How Do You Process Emotions?

[Coriolis]

Late to the party here, and trying to catch up. I agree with the following:

It's something to be able to ignore emotions, but another thing in entirely to completely miss it. Sometimes I wonder about the merits on focusing on them, but it's like that one chore I keep putting off- I can probably do it, but at the same time I just want to toss it into the garage because it's too much of a hassle to figure out how it works and oil it up and understand it. I think most things in life do not need it, and I get by just fine, so that lessens my urgency/interest in delving into it.

By emotional connection I meant emotionally feeling and living the relationship, being emotionally invested in it and motivated by that to do more for the relationship, altogether a visceral and emotional attachment, so you'd feel pain and sadness a lot if they dropped the relationship etc... optionally manifesting the relationship in an emotional way (emotional expression).

Practical advantages of this: your partner/friend won't leave because of feeling it's all grown too cold. You can provide for their emotional and also general well-being better (and they can too for yours). Emotions also provide greater motivation to do & achieve more things. And... just the experience itself being good and enjoyable, too (for the emotionally positive parts). It is protective against apathy.

Is the highlighted what you mean by "emotional investment"? I don't understand what that means. I maintain friendships when I find it brings value to both people involved. How does one provide for another's emotional well-being? What even constitutes emotional well-being? I am very good at providing for general (e.g. material) well being.

I can do more for other people, for example, charities or volunteer work- it does not require an emotional attachment to do (or at least for me).

I am this way, too. I find emotions too fleeting and transient to be reliable. If I base my attachments instead on my values and priorities, almost in a cost/benefit sense, I find it a much firmer footing for making decisions. I agree with this below:

About charities, volunteer work, what makes you do that stuff? Is there no feeling that has you involved there?

I do quite a bit of volunteering. It is motivated by my values and priorities, in combination with my skills and interests. So: I ask, what issues that are important to me, do I actually have the wherewithal to affect?

I have tried (to be in touch). It did not go well. Much like trying to write with a non-dominant hand. It's a mess. It's less about controlling emotions and more that there's not much to begin with, in my case at least. It is a double edged sword in that it has its strengths and weaknesses, as with any other thing, but ones I am very happy (!) with, so it is not something that bothers me.

I never tried to be in touch. Never saw the need. What I have done, especially as I have become older and put in the position of mentoring and teaching younger folks, is try to be better about expressing positive feedback and appreciation.

For what purpose, then? If it has come to the point where the relationship has ended, there is no need to measure that. It's like planning to fail. "I maintain this because losing it is painful,"

That is a poor measure for whether something should be sustained. It is the equivalent of saying: I don't want to get an innoculation because it will be painful. Sometimes there are good reasons for terminating a relationship despite the pain.

So knowing how emotional aspects motivate your action is useful and absolutely necessary for certain situations. This is what I learned the *hard way*. This is why I'm here trying to explain what I mean, lol. Also because I was just like you a few years ago with all this emotionz stuff. I still am in many situations but eh.

I agree with the highlighted, but how does one learn how these emotional motivations work, especially if one cannot see the emotions to begin with?

As for this extreme example though. You do need feelings to care about human life or see it as significant, and it's quite basic to have these feelings, while for the concept of human life you do not need to engage in complex emotion either. So it's easy enough yeah.

I disagree. One can accord significance to human life based on values and even more objective considerations. In fact, as I mentioned above, these are likely to be much more durable bases than emotions which are often transient, even fleeting.

The thing is, without experiencing the emotions for yourself it can't be described well, yeah. I guess my best explanation is just that, that if you have the experience of the emotion, the linked cognitive info will become active too and you will have a fuller access to information on the whole situation. I.e. it's additional and at times quite useful info. It's useful when the situation needs to be personal. Otherwise not. Is how I would sum it up.

Like I gave you an example of cognitive info about sadness in my prev post. Did it make sense? Please let me know.

It didn't make sense to me. You referenced one possible cause for sadness, and sadness as one possible reaction to having to leave osmething behind. This link is hardly universal, and I would hesitate to make such an assumption. I have found when people assume what I might be feeling in certain situations, they are as likely to be wrong as right. I certainly would not consider myself to be any better at making such connections/assumptions.

Sometimes it's useful in impersonal situations too to keep better emotional boundaries with people and that is part of what I meant above for the other type of justification. So for example if the boss gets in a bad mood and the end result is that they get overly critical of people's work, then there the basic emotional awareness (second level is enough really) is necessary to avoid getting overly critical so as not to cause further bad repercussions in the long run especially. Since yeah, well, a lot of other people at work are less impersonal. Even the ones that are impersonal, will be affected in the long run (either aware of this or not). Also it's unfair anyway to criticise someone in a way or using reasoning that's undeserved and incorrect, and not even accurate.

So yeah. We live among other people. You yourself are a person too actually. And so in general, when someone has too little of the basic emotional awareness then when they get into more stressful life situations, it will cause further issues in other situations - both with other people and with oneself - and if it all gets bad enough then yeah well...you can imagine. You can't reason here that this isn't a justification to get more emotional awareness. There is no valid reasoning against it. Unless you just hope you'll get lucky and will never get into such life situations.

To explain more on how emotional awareness matters for many hard life situations. If you read up on Damasio's neuroscience work, his research shows how emotions assist logical reasoning in decision making. Going further, decisions will not be optimal without enough emotional awareness, it will be hard to make them, and reasoning itself will be distorted. The above example with the critical boss is a good example for that. The boss's judgment is distorted because they got overly critical and added the wrong framework on judging the motive of the person in the process, simply because they were unaware of their own bad mood affecting judgment.

There is loads of cognitive and social psychology research on how emotions, moods affect judgment and information processing in general (and vice versa). If you want to ignore all the science on this, up to you ofc.

Seems to me it is values we need to help make life decisions, not emotions. Again, much more stable a basis. Stressful situations benefit from objective analysis and the ability to detach from the emotions of the moment. I agree about keeping emotional boundaries, but that is about keeping control of emotions, not letting loose with their expression. Seems reasonable and useful to me. That research on how emotions affect judgment is indeed valuable, but would best be put to use to minimize those effects.

