The Emotional Intelligence of Lost Childen

[Mole]

Emotional Intelligence has two aspects. First, we need to have direct access to our feelings, and second, we need to practise emotional restraint.

For most of us, direct access to our feelings is blocked by neurosis, in particular by psychological defences against past emotional pain.

And if our feelings do manage to break through our psychological defences, they take us by surprise, they are incoherent, they are without direction, or restraint.

And unfortunately unrestrained emotions are usually inappropriate.

So we see how inappropriate our unrestrained emotions are and we retreat behind our psychological defences.

So emotionally we are like lost children. We are asking, who will love us, because we can't love ourselves.

 

[Kheledon]

You nailed it. I am far too emotionally expressive at times. Often, unrestrained emotional expression is just terrifying to people. In my mind, I'm just being genuine and honest, and I am not ashamed of my feelings (despite the fact that a lot of people think I should be). So, I express them--openly, honestly, clearly, and without shame. I have been made to suffer as a result of this behavior. I agree that "restraint" is called for. It's just hard for me. I'm a natural performer. I want to "show off." Quite often, people are disturbed by this. Their emotional boundaries are much thicker than mine. I wear my heart on my sleeve, so to speak, and that makes some people uncomfortable.

 

[GIjade]

Why are unrestrained emotions inappropriate, Mole? I would much rather have someone say EXACTLY what they mean, in EXACTLY the way they are feeling it, than have people lie or pretend. I remember once when a neighbor of mine got very angry with me for something I had done. I deserved to hear that, I did do something that was wrong. She was mad, and she let me know it. I told her that I was glad that at least someone in the world had a backbone and told her I was sorry for what I had done. You see, nothing gets resolved when people are always walking on eggshells because they are afraid of someone else's anger. Just say what you mean instead of holding everything in - it's not healthy to act like a wimp.

 

[Mole]

Why are unrestrained emotions inappropriate, Mole? I would much rather have someone say EXACTLY what they mean, in EXACTLY the way they are feeling it, than have people lie or pretend. I remember once when a neighbor of mine got very angry with me for something I had done. I deserved to hear that, I did do something that was wrong. She was mad, and she let me know it. I told her that I was glad that at least someone in the world had a backbone and told her I was sorry for what I had done. You see, nothing gets resolved when people are always walking on eggshells because they are afraid of someone else's anger. Just say what you mean instead of holding everything in - it's not healthy to act like a wimp.

This is the first time I have been called a wimp. It's a new experience.

So back to the question of why emotional restraint is a sign of emotional intelligence. Emotional restraint recognises that not only do we have emotions but the other person has emotions too. So emotional restraint takes into account the mutual side, or the dual side, of emotion. Emotional restraint is social. Emotional restraint is the basis of common decency.

On the other hand, unrestrained emotion is the sign of narcissism. Narcissism only recognises one person in an encounter. Narcissism is anti-social. Narcissism is out of touch with emotional reality. Narcissism is foreign to common decency.

It's a question of trust. Should we trust a narcissist, or should we place our trust in someone who considers the emotions of others, as well as their own?

 

[Lark]

Sort of interesting that you want to kick of a discussion about emotional intelligence but you're using that "we" again Mole/Victor, we who? Are you including me? Because what you've said isnt exactly accurate if that's so.

Self-regulation of emotional states is a thing, emotional flooding, particularly if you've little or no skills for managing emotions in the first place, is a thing too. I think that's what you're talking about.

Though presumably not everyone is getting over taxed and triggered simultaneously, there's going to be people to co-regulate, I take it your mentioning of the "lost" child is about a child without an adult to help them by co-regulating stress responses and emotional abreactions?

Not sure.

 

[Mole]

Sort of interesting that you want to kick of a discussion about emotional intelligence but you're using that "we" again Mole/Victor, we who? Are you including me? Because what you've said isnt exactly accurate if that's so.

Self-regulation of emotional states is a thing, emotional flooding, particularly if you've little or no skills for managing emotions in the first place, is a thing too. I think that's what you're talking about.

Though presumably not everyone is getting over taxed and triggered simultaneously, there's going to be people to co-regulate, I take it your mentioning of the "lost" child is about a child without an adult to help them by co-regulating stress responses and emotional abreactions?

Not sure.

Being the democratic socialist you are, Lark, I would have thought you would have appreciated my literary use of we.

By contrast, the overuse of I is a sign of narcissism.

And what do we see on Central? We see the overuse of I.

By contrast, we is inclusive, it invites empathy, and of course it is political.

We is political because it is an affront to atomised society, it is an affront to liberal individualism, it is an affront to narcissism.

We is social, whereas I is anti-social.

And our happiness depends on us identifying with something larger than ourselves, larger than I, and we fits the bill.

 

[Lark]

Being the democratic socialist you are, Lark, I would have thought you would have appreciated my literary use of we.

By contrast, the overuse of I is a sign of narcissism.

And what do we see on Central? We see the overuse of I.

By contrast, we is inclusive, it invites empathy, and of course it is political.

We is political because it is an affront to atomised society, it is an affront to liberal individualism, it is an affront to narcissism.

We is social, whereas I is anti-social.

And our happiness depends on us identifying with something larger than ourselves, larger than I, and we fits the bill.

You should read Ursula Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed to see about the use and abuse of language by politicos.

