I, for one, did feel a subtly different tonal dinging in the two different versions of the message that corresponded to your boss's protocol and was weirded out by how it had nothing to do with what I thought of the rule. What I think being that if a change in a single letter in an e-mail makes a difference in how you treat a business directive, you've emotionally brought something to work that you shouldn't have. Part of choosing to work within a system is being prepared to swallow and use the language that runs it most efficiently. When people who aren't ascend to management, that's where such political red tape comes from. Alternately, you're in the service sector, where you accommodate the public's full range of sensitivities because all you ever know about the next person to walk in is that you must persuade them to pay you.
Well my first job where getting people to pay me would be the case is a retail one, but I hate working with customers since I apparently don't smile enough, so normally I'm in the back. This job I referenced is my new second job and it's more that it is a haulier company and we both have to pay and issue invoices as I am basically an office worker to an accountant.
In truth I don't think it's really that this difference in terminology works, or that it is a truth to adhere to, when I said in my last post that it works in getting money off people, I'm not really sure why I put that since in truth it's more than just emailing in the first place is probably a good enough prompt. As for political red tape....yes I agree with you, these guidelines and rules and systems...all in the name of making money...that stupid 'bottom line' I'm really not fond of it and it is getting worse in the sectors I work in, or at least in retail.
It's interesting you talk about a feminine presentation as I have been mistaken for female on more than a few forums in my time. I think this stems from, when I was younger, an intense dislike of the men I had to grow up around. I really did hate them, there aren't any accurate terms for it, but I had an almost innate aversion to the superficial posturing adopted by most men in the area. The stereotypical swagger, the obsession with 'manliness' and all the ridiculous assumptions and social 'rules' that went with such a mindset. So many people trying to be something, rather than just being.
The biggest realisation to my mind was that most of these men were as irrational if not more so, than the women they often derided for being so. Like tom cats fluffing their tales, it's territorial and ridiculous, the difference is that cats actually have a purpose in what they do, humans generally don't, a cast off of behaviour from our past that has been turned into some kind of necessary social conditioning, except I don't know who is telling us that it is necessary only that most of the people I talk to about this subject offline believe it to be inherent and necessary.
From what source do you draw "most"? Whose experience? I'm not ready to disagree and think you're bringing up a intriguing question, but if you don't like something about yourself, you can get negatively biased about how well that trait serves the rest of the world. I know that firsthand...
I suppose my only source is me and my experiences and heuristic observations. Most of the issues in my life and from conversations, others as well, has stemmed from a momentary lapse, (Pink Floyd
), in reason based around interference from emotions that clouded my judgement in a situation. When younger I didn't recognise it at all. It was only with age that I suddenly understood and recognised the effects it can have on a person.
A counter-argument could be made that the positive emotions do the same as the negative ones and both influence us to reaction or action in a given situation, providing the right influence or trigger. But my experiences as a youth have made me somewhat emotionally stunted, I can make people feel comfortable in a social situation and I have been able to learn that others actually are affected by what my face is telling them to the point now where I probably look quite emotive and open in my facial expressions, it's become a habit after all. Although I would say if people saw me in a social environment I was comfortable in I would look quite the loud extravert.
But I really do have a problem expressing actual emotion and it's not because I think of it in terms of weakness, although demonstration of such certainly can weaken a persons social image if they care about such a thing. It's more I don't want anyone to either worry about me, or if angry be intimidated; as I was by anger as a child. For sure underneath I seethe with emotion and I am always surprised that others are surprised when I do have an outburst, because so many expect me to be more rational than that.
Luckily I have little problem with disappointing their expectations. I'm not entirely sure what the link with language is here, but I do know I am more conciliatory than the men I know. This is not a source of pride or shame, it just is. However I certainly have elements to my body language that could be called feminine. What I have noticed though is I can get away with elements that some would associate with femininity without criticism that women are not able to, for example being sensitive or empathetic, the vile hypocrisy in this never stops being a glare to my attention.
You said above this that our emotional nerves do carry some benefits. It's also known that they're more or less sensitive depending on the person and time: a spectrum. Too much and you get the problems that have already been discussed. Too low also gums up socialization in its own way. I'd put the question this way: at what levels of emotional reactivity, on either the high or the low end of it, do the cons begin to outweigh the pros in most situations? You could say that's what a lot of abnormal psych is about. If the topic doesn't fit here, a new thread would do well because of the volume of history/sources investigating what you're wondering. But if you make it, perhaps rephrase the titular question, "with less emotional reactivity".
Maybe I should, though I am not sure on how many would be interested as I've made similar threads before. Your insight into the spectrum of emotional reactivity and tying it to the cons and pros is a better point than my own and one I'd missed. I suppose I am just jealous of those who see the world in a more logical sphere, for me it is a mess and while I can control myself, I understand as well that my emotions and the contexts that arouse them, are almost instinctive with almost no room for conscious considerations, just an immediate release of whatever biological reaction is associated with a certain emotion, which I then have to quickly pounce upon lest I do something I will most certainly regret.
I am at my most calm and collected behind a computer screen, sad really.
But enough whinging, back to the topic!