This is working under the assumption that the existing emotional unawareness, or its manifestation, is in itself an issue and/or causes certain, undesirable issues. I have been with people who have not minded, and had the relationship end for matters other than that. The world is big and wide and people aren't perfect, but this 'imperfection' is one I am willing to contend with. I would assume that most 'hard life situations' would generally require, at the core, emotional stalwartness, persistence. The intensity here does not matter as long as what is there gets the job done. I have seem to have gotten by with what I do have- anything more feels like unnecessary noise. I have followed advice on heeding emotions more, and found that it largely did not bring me the desired results.

So yes, in my decision-making process, when asked about what is felt about the matter, my answer is usually 'that is irrelevant' (whether or not the emotion exists). The intensity comes after the emotion itself (after the valence that you mention), and following what I said/my thought process above, that much is far more irrelevant to me, or at least I can't seem to process things using it- or, I have already processed / solved it in another way. Significance can also be measured outside of emotional impact/intensity, but that is an entirely different thing. Why is it not sufficient? That is the question I do have, and do ask, and which I have never received a satisfactory answer for. I can say that while I have not lived for all that long, I have found greater degrees of satisfaction in eliminating emotional nuance, or pursuing things that require less focus on emotional nuance.

See, this seems to be a different kind of processing than mine- it places a degree of focus and importance on the emotion itself, so to a degree, almost as if it is 'emotion for the sake of it, but how do I deal with this in a way that is productive?' There is a starting point of emotions and the emotion being felt, and it being important- enough that the person had made a non-conscious decision to follow it, with the manifestation of it being unwarranted criticism (if it wasn't important in some way, it would not have happened, especially not unconsciously). My starting point is not there. If I indeed was frustrated, what I would have done is 1) look into what was making me frustrated 2) see if it is justified. With the answers, it all disappears. I only do what is necessary. That thought process eliminates the resulting action of 'unfair/uncalled criticism'.

Now, as for how to deal with it- I do not know. I leave other more emotionally expressive/warm people to do it, or I ask them for advice on what to do/say. Something people do admire me for is my objectivity. I have been told things such as, people having never met someone who manages to be so objective and impartial as a default, as if it is breathing. What this means is that for the most part, I have not encountered such problems, and whenever I do, I have resolved them fairly and owned up to my mistakes. That is one of my more apparent strengths. Not only is this not an issue with myself, it has not been an issue with others, or in general. Whether or not it is due to some kind of emotional awareness that I'm unaware of (the irony), it is a non-issue, and I needn't fix problems that don't exist.

I am a good bit older than Earl Grey, and agree with the above, especially the highlighted. I have generally been spared the advice to heed emotions more. When it has been given, the person giving it has been unable to provide any suggestions on how exactly to do this, a problem I find with most "self-help" books on the topic. e.g. The Four Agreements, or anything by Brene Brown.

As for the rest of your post. Okay, so it's clear you're pretty young yeah. But it did also kinda make me think that I wasted my time really. Like, why should I try and convince someone who thinks low emotional intelligence is okay and that with it they already know enough and especially, know more than others. And no, objectivity isn't enough to have enough emotional intelligence beyond a point.

As I mentioned, I am a good bit older, and generally think the same way. I have on occasion wondered what I am missing, much like a vegetarian over at the plates of meat-eating companions. If I am to take more of a passing interest in something, though, especially to the point of investing time to develop or improve skills, I have to see how it will be of benefit, either to myself or to others. Sure - it may have worth for its own sake, but the world is full of potentially worthwhile things I can learn, and my time and energy are limited. I must pick and choose how to expend them. I have asked from time to time what this benefit might be, and never received a satisfactory answer, especially given that this doesn't seem to be causing problems in my life.

Again, I was like you, I thought I don't make many mistakes or like not as many as others. That's arrogance though to the max. You are wrong when you think like that.

I think some people really do make fewer, or less serious, mistakes than others. One factor in this is the ability to learn from others' mistakes without having to make them oneself. I don't know whether this applies to Earl Grey, but it does to me.

You said, "if I want to achieve what I want- logic, rationale, objectivity does not diminish an 'empathetic' end result all the while without it getting personal"

It does diminish it in personal relationships.

How does it diminish it? I don't see this either.

To answer the last part. This is a strong example of low emotional intelligence: "hugely irrelevant "Why don't you say hi and wave to me when you walk in the office? Why are you so antisocial? That's so mean," It is their arrogance to think that their dissatisfaction means that they are automatically correct in their criticism. Warranted, perhaps- I cannot speak for how irritated they are- but not correct, or relevant.". For a higher emotional intelligence, you need to understand that socially and emotionally your behaviour comes off and feels rude. Your personal preference vs their personal preference is a different thing than that. You don't have to become totally social but if you don't understand how that's rude, how the behaviour affects people, and how it can have importance actually where you first think/judge that it doesn't, that's low emotional intelligence. Inability to admit you do make mistakes that you didn't correct yet - because no one on this Earth is that perfect lol - is also low emotional intelligence, low insight into oneself, inhibiting personal development.

Why is it rude to expect someone who enjoys those social pleasantries to go without them, but not rude to expect someone who finds them pointless to offer them anyway? Seems the shoe can never be on the other foot in these situations. Catering to emotions is nearly always put forward as the correct path. Honestly, I don't care how "antisocial" someone is in these terms, as long as they are honest, competent, and reliable.

I will say you can't be blamed for it if your brain wasn't ready for it for some reason or you didn't get the right help, etc etc. It's NOT a trivial thing at all for people who get as out of touch with feelings and emotions like you or me.

This is worth remembering, that people will have different degrees of natural ability with handling emotions, as with other tasks and skills. For some of us, emotional "data" really do come across as noise, or at least signal that falls outside the spectrum of our receiver. Most career counselors will tell people it pays greater dividends to develop your strengths than to shore up your weaknesses. Turning to others whose strengths are complementary is a legitimate way to address problems, whether personal or professional, and most workplaces value diversity of thought and approach just for this reason.