Its interesting to hear that you're using it to try and counter narcissism, I always think of the royal "we" or Zamayatin's "We" when I hear people use it in that way. Which has authoritarian or groupthink connotations and context.

I'm a socialist like George Orwell so forget what you think you know about socialism when you talk to me about socialism.

 

[Santosha]

This is the first time I have been called a wimp. It's a new experience.

So back to the question of why emotional restraint is a sign of emotional intelligence. Emotional restraint recognises that not only do we have emotions but the other person has emotions too. So emotional restraint takes into account the mutual side, or the dual side, of emotion. Emotional restraint is social. Emotional restraint is the basis of common decency.

On the other hand, unrestrained emotion is the sign of narcissism. Narcissism only recognises one person in an encounter. Narcissism is anti-social. Narcissism is out of touch with emotional reality. Narcissism is foreign to common decency.

This is really interesting to me. And I totally see this perspective. BUt what if, someone did not emotionally restrain themselves not out of a lack of compassion or understanding of another. What if they came to the conclusion that each individual is (and can only be) responsible for their beliefs and emotions? So that attempting to restrain ones self was not only futile (the controlling of another's emotional state), but disingenuous? And what kind of trust can be developed when one senses a gap between what one displays verbally, and the state of being we pick up intuitively?

I just think that chalking it up to narcissism might be a bit too narrow.

To be clear, I'm not saying that character attacks or verbal abuse are appropriate. But they aren't emotions either.

 

[Mole]

And what kind of trust can be developed when one senses a gap between what one displays verbally, and the state of being we pick up intuitively?

Many of us present a false self on the internet as a matter of course. On Typology Central we call the false self our avatar. And we present our avatar as we would like to be seen, rather than what we are. This can lead to very attractive false selves that fall in tatters when confirmation is sought. And this leads to painful disappointment when the promise of the false self is not kept.

Interestingly this is a product of American culture, not only the technology, but also the values. For Americans make a fundamental distinction between sincere and phoney, and sincere is good and phoney is bad, but Americans are constantly tempted to be phoney for money but try to be sincere, and so there is a saying in America: when you can fake sincerity in America, you've go it made. And what do you make in America? You make money.

 

[Santosha]

The greatest poem ever known
Is one all poets have outgrown:
The poetry, innate, untold,
Of being only four years old.

Still young enough to be a part
Of Nature's great impulsive heart,
Born comrade of bird, beast, and tree
And unselfconscious as the bee-

And yet with lovely reason skilled
Each day new paradise to build;
Elate explorer of each sense,
Without dismay, without pretense!

In your unstained transparent eyes
There is no conscience, no surprise:
Life's queer conundrums you accept,
Your strange divinity still kept.

Being, that now absorbs you, all
Harmonious, unit, integral,
Will shred into perplexing bits,-
Oh, contradictions of the wits!

And Life, that sets all things in rhyme,
may make you poet, too, in time-
But there were days, O tender elf,
When you were Poetry itself!


Christopher Morley

 

[Mole]

The greatest poem ever known
Is one all poets have outgrown:
The poetry, innate, untold,
Of being only four years old.

Still young enough to be a part
Of Nature's great impulsive heart,
Born comrade of bird, beast, and tree
And unselfconscious as the bee-

And yet with lovely reason skilled
Each day new paradise to build;
Elate explorer of each sense,
Without dismay, without pretense!

In your unstained transparent eyes
There is no conscience, no surprise:
Life's queer conundrums you accept,
Your strange divinity still kept.

Being, that now absorbs you, all
Harmonious, unit, integral,
Will shred into perplexing bits,-
Oh, contradictions of the wits!

And Life, that sets all things in rhyme,
may make you poet, too, in time-
But there were days, O tender elf,
When you were Poetry itself!


Christopher Morley

It's true, poetry had its birth in spoken societies, and was adopted by literate societies.

In spoken societies, that is, illiterate tribal societies, the sounds of words are important; while in a literate society, it is the meaning of words: how many times have you heard a literate person say of a poem, What does it mean?

And small children live in a spoken society before they are sent to school to learn to read and write and become literate. Small children learn to speak their own language naturally at home at their mother's knee. Small children live in a spoken society quite like an ancient tribal society.

So Christopher Morley can say that a poem is like a four year old child.

But in reality we can all suspend our disbelief and become the poem itself.

And of course tribal societies, spoken societies, live their mythologies on a daily basis. But guess what! The electronic mediums we are surrounded by are taking us to a new tribalism, etribalism, quite like the old, ancient tribalism, and we can expect to live out our poetry once again, for good and ill.

 

[BeyondTheGrey]

I'm having trouble relating to what you said..

 

[Mole]

I'm having trouble relating to what you said..

In 1440 we invented the printing press and the dream of universal literacy in prosperous societies became possible; and in 1840 we invented the electric telegraph, leading to the radio, telephone, television and the internet, making a new form of tribalism, electronic tribalism, possible.

So both the printing press and the electric telegraph have given us two different epistemologies, that is, different ways of seeing the world.

But now literacy is the content of the internet. Look in front of you and you are not reading print, you are reading electronic print, eprint.

To see all this played out go below to my signature and click on to understand the internet.

And when we don't relate to something it may mean it is new.

 

[GIjade]

I'm having trouble relating to what you said..

That's because he isn't saying what he really means. He's writing in code. Peter's code.