How Do You Process Emotions?

[Meowcat]

I tend to think of emotion processing in three stages: the physical sensation that’s felt in your body (heart racing, face flushing, etc.), the naming of that sensation (I feel…), and then the aftermath of the sensation that might include analysis of your response to the emotion, what triggered it, and, if you’re unhappy with your response, ways that you might try to react differently in the future when feeling something similar. I think it’s possible for people to feel more adept at different stages of this process, like maybe being skilled in recognizing those distinct physical sensations that go along with each emotion and then being able to name it, but then struggling to really analyze the aftermath and form a deeper understanding of it. Someone else might really struggle with the recognition of the emotion and naming it in the moment, but then might at a later point (maybe with help) finally be able to name that emotion and then spend a lot of time trying to analyze it. Then there are those who might be skilled or unskilled in all three stages of the process.

Applying this to myself, I would say that I’m pretty bad at processing my own emotions, and tend to struggle most with the first two stages. Unless the emotion is “big” (like I’m really happy, or really sad, or really stressed), I tend to feel pretty neutral and calm and don’t notice that something is building. I notice this most with stress/anxiety where I might be experiencing low levels for a while, but not fully feel the sensations and be able to name what’s going on until a certain threshold is reached. And then at that point everything boils over and I’m trying to deal with a flood of emotion that would have been more manageable if I had caught it earlier. For the longest time I also didn’t know how manage the emotion when this would happen and relied on unhealthy methods for coping (invalidation/repression, negative self-talk, self-harm), but I have gotten much better with this. I do think that once I’ve reached that threshold and things boil over, I’m then able to recognize what’s going on, name what I’m feeling, and analyze the aftermath. But really, I know that unless I actively work on applying what I’ve learned from the analysis stage (recognizing triggers, checking in with myself during calmer periods), I’m just going to end up repeating the cycle, so I don’t think analyzing is truly beneficial without also having a decent grasp of those first two stages.

Interesting bc a lot of this is just like with me actually. I don't read the feelings in localised body parts, but more as holistic states, but otherwise yeah. I'm like you, I feel neutral and calm, or there is a big obvious emotion. Sometimes I get to catch a little bit of the emotion, or whatever it is, I think of it as top of the iceberg but god really knows, that's just my suspicion that that's what it is. That can be also very useful then ofc. But yeah when I see the big obvious emotion is when I'm able to analyse it the most effectively. It's just how it is, I will just never be a very emotional person who needs to tune into every little feeling for long or be able to learn much that way, or a person who will learn all of the feelings fast. So I learn gradually and then I'm able to tune into the little stuff too for a short time when the feeling and its context is already known by me, and at that point I don't need longer than that, either. But I would say it's useful to notice these newly learnt things for a short time without sinking in them, it makes me more flexible in some behaviours, in thinking and stuff.

Can I ask, what do you consider invalidation? Because I gave it a very honest long try to see what happens if I go into the feelings more instead of "invalidating" them. And I found it was not enough alone, I had to go back to "invalidating" as the last part of the processing of them. But then I don't know how we define invalidation, do you have a definition of it?

And also where you put it like "if you’re unhappy with your response, ways that you might try to react differently in the future when feeling something similar" and then you say the analysing won't be beneficial on its own. Well for me "might try to react" sounds very inconclusive and unsatisfactory. For me the analysis ends in an action plan and that is where the feeling gets "invalidated" but I am increasingly seeing it as just setting boundaries for it rationally. And then when I got there I am able to react differently the next time. Until then no, until then it's just like, I'll recognise it next time but not know the right and satisfactory response that keeps boundaries better.

So, again, what's the difference between rational boundaries and invalidation of a feeling?

(Anyone else can answer too if reading this post. Thanks, I'm interested in the thoughts.)

 

[Meowcat]

OK I'll put it in this thread because I think it relates to emotional processing a lot.


OK so I found different definitions of invalidation.

"When you invalidate someone, you basically make them feel like you a) don’t understand them or their feelings or b) if you do understand, you don’t care."

"Invalidation is to reject, ignore, mock, tease, judge, or diminish someone's feelings. It is an attempt to control how they feel and for how long they feel it."

"Emotional invalidation is when a person’s thoughts and feelings are rejected, ignored, or judged. Invalidation is emotionally upsetting for anyone, but particularly hurtful for someone who is emotionally sensitive."

"Psychological invalidation is the act of rejecting, dismissing, or minimizing someone else's thoughts and feelings. It implies that a person's experience is not important, wrong, or unacceptable. It is a damaging form of emotional abuse, which makes the recipient filled with self-doubt." (Psychological invalidation is defined as the "polar opposite" of emotional validation in this source. Also calls it a form of emotional abuse)

"Having your feelings diminished, ignored, or rejected is a painful experience for all of us – but even more so if you’re a Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) or survivor of abuse or other trauma." (...) "A common form of invalidation is when someone tries to cheer you up when you're sad because they feel uncomfortable with your feelings." (This article also called emotional invalidation a form of emotional abuse)


From this much, what's clear is, it's also individual as to how much someone is sensitive. Not that that's a bad thing to have differences there. It can just lead to misunderstandings, the differences.