 

[Earl Grey]

That is a poor measure for whether something should be sustained. It is the equivalent of saying: I don't want to get an innoculation because it will be painful. Sometimes there are good reasons for terminating a relationship despite the pain.

Goodness. There's this, too. I maintain and cut my friendships, and they are not much emotionally-based, pain or joy or whatever. Every time I explain this, people either don't believe it, or cannot understand it. If they cannot understand my lack of emotionality- that is understandable. I cannot understand, nor can I even emulate their emotionality either, so it's a two-way thing. On the other side, this makes me fair- I don't overstay out of a compulsion of attachment, but I also don't just end it simply out of pain.

Usually I bring up the 'abusive people' example to illustrate how my approach and 'emotionality' (or lack thereof) works. People do note I have a much easier time calling people out or even making the decision of cutting them off when faced with abuse/disrespect. You can try all you want till you froth in the mouth, I cannot be swayed with emotional appeals- none of this funny "But we're friends/partners/lovers!" or "If you love me!" or any other of that kind of business. It really doesn't matter how long we've known each other or how long we've been friends. It has been true for as long as I can remember, and I have had no good reason to change it, unless it is about improving how I do it. Thankfully, a lot of my peers are catching up with that attitude (I consider it overall positive with good results) with age. Again, maybe a more 'extreme' example, but I don't have better ones that has helped make people understand how my approach works. This is also the reason I find it very easy to criticize even close friends, and I am confused when other people express difficulty in doing so (be it remaining critical: being able to spot the mistakes to begin with- or being criticizing: acting on it, and providing criticism).

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I'm just responding to the OP. I haven't had time to read through the long exchanges in the latest pages.

Concerning the OP:

The OP is pretty general. There are lots of different facets to the "processing of emotions." In a way it would be easier to come up with a couple hypothetical situations and ask how a person would process their own or others' emotions in that particular situation.

Off the top of my head, here is just a partial list of considerations that occurred to me under the heading of "processing emotions." Sorry about typos and muddled thinking; I did this quickly.

1) Processing our own emotions/expectations/sense of life: Emotions are a reaction to the world validating or invalidating our expectations and sense of life. This goes back to our evolutionary heritage: Emotions are originally rooted in the fight-or-flight instinct.
1a) So what do you do when the world is constantly invalidating your sense of life, and you find yourself in a regular state of anxiety or disappointment about the world?
1b) What happens when the world validates your expectations and sense of life? Do you take that as fate and overcommit beyond your capacity to fulfill? Success can be a trap too.
1c) Do you see emotions as "action signals" and: 1) work to advance your agenda in a hostile/friendly world (alter the world); or 2) adjust your expectations to bring them into better correspondence with the world (alter your expectations).

2) Processing the emotions of others/empathy: Emotions are based in "mirror neurons," which enable us to connect with the world and people around us, register small changes in the atmosphere or relationships, and learn from experience. But "mirror neurons" are quite sensitive, and they pick up the emotions of others, as well as information that feeds into our own emotions. So what do we do with the emotions of others?
2a) Affective empathy: Do we experience the emotions of others "from the gut," as though they were our own, and risk getting sucked into their world and their agendas, sometimes to our detriment?
2b) Cognitive empathy: Or do we rationalize and intellectualize the emotions of others, at the risk of being too remote and not connecting with what's important or different in the lives of others?
2c) Then there is the question of what we're trying to *do* with the emotions of others: Influence/steer them? Soak them up and reflect them back? Set boundaries to avoid getting sucked into them? Each has its place.

3) Logic & emotions: To what degree do we use logic as a counter to personal emotions?
3a) Do we wallow in emotions, treating them as an ecstatic experience, reveling in the richness of the emotional tapestry, but perhaps in extreme cases living our lives at the whim of whatever emotional draft blows past, bouncing whimsically from high to low and back again, all giggles at one moment and tears at the next?
3b) Or do we rationalize and neutralize emotions with logic as quickly as possible, keeping an even keel but risking: 1) cutting ourselves off from emotions as a creative source; and 2) invalidating emotions as "action signals" (see 1c) by processing them too superficially and merely putting bandaids on what might be deeper wounds?

4) Unresolved personal emotions as a drain on "executive control": As an extension of item 3b above: Some people are simply in denial about their emotional life. Others are cognizant of the importance of dealing with emotions, but they may feel obliged to neglect emotional issues because they are too busy just keeping up in their daily life. Either situation is sustainable over the short- and medium-term. But ongoing emotional problems that aren't addressed (such as a bad relationship or a bad workplace environment) don't just disappear into the ether when ignored. They sit in the background eating mental energy; that mental energy is subtracted from our "executive control" that we use in our daily lives, leading to lower energy levels available for daily work: distraction, irritability, and caving in to bad habits/engaging in counterproductive behavior under stress. So the processing or non-processing of emotions can have an effect on how productive and healthy a life we live.

And so on. There are multiple facets to "the processing of emotions."

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I just want to add:

In my previous post (above) I set up most of the items to illustrate opposing dualities, highlighting the extremes in order to show the variety of "facets" to emotions. Naturally there is healthy middle ground in between the extremes.

In other words, I didn't mean to convey by my last post that emotions represent a choice between two extremes. Most of us routinely live in the healthy central area between those extremes, with minor variations depending on the individual and their personality type.

 

[Lady Lazarus]

I don't, actually.

 

[Schrödinger's Name]

Reading those long messages I just realized that I might have misinterpret 'processing emotion' completely. Of course my dramatic brain was immediately thinking about heavy loaded 'dark' stuff. As in; how do you process longterm emotions that 'stick'. While an emotion is something that is short lived actually.

In both cases, I still don't know actually so it's not as if this conclusion was that relevant. I need some examples to be able to picture it more clearly... As in; 'coming down' after you were mad about something? How you process that emotion? How should I know how I process it I mean, my brain does that... Processing emotions is still something that rather happens unconsciously as far as I know (or am aware of, to stay sort of ontopic). You can become aware of having a certain emotion and how it influences you and then you can possibly, change that emotion and how you react to it. It's basically just classical conditioning? Like *click* -> food -> you start drooling. Then *click* -> x no food x -> still drooling anyway because the *click* means food so you body automatically responds in some way?

