The paper proposed a new approach to analyzing emotional dynamics in labor environments by mapping nonlinear psychological risk across five zones of tension and collapse, using national survey data. Rather than treating emotions as discrete, linear indicators, it introduced the concept of curved emotional trajectories, supported by real-world conversational simulations.
It was short, direct, and designed to challenge existing assumptions, not to fit within them.
The Response:
Shortly after submission, a call was received from the contest office. The voice was polite, professional — and guiding. A small formatting issue was raised. Then came the pause. The waiting. And finally:
> “Would you like to cancel the submission?”
Not due to plagiarism. Not due to factual errors. But because it simply didn't fit.
The Problem Wasn’t the Paper.
It was the person.
In an environment dominated by prestigious names — SNU, KU, national research institutes — a non-affiliated citizen submitting a disruptive paper on emotional modeling was quietly pushed aside.
There were no accusations. Only hesitation. Because if such a paper won, what would that mean for those with careers built on formalism and affiliation?
The paper wasn’t rejected. It was pre-cleared for deletion.
This Is Not a Complaint.
It’s an observation.
A system designed to protect stability will always tremble in the face of uninvited clarity.
But This Is the Record.
The paper was submitted. The call was made. The silence was deliberate.
And this document now exists to say: The submission happened. The discomfort was real. And the theory is still alive.
Test: The Emotion Curve Theory still stands as an example of how emotional responses to social structures can be explored outside formal boundaries. The theory was not merely a theoretical proposition, but a test of the system itself. This test challenges both the academic structure and the established methodologies of categorizing human emotion in professional environments.