But yeah, there is a big difference between judging the feeling of the other person in an uncaring way, or plain just processing it differently from that person (e.g. more rationally, "stoically").


Then it also says (the last one),

"Sometimes emotional invalidation is done accidentally by someone who is well-meaning but has a low emotional intelligence or simply isn’t paying attention to your feelings. A common form of invalidation is when someone tries to cheer you up when you’re sad because they feel uncomfortable with your feelings. This can be invalidating because your feelings are being dismissed when someone wants to change your feelings rather than accept them or understand them."

That's a bit much to me, to call everything invalidating like that. Like, do you (general you) really need to keep crying for that long? [And yes, that sentence could be judgy/dismissive if asked with impatience vs wanting to just understand why they need to do so.] What if the other person genuinely just thinks you'd feel better if you stop after a while of crying and find something positive? Not because they are feeling uncomfortable personally. And they could be willing to understand and accept that you don't want to stop if you tell them so.

Ofcourse I am again thinking of personal differences here - like yeah, what if a more emotional, sensitive person needs to stay longer (and they have the capacity for doing so, too) with some of their feelings to be able to arrive at rationally making sense of the situation? When that's relevant, of course. Not always. E.g. Writing a poem while feeling negative does not need a rational resolution of the negative feeling, instead you write the poem.

And, the person who deals with the feelings more rationally / "stoically" / "coldly", that person doesn't necessarily even have low emotional intelligence. They may have a good knowledge of emotions of their own and other people's from practice, they may just deal with it differently than those HSP etc people. Of course, many people who want to deal with feelings rationally like that have low emotional intelligence because they spend the absolute minimum time they can with their emotions, trying to get away with ignoring them as much as they can. I.e not developing their emotional intelligence.

Also one more thought. It says in the quote, "your feelings are being dismissed when someone wants to change your feelings". NO. I am very resolute on this one. Definitely no. Unless the person is someone really close to you, and they have been informed that you actually have a need to feel the emotions with the crying longer, this isn't them trying to personally dismiss your feelings. But there is more to this story. The main point is: YOU are eventually responsible for dealing with your own feelings. Someone else CANNOT dismiss YOUR feelings. They can try but YOU have the ultimate, the final decision on dismissing your own feelings or not dismissing them. Period.

What this really is about to me is, communication of the emotions (so whether empathy is active or not), the other person taking it in or not. If not, that of course means consequences for the relationship eventually. But the feeling/emotion isn't dismissed for your own self, it is just not received and accepted by the other person (lack of ability, or lack of interest, or even malice). There is disagreement in that sense. Do not let the other person have that power of affecting you however with actually you dismissing something for yourself that you shouldn't, just because they disagreed with you.



OK. So when I do the rational boundaries it does mean I stop sinking in feelings. Where is the limit between just not sinking in feelings and between invalidating feelings? Also, how do you see / identify the individual differences here?

This seems like an important issue for emotional processing.

So for example, for me, it becomes toxic to stay too long with some negative feelings past the time when I already figured enough about it for the time being at least. It just does not work for me, does not do anything beneficial, and makes me have a bad overall state. But then some people enjoy that, and write poems about it and those poems can even have a use for other people too.

Also... I talked of dismissing feelings/emotions above. How about, "dismissing" them, in the other sense of the word, discharged of duty - after they have given you enough, completed their duty - so you can go and have new feelings about new things. Or new feelings about the same things. Just playin' with words here.

 

[Tina&Jane]

Can I ask, what do you consider invalidation? Because I gave it a very honest long try to see what happens if I go into the feelings more instead of "invalidating" them. And I found it was not enough alone, I had to go back to "invalidating" as the last part of the processing of them. But then I don't know how we define invalidation, do you have a definition of it?

And also where you put it like "if you’re unhappy with your response, ways that you might try to react differently in the future when feeling something similar" and then you say the analysing won't be beneficial on its own. Well for me "might try to react" sounds very inconclusive and unsatisfactory. For me the analysis ends in an action plan and that is where the feeling gets "invalidated" but I am increasingly seeing it as just setting boundaries for it rationally. And then when I got there I am able to react differently the next time. Until then no, until then it's just like, I'll recognise it next time but not know the right and satisfactory response that keeps boundaries better.