I have no idea what I am talking about.

Isn't asking someone how they process emotions like asking them to take a scan of their brain? How can we measure how someone processes emotion? The intensity of the emotion? How long the emotion lasts? How they handle it/react to it? How aware they are of their emotions?

I feel as if how my emotions get processed depends very much on what I am having emotions about and what my mood is at that very moment. When I am in a rather sensitive mood I will react strongly and feel intensely but it's not always like that. I prefer to be 'indifferent'/detached. When I become detached after a strong emotion I can look at it from a clearer perspective. Sometimes I do love the feeling of 'calming' down after an intense emotion. It's like okay, that's happened. The rapid streams have passed. Now I can still chill in my boat a little bit longer and just let the water take me- wherever.

And it also depends on what the emotion is. Is it sadness, jealousy, anger, frustration? I think everyone might handle those things differently, for each and every emotion. (As in; you might be able to handle anger but sadness is more difficult to handle, etc.)

*no I still have no idea what I am talking about, someone send help*

You see, I can't even understand such a simple question anymore. This is what sleep deprivation does to you kids. Stay safe.

Dig yourself a grave.

 

[Swivelinglight]

Usually helps

This Buddhist Parable Can Ease Your Suffering During a Crisis - Big Think

 

[PumpkinMayCare]

@Earl Grey
Not trying to start a long discussion or discuss anything at all. I really just want to throw a thought in I had after I had read your last post. (I read your whole discussion with meowcat).

You brought up that abusive scenario in your last post and that it's easy for you to break up friendships when faced with disrespect.

As ludicrous as it may sound, I have to say, I am in tune with my emotions and I don't find it hard to cut people out of my life when they are not doing me any good. And that appealing to emotions kinda try at manipulation- well, that is something I've never fallen for. I wish I knew why or how I immediately, upon facing that kind of manipulation, looked through it. But it rubbed me the wrong way immediately.
So, I am not talking about this because I want attention. I just wanted to bring in that consideration that someone who is very in tune with her emotions, so quite the opposite of you, can have the same strengths. And I might be wrong, but I see the cause for this in the fact I have a good EQ.

Important to say, doesn't mean I think you should change your way of dealing with emotions or anything like that. I guess I just wanted to bring in an interesting detail/a viewpoint that may make people think about this topic from a more multifaceted angle.

 

[Earl Grey]

@/Earl Grey Not trying to start a long discussion or discuss anything at all. I really just want to throw a thought in I had after I had read your last post. (I read your whole discussion with meowcat).

You brought up that abusive scenario in your last post and that it's easy for you to break up friendships when faced with disrespect.

As ludicrous as it may sound, I have to say, I am in tune with my emotions and I don't find it hard to cut people out of my life when they are not doing me any good. And that appealing to emotions kinda try at manipulation- well, that is something I've never fallen for. I wish I knew why or how I immediately, upon facing that kind of manipulation, looked through it. But it rubbed me the wrong way immediately.
So, I am not talking about this because I want attention. I just wanted to bring in that consideration that someone who is very in tune with her emotions, so quite the opposite of you, can have the same strengths. And I might be wrong, but I see the cause for this in the fact I have a good EQ.

Important to say, doesn't mean I think you should change your way of dealing with emotions or anything like that. I guess I just wanted to bring in an interesting detail/a viewpoint that may make people think about this topic from a more multifaceted angle.

(don't worry, I only start long discussions with willing participants)

I like this addition. Apologies for my wording- it made it sound like I was saying that other ways of processing does not lead to that specific outcome (and without further clarification, makes it sound like the opposite approach does not). It does not at all sound ludicrous, and I do not think you are wrong. I do think a whole lot of this strange 'detached' VS 'involved' way of processing ends up being viewed in a very dichotomous/black-white way, "Dumb and hopeless in X situations" VS "Actual God's Grace, The One Fix For All" especially in the more juvenile discussions, say, the good ol' T VS F- and it's always good to have clarification otherwise. I think threads like these provide good insight on how every method can work to achieve their own ends- it's not as black and white, crippled, or as dichotomous as people think in terms of behaviour or capabilities. Personally, I am very happy with how I am, and I am very happy with my friends who are my opposite, and we don't find issue with each other on those matters.

A (generally-aimed) question that does come up after my exchanges here is; what can, or should (if at all) be done by folks like @Coriolis & I who are 'stunted' so to speak? Have you ever felt the need to change it, or deal with it- if so, how and/or why?

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[snipped...] Isn't asking someone how they process emotions like asking them to take a scan of their brain? How can we measure how someone processes emotion? The intensity of the emotion? How long the emotion lasts? How they handle it/react to it? How aware they are of their emotions?

I feel as if how my emotions get processed depends very much on what I am having emotions about and what my mood is at that very moment. When I am in a rather sensitive mood I will react strongly and feel intensely but it's not always like that. I prefer to be 'indifferent'/detached. When I become detached after a strong emotion I can look at it from a clearer perspective. Sometimes I do love the feeling of 'calming' down after an intense emotion. It's like okay, that's happened. The rapid streams have passed. Now I can still chill in my boat a little bit longer and just let the water take me- wherever. [...snipped]

Yes, you're talking about processing a strong emotion and getting control of it, calming it down, etc.

This subject reminds me of a discussion I was having in another thread. I'll quote the relevant parts below:

A lot of the difference between maturity and immaturity comes down to how people handle their emotions.

[...]

Stephen R. Covey wrote a self-help book titled "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" many years ago, and it's considered kind of a self-help classic. The first chapter talks about immaturity vs maturity. But he doesn't use those terms. Instead he talks about REactive people vs. PROactive people.

