchers want to understand the societal effects of neglect, abuse, and cooperation in order to understand the dynamics of large groups of people and to design better policies to improve the well-being of those societies (and the people in them). (Frey & Meier, 2005)

  • Evolutionary biologists, psychologists, and social neuroscientists want to understand the biological mechanisms that underlie pro-social behavior and its effects on reproduction and survival. (Lukas et al., 2011) (Frey & Meier, 2004)

  • Synthetic biologists and microbiologists are attempting to understand how colonies of bacteria solve these problems in the microbiome, in order to survive and propagate.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1998). The moral economy of communities: Structured populations and the evolution of pro-social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(1), 3-25.
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Pro-social behavior in a natural setting. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(1), 65-88.
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2005). Social Comparisons and Pro-Social Behavior. American Economic Review,(forthcoming).
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American psychologist, 13(12), 673.
Kok, B. E., Coffey, K. A., Cohn, M. A., Catalino, L. I., Vacharkulksemsuk, T., Algoe, S. B., ... & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). How positive emotions build physical health: Perceived positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and vagal tone. Psychological science, 24(7), 1123-1132.
Lukas, M., Toth, I., Reber, S. O., Slattery, D. A., Veenema, A. H., & Neumann, I. D. (2011). The neuropeptide oxytocin facilitates pro-social behavior and prevents social avoidance in rats and mice. Neuropsychopharmacology, 36(11), 2159-2168.
Witvliet, C. V. O., Ludwig, T. E., & Laan, K. L. V. (2001). Granting forgiveness or harboring grudges: Implications for emotion, physiology, and health. Psychological science, 12(2), 117-123.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh okay I wasn't sure if Hawkins was credible. Thanks for the answer! $\endgroup$
    – geocalc33
    Commented Sep 19, 2018 at 16:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.