When I invalidate my emotions, I'm basically saying that they have no value or worth. For example, even if I get to the point where I can name the emotion and then analyze it, I'm likely to say things like, "it's stupid to feel this way, I don't have a right to feel this way, etc." It ties into why I think that analysis alone isn't very beneficial for processing emotion. For me, analyzing my emotions has tended to be a very negative experience because of this tendency to invalidate. While I may be able to pinpoint what I'm feeling, why I'm feeling it, and brainstorm a plan of what I might do differently in the future, I'm still likely to feel uncomfortable with having the feeling at all. Analysis may bring understanding, but it doesn't necessarily mean acceptance. And if I don't fully accept my emotions for what they are, my reaction to them is not likely to change. I'm actually going to add acceptance as the fourth step so that the whole process would look like this:

1) Physiological response to the emotion
2) Naming the emotion
3) Analyzing the emotion
4) Accepting the emotion

I think to really process emotion effectively you need to have some skill in all of the stages. At the very least, I think there needs to be some desire to work on the stages that don't come as easily for you.

 

[Meowcat]

When I invalidate my emotions, I'm basically saying that they have no value or worth. For example, even if I get to the point where I can name the emotion and then analyze it, I'm likely to say things like, "it's stupid to feel this way, I don't have a right to feel this way, etc." It ties into why I think that analysis alone isn't very beneficial for processing emotion. For me, analyzing my emotions has tended to be a very negative experience because of this tendency to invalidate. While I may be able to pinpoint what I'm feeling, why I'm feeling it, and brainstorm a plan of what I might do differently in the future, I'm still likely to feel uncomfortable with having the feeling at all. Analysis may bring understanding, but it doesn't necessarily mean acceptance. And if I don't fully accept my emotions for what they are, my reaction to them is not likely to change. I'm actually going to add acceptance as the fourth step so that the whole process would look like this:

1) Physiological response to the emotion
2) Naming the emotion
3) Analyzing the emotion
4) Accepting the emotion

I think to really process emotion effectively you need to have some skill in all of the stages. At the very least, I think there needs to be some desire to work on the stages that don't come as easily for you.

I see. Yeah I think I worked on that resistance to fully feeling stuff. There's been a few feelings/emotions I really really really disagreed with consciously, always. I still do, but I somehow can still notice these feelings now while I couldn't in the past. I still disagree with them though yes, and that won't change. And I won't let them stay for longer than a couple of seconds, I disagree that much. But then there's been a few other feelings/emotions where while I disagree with them, I can also understand now that it's just how I feel, that it's just about me and not the external world, so it's not the end of the world if I feel these things. I do not have to show them to anyone or express them in any way and I can still feel uncomfortable with feeling those things, and it might always remain that way, i.e. uncomfortable, but that's fine. I don't have full acceptance as the goal, I guess, because I don't have it as a goal to eliminate all feelings of discomfort. To me, it's in the nature of some emotions under certain circumstances that it will just feel uncomfortable to me while they may feel perfectly comfortable and even desirable to some other people. It's just how I am.

When I put an emotion/feeling in its place, it can include me dismissing it. But I don't think I'm saying with that that the emotion has no value or worth. Why would I? I just put it in a better place, or dismiss it because it doesn't have a job anymore right now, no need to sink into it.

So I don't know, when you invalidate your feelings, do you do it in some personal way? Judging your person?


As for your 1) in the list, I don't investigate my physiological response at all to be able to identify/name an emotion. I don't understand why so many believe that that's necessary. I just have that holistic sensation of the emotion, and I just identify that holistic thing, not a detailed physiological response. :shrug

As for 2), I don't find it leads to easier analysing of the emotion. I can analyse an emotion without being able to name it... often it's like, the analysis leads to me being able to name it. Naming it doesn't seem useful to me in many cases. I'm not sure why that is. Sometimes identifying it by a word/category has provided me with a LOT of benefits but most of the time it does not give me anything. When it has given me benefits, it can happen even when I did not actually name the emotion correctly. The fact that I am trying to verbalise it at all is what can get my brain moving maybe and derive the benefits.

I wondered if the use of naming them is more for the effective communication of the emotions. Because I've got a tiny bit better at that too in situations where I had no ability for that before. And same with being able to feel the feelings I disagree with in terms of what thought would come with the feeling. I do not see any other use for being able to do that than effective emotional communication with people. I.e understand what they are feeling because I've felt it myself. And I don't require others to automatically disagree with that feeling of theirs. That's just me, they can have different personalities and beliefs affecting the judgment on the "feel think".

Also 4), I would say it can also and will probably happen BEFORE analysing it. I have to accept it to a degree, in some way, to be able to feel it enough for analysis (alternatively it will get intense enough so I must pay attention at that point and do analysis, yeah).


PS: "Feel think" means your thoughts are a slave to your feelz and that comes to an unrealistic conclusion. E.g. if you feel negative about some mistake you did you will "feel think" that you are stupid or some other crap about yourself, or you can "feel think" to blame it on someone else. Etc. So when I consciously disagree with what a feeling "thinks", it means the feeling with its "feel think" has a different conclusion than my normal thinking, and I don't accept the "feel think". The feeling itself is okay, the "feel think" isn't.