I read it many years ago, but I still have some notes I made from the book. The notes basically sum up that first habit in my own words:

***************
Summary: PROactivity = have a good attitude and don’t let the little things get to you.
--The author contrasts REactivity and PROactivity:
--With REactive people, a certain stimulus results in a certain response. For example, REactive people are often affected by their physical environment. If the weather is good, they feel good. If it isn’t, they feel bad; it affects their attitude and their performance.
--PROactive people, OTOH, recognize that between stimulus and response, man has the freedom to choose. We are responsible for our own lives. Our behavior is a function of our decisions, not our conditions. We can subordinate feelings to values. We have the initiative and the responsibility to make things happen. The author lists drivers that can be inserted between stimulus and response, such as self-awareness, imagination, conscience, and independent will. To return to the weather analogy, the author says that PROactive people carry their own weather with them. Whether it rains or shines makes no difference to them. They are value driven; and if their value is to produce good quality work, it isn’t a function of whether the weather is conducive to it or not.
--REactive people are also affected by their social environment, by their “social weather.” When people treat them well, they feel well, and when people don’t, they become defensive or protective. REactive people build their emotional lives around the behavior of others, empowering the weaknesses of other people to control them.
--REactive people are driven by feelings, by circumstances, by conditions, by their environment. PROactive people are driven by values--carefully thought about, selected, and internalized values.
--It’s basically a question of maintaining a good attitude. Viktor Frankl suggests that there are three central values in life: The experiential, or that which happens to us; the creative, or that which we bring into existence; and the attitudinal, or our response in difficult circumstances. The author says that the highest of the three values is attitudinal: What matters most is how we respond to what we experience in life.
--As one more contrast of REactivity vs. PROactivity, the author creates a Venn diagram composed of a Circle of Influence made up of the things we control (our own life, our REactions) inside of a larger Circle of Concern made of all things that concern us, both controllable and non-controllable (the outside world). He says that PROactive people will focus on the Circle of Influence, i.e., themselves and that portion of the world that they control, and seek to empower and expand it outward; ultimately they gain more control over the outside world in this manner. It’s an inside->out model of addressing the world, starting from one’s strongest point. REactive people, on the other hand, concern themselves most with what’s happening outside and around them, focusing on that part of the Circle of Concern over which they have least control. Their Circle of Influence shrinks as they cede control to things outside their control, and they practice an outside->in model, i.e., starting from one’s weakest point. (p. 81-85)

Summary: PROactivity = have a good attitude and don’t let the little things get to you. PROactivity is essentially the end result that you want to achieve using Habits 2 and 3. But you have to go into 2 and 3 with an understanding and commitment to PROactivity. IOW, the PROactivity mentality comes first, meaning a commitment to the paradigm even before you practice the steps.

***********
--Again, this all comes from Covey's chapter on "Habit 1." As mentioned in the last paragraph, subsequent "habits" go into ways to develop PROactivity.

For example:

Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind
Summary: Back up and get a dispassionate overview, write up a mission statement clarifying what principles/values should guide your actions, then visualize specific situations and develop scripts/reactions that incorporate those principles/values.

Habit 3: Put First Things First
Summary: Prioritize tasks on to-do lists according to 1) where they are on your mission statement; and 2) whether they are Q2 tasks (important but not urgent). IOW, make conscious decisions about how you want to spend your week, rather than chasing after crises or emergencies or just puttering your way through endless to-do lists of fix-it projects.

And so on.

 

[PumpkinMayCare]

[MENTION=35920]Earl Grey[/MENTION]

I can not agree more. With pretty much all you said, especially with the fact it does often occur, that these kinda discussions get very black and white, and I kinda get it. Hope I'm not making someone angry for saying that, but I think Egos do get in the way sometimes, and everyone wants to be right and therefore argue their points with a bit of a force, making a discussion black and white, not being open to explore interesting/different thought trains. But these could potentially lead to an insight that will make you see the bigger picture. Like with what you correctly stated as well- different ways of going about things can lead to the same outcome. Though I'd rather say 'different resources - as in strengths - can lead to similar outcomes sometimes'. Ok, now that I was a bit petty for a second, enough of that already.
And I hope you don't mind me sharing a few thoughts about your question. Again, sorry for just throwing myself into this discussion I actually wasn't invited in, haha.
If I remember correctly, you're still very young. I remember when I was about 20, 21, I was a different person to who I am now - only six years later. I think from that age on, 20, 21, or sometimes later, depending on your circumstances, you start changing a whole lot. If you are somehow bothered by this issue, or even if you're not- I think changing as a person happens (tons of scientific books agree on that btw) Often times unconsciously even. So I would just say: relax. Change happens anyway. Ok, not everyone changes that dramatically, but those years I'm talking about really invite a lot of new life experiences, work, people you meet, moving from one place to another, stuff like that. And it does poke your brain, these events. Just let them poke you and see if maybe life events are giving you interesting insights, lessons, impulses, whatever. And then you can still decide if you want to change or not. As long as you're willing to take in these impulses and think about them along the way, you'll be fine.
I must add, I know people who have grown colder through the years and that didn't bless them with a happy life. Because they weren't up to taking in new Impulses. And also, it is a fact that empathy is a bit like a muscle. You can exercise it to make it stronger. As for emotions, the way you're dealing with them, is a pattern a bit brought on by your upbringing (and what your genetics have decided for you). However, the pattern of not dealing with emotions can get out of hand if you don't watch it, like it is with pretty much every behavior pattern. So it might be a good idea to watch that pattern a bit. Life can cause patterns to derail and although I know tons of people who became warmer and more emotional the older they got, the opposite is like stated above, also a possible path.
Urgh, sorry. Hope I didn't babble too much but hey, this is really interesting to me, so.

 

[Earl Grey]

@/Earl Grey I can not agree more. With pretty much all you said, especially with the fact it does often occur, that these kinda discussions get very black and white, and I kinda get it. Hope I'm not making someone angry for saying that, but I think Egos do get in the way sometimes, and everyone wants to be right and therefore argue their points with a bit of a force, making a discussion black and white, not being open to explore interesting/different thought trains. But these could potentially lead to an insight that will make you see the bigger picture. Like with what you correctly stated as well- different ways of going about things can lead to the same outcome. Though I'd rather say 'different resources - as in strengths - can lead to similar outcomes sometimes'. Ok, now that I was a bit petty for a second, enough of that already.
And I hope you don't mind me sharing a few thoughts about your question. Again, sorry for just throwing myself into this discussion I actually wasn't invited in, haha.

Don't be silly- this is a public thread, it's encouraged to pitch in. Bolded is part of why I really like forums. I don't mind. That was a general question aimed at whoever wants to participate/answer.
(and if there really were parts where you were being petty, I didn't notice)

If I remember correctly, you're still very young. I remember when I was about 20, 21, I was a different person to who I am now - only six years later. I think from that age on, 20, 21, or sometimes later, depending on your circumstances, you start changing a whole lot. If you are somehow bothered by this issue, or even if you're not- I think changing as a person happens (tons of scientific books agree on that btw) Often times unconsciously even. So I would just say: relax. Change happens anyway. Ok, not everyone changes that dramatically, but those years I'm talking about really invite a lot of new life experiences, work, people you meet, moving from one place to another, stuff like that. And it does poke your brain, these events. Just let them poke you and see if maybe life events are giving you interesting insights, lessons, impulses, whatever. And then you can still decide if you want to change or not. As long as you're willing to take in these impulses and think about them along the way, you'll be fine.
I must add, I know people who have grown colder through the years and that didn't bless them with a happy life. Because they weren't up to taking in new Impulses. And also, it is a fact that empathy is a bit like a muscle. You can exercise it to make it stronger. As for emotions, the way you're dealing with them, is a pattern a bit brought on by your upbringing (and what your genetics have decided for you). However, the pattern of not dealing with emotions can get out of hand if you don't watch it, like it is with pretty much every behavior pattern. So it might be a good idea to watch that pattern a bit. Life can cause patterns to derail and although I know tons of people who became warmer and more emotional the older they got, the opposite is like stated above, also a possible path.
Urgh, sorry. Hope I didn't babble too much but hey, this is really interesting to me, so.

I enjoy your response. It's illustrated my approach to this aspect of myself/life in specific. That much has worked, at least for myself. I've definitely changed in ways that are also very apparent to others, and not just myself. I think it works for certain things in general- like friendship, romance, etc - "Just let them poke you and see if maybe life events are giving you interesting insights, lessons, impulses, whatever. And then you can still decide if you want to change or not. As long as you're willing to take in these impulses and think about them along the way, you'll be fine." I think through my fairly short (so far) I've both experienced getting colder, and warmer over periods of time. The interesting part is figuring out which is me / aligned with my values instead of allowing myself being shoved and boxed into any extreme by life experiences. I'm just stubborn like that.
It is also very interesting to me- just see how much I've posted here cough cough

 

[PumpkinMayCare]

I guess I just have a tendency to be silly
All jokes aside, I totally get wanting life's occurrences not having too much control over you, as in shaping your characteristics too much. I've been the same way throughout my life. However, I need to note some things just because I think as obvious as they might sound, these do tend to slip from our awareness sometimes.

First off, you already were shaped by your upbringing a great deal. What a no brainer, huh? I know, doesn't seem to matter so much in that context, but I think the awareness of this has at least from my experience often led to a certain clarity, where you kinda go back maybe even and realize some patterns in the now came from not so great facettes your parents had. I mean, we're now talking about not wanting patterns to derail, right? And not about being a little emotionally distant specifically.
Just so we're on the same page!

So, moving on, it's clear what I'm trying to say: you will never have full control over yourself, that is just the way it is. And even after childhood, even then, consciously but even more unconsciously, you are influenced as well. To think you don't would be... Silly.

That being said, to want as much control over that is in itself a pattern as well. Maybe something to think about. I mean, I think that'd be a really interesting train of thought but I wanna finally get to the point.

The only way to have as much control over that is by basically dying. Or trying to stay the same forever, which is a bit hard, because patterns just change over time and with our life experiences. And to a certain degree you have to take in the impulses around you, because life will throw new tasks and challenges at you and either you're going to grow with them or not and most likely get yourself into tough situations. So, with growth often comes change as a person. The other side of the coin is though, some values are so deeply ingrained in us, they won't get shattered easily. Summarized; in my humble opinion, it is a little bit of lottery, if you can force the so called "right", "correct", values through. Life is just very complex and people as well. And here is the paradox: How do you manage through that growth to make sure you hold on to the subjectivly right values, when on the other hand, you are not likely to take in new impulses, because when you're trying to hold on to certain things, you can not at the same time really and honestly be taking in new impulses?
It's not gonna work out as cut and dry as you (and I) might want it.

Ok, that got kinda philosophical. Like, Aristoteles' philosophical. Time to make my last point. I think through self-reflection, and most important and even ironically, life experiences, we figure out what is or feels more and less as us. At least that is the experience I and many others I know have made. Needless to say, listening to your gut helps a lot with that.
But life experiences helped me personally more. But, I have rarely met someone who hasn't changed or let's say 'corrected' some of their values, because life made it apparent it would be a good idea. The only thing I can say is, I rarely have changed mine but on some rare occasions I shattered a value wholly because it was no longer doing me any good.

 

[Coriolis]

I must add, I know people who have grown colder through the years and that didn't bless them with a happy life. Because they weren't up to taking in new Impulses. And also, it is a fact that empathy is a bit like a muscle. You can exercise it to make it stronger. As for emotions, the way you're dealing with them, is a pattern a bit brought on by your upbringing (and what your genetics have decided for you). However, the pattern of not dealing with emotions can get out of hand if you don't watch it, like it is with pretty much every behavior pattern. So it might be a good idea to watch that pattern a bit. Life can cause patterns to derail and although I know tons of people who became warmer and more emotional the older they got, the opposite is like stated above, also a possible path.
Urgh, sorry. Hope I didn't babble too much but hey, this is really interesting to me, so.

It is an interesting topic to me as well. And as [MENTION=35920]Earl Grey[/MENTION] already said, this is a public thread, so all are welcome. I am a good bit older than either of you, and your post here led me to reflect on how I may have changed in this respect over the years. I mentioned before I think how I have tried to be more generous with positive feedback and appreciation, especially when working with students (I occasionally teach at the local uni, and volunteer in STEM education) or mentoring younger colleagues. I don't think I am warmer in general, though, just perhaps a bit more polished at being distant. If anything I find I am stingier with my time and energy, especially my emotional energy. I save it for when it really counts, when a person or situation is really important to me. Otherwise the drain comes with too little to show for it (cost/benefit fail). Also, I feel like I am not giving someone my best self when I rely on the emotional side. Sort of like giving someone a drawing when I can't draw to save my life, rather than playing them a song, since I am actually a decent musician.

So, moving on, it's clear what I'm trying to say: you will never have full control over yourself, that is just the way it is. And even after childhood, even then, consciously but even more unconsciously, you are influenced as well. To think you don't would be... Silly.

That being said, to want as much control over that is in itself a pattern as well. Maybe something to think about. I mean, I think that'd be a really interesting train of thought but I wanna finally get to the point.

The only way to have as much control over that is by basically dying. Or trying to stay the same forever, which is a bit hard, because patterns just change over time and with our life experiences. And to a certain degree you have to take in the impulses around you, because life will throw new tasks and challenges at you and either you're going to grow with them or not and most likely get yourself into tough situations. So, with growth often comes change as a person. The other side of the coin is though, some values are so deeply ingrained in us, they won't get shattered easily. Summarized; in my humble opinion, it is a little bit of lottery, if you can force the so called "right", "correct", values through. Life is just very complex and people as well. And here is the paradox: How do you manage through that growth to make sure you hold on to the subjectivly right values, when on the other hand, you are not likely to take in new impulses, because when you're trying to hold on to certain things, you can not at the same time really and honestly be taking in new impulses?
It's not gonna work out as cut and dry as you (and I) might want it.

Ok, that got kinda philosophical. Like, Aristoteles' philosophical. Time to make my last point. I think through self-reflection, and most important and even ironically, life experiences, we figure out what is or feels more and less as us. At least that is the experience I and many others I know have made. Needless to say, listening to your gut helps a lot with that.
But life experiences helped me personally more. But, I have rarely met someone who hasn't changed or let's say 'corrected' some of their values, because life made it apparent it would be a good idea. The only thing I can say is, I rarely have changed mine but on some rare occasions I shattered a value wholly because it was no longer doing me any good.

I have indeed corrected some of my values over the years, after finding them to be inconsistent. Yes, I agree that we should allow ourselves to be open to change, and in fact cannot avoid it unless we insist on stagnation. I suppose the best we can do is to pick and choose which influences we want to accept or even seek out, and which we want to avoid or mitigate. We will decide based on whether they improve our life or make things harder, with improvement measured against our goals and values.

A (generally-aimed) question that does come up after my exchanges here is; what can, or should (if at all) be done by folks like @Coriolis & I who are 'stunted' so to speak? Have you ever felt the need to change it, or deal with it- if so, how and/or why?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? The folks who like to preach the virtues of emotional intelligence to the likes of us never seem to be able to come up with any concrete advice on what we should do about it. For that matter, I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how taking more of an interest in this will improve things for myself or others. I suppose that is something I hope to learn from discussions such as this one.

 

[Meowcat]

Late to the party here, and trying to catch up.

Hey lol, party uhh. Anyway sure, no problem, I'll respond to your questions etc.

I agree with the following:

It's something to be able to ignore emotions, but another thing in entirely to completely miss it. Sometimes I wonder about the merits on focusing on them, but it's like that one chore I keep putting off- I can probably do it, but at the same time I just want to toss it into the garage because it's too much of a hassle to figure out how it works and oil it up and understand it. I think most things in life do not need it, and I get by just fine, so that lessens my urgency/interest in delving into it.

By emotional connection I meant emotionally feeling and living the relationship, being emotionally invested in it and motivated by that to do more for the relationship, altogether a visceral and emotional attachment, so you'd feel pain and sadness a lot if they dropped the relationship etc... optionally manifesting the relationship in an emotional way (emotional expression).

Practical advantages of this: your partner/friend won't leave because of feeling it's all grown too cold. You can provide for their emotional and also general well-being better (and they can too for yours). Emotions also provide greater motivation to do & achieve more things. And... just the experience itself being good and enjoyable, too (for the emotionally positive parts). It is protective against apathy.

Is the highlighted what you mean by "emotional investment"? I don't understand what that means. I maintain friendships when I find it brings value to both people involved. How does one provide for another's emotional well-being? What even constitutes emotional well-being? I am very good at providing for general (e.g. material) well being.

Yeah, for me the former (what you quoted from Earl Grey) was even worse. I was like... I didn't even think that I should try and figure it out. I just completely missed, ignored it. Not even willfully ignoring it, it was less on my radar than even that.

The highlighted is indicative of the degree of the emotional investment yeah. It's not the emotional investment itself, but indicative of it. In my word usage "emotional investment" just means that you get attached emotionally too. That when the relationship ends, the resulting loss is large enough for you to feel it that much. That you can no longer just cut someone off and move on without feeling all that much. I used to. Until 1) I ran into relationships where I DID get emotionally invested way more strongly 2) my brain was also changing.

I find emotions too fleeting and transient to be reliable. If I base my attachments instead on my values and priorities, almost in a cost/benefit sense, I find it a much firmer footing for making decisions.

I also find emotion in the moment too fleeting and far from being the full picture on its own. What seems to work better for me - with the changing brain anyhow, not before that - is watch all of them as linked to the situation/issue/whatever, and get all the info from them that I can. I am not sure I get the exact same info or that I interpret it the exact same way as some psychology resources and therapists would expect me to but it works for me as far as I got with all of the emotionz stuff and emotional processing - thread title - anyhow.

That is a poor measure for whether something should be sustained. It is the equivalent of saying: I don't want to get an innoculation because it will be painful. Sometimes there are good reasons for terminating a relationship despite the pain.

Ahh that there is a misunderstanding. I never tried to imply that lol, that a relationship shouldn't be ended bc of the degree of pain. I ended relationships - after my change and getting in touch with emotions i.e. I no longer had the advantage of easily moving on emotionally - regardless of the degree of pain. Yes this means I did end a certain relationship even when I knew the pain was gonna be really bad.

The emotions affected my decision only as far as, I knew if I went on the pain would just be even worse. (Long story.) But that was still not what I based the final decision on. It was based on the whole situation. I simply was not going to tolerate the type of situation I found myself in. Not treated right, disrespect, manipulation, etc etc. All kinds of shit. I also really cared for the person, big emotional investment yes, until I learned of certain things that I found unacceptable hence my final decision. So despite my feeling so many positives (originally) about the person, I still made the hard decision. I also do not get people who keep running around, one day they are feeling completely in love, and hoping that things will get better, and the next day they completely vilify the other person and so on and so on. Like, it's one thing to feel that way if feeling very messed up but making decisions, acting on it and then undoing it all and so on and so on?...

BTW. I said "one day they are feeling ... in love", and that is not the same as "they are in love", to me. Nah.

So knowing how emotional aspects motivate your action is useful and absolutely necessary for certain situations. This is what I learned the *hard way*. This is why I'm here trying to explain what I mean, lol. Also because I was just like you a few years ago with all this emotionz stuff. I still am in many situations but eh.

I agree with the highlighted, but how does one learn how these emotional motivations work, especially if one cannot see the emotions to begin with?

Yeah that's the hard part. You can read up on it but that's not enough without actually experiencing and seeing for yourself. I forgot to elaborate on it before on how if your brain is not ready (mine certainly wasn't for a long time), you can't do advanced operations like people, even psychologists and the like will expect you to. When they expect you to learn about feelings, emotions, they imagine you need to start with those advanced operations (or to you it's advanced, anyhow). I started from adding 1 and 1 together, not doing multiplication let alone solving equations. Heh. But yeah, my brain was only ready for starting at the most basics. Which specifically just meant learning to try to tune in and see the emotions internally, and attempting to do so regularly, even if initially nothing seemed to be there. This is me but I started from defining things, components of emotions, feelings (reading up on all of it a lot), and it was easier to detect them that way. Armed with facts/understanding on what I'm looking for, as much as possible. It still took a long time though.

Is this answer concrete enough for you? Because to go into specifics on what I did, that would be very long and would require a lot of time, a lot of references to resources, etc. etc. But this is the gist. Books, other resources are all available if you want to read up on those facts/understanding I'm referring to, and the rest you have to do yourself by being willing to pay attention and put in a lot of time to practice.

I understand if that seems like a lot of effort when you don't even understand or see the point to it. So I don't have an answer to how to give you or Earl Grey the motivation itself to embark on this. But at least I can show a bit of what all this is like. Because, another reason for my doing so, I was annoyed too with psychologists and other people, books and all the other resources promoting how I should look at feelings blah blah blah, annoyed until I realised that I just had to start on a different level than what they assumed was needed. ... and it's ok, I'm no longer annoyed with them since then, I get it that it's hard to understand it if someone else is very different from you (general you) with this. I was different yeah and I will always be somewhat different from more "feely" people. So yeah no longer annoyed, but I do remember what it was like.

I disagree. One can accord significance to human life based on values and even more objective considerations. In fact, as I mentioned above, these are likely to be much more durable bases than emotions which are often transient, even fleeting.

How did you decide to pick specific values though? Where did your calculations, computations start?

It didn't make sense to me. You referenced one possible cause for sadness, and sadness as one possible reaction to having to leave osmething behind. This link is hardly universal, and I would hesitate to make such an assumption. I have found when people assume what I might be feeling in certain situations, they are as likely to be wrong as right. I certainly would not consider myself to be any better at making such connections/assumptions.

It was an example for what info you can get, I never called it universal.

Seems to me it is values we need to help make life decisions, not emotions. Again, much more stable a basis. Stressful situations benefit from objective analysis and the ability to detach from the emotions of the moment. I agree about keeping emotional boundaries, but that is about keeping control of emotions, not letting loose with their expression. Seems reasonable and useful to me. That research on how emotions affect judgment is indeed valuable, but would best be put to use to minimize those effects.

I agree objective analysis and emotional control is needed under stress, but emotional awareness and emotional insight is also needed to optimise the thinking and the decisions. Yeah, the example where I mentioned emotional boundaries, it was involving the possibility of unnecessary and actually not constructive enmeshment (depending on the exact situation ofc). But too much control of emotions is also not good in some situations.

As for your last sentence here, actually, yeah, sometimes minimising those effects is good, but sometimes actually you can take advantage of them instead of minimising (as far as you can try and effect these processes anyhow - even awareness of them will help a lot though).

I am a good bit older than Earl Grey, and agree with the above, especially the highlighted. I have generally been spared the advice to heed emotions more. When it has been given, the person giving it has been unable to provide any suggestions on how exactly to do this, a problem I find with most "self-help" books on the topic. e.g. The Four Agreements, or anything by Brene Brown.

I never read her books. Yeah most self-help or other psychology related books don't get into this much. There's a few that do a decent job of some aspects but I never saw any extensive dissertation on it either lol.

Contending with lack of emotion as an acceptable imperfection. As for it being just an imperfection or an actual hindrance, that depends on how imbalanced one gets with it. But yeah it can be an acceptable imperfection as obviously a less "feely" personality is never going to become a truly "feely" one. So it's ok, unless this area is totally neglected and that was my point.

As I mentioned, I am a good bit older, and generally think the same way. I have on occasion wondered what I am missing, much like a vegetarian over at the plates of meat-eating companions. If I am to take more of a passing interest in something, though, especially to the point of investing time to develop or improve skills, I have to see how it will be of benefit, either to myself or to others. Sure - it may have worth for its own sake, but the world is full of potentially worthwhile things I can learn, and my time and energy are limited. I must pick and choose how to expend them. I have asked from time to time what this benefit might be, and never received a satisfactory answer, especially given that this doesn't seem to be causing problems in my life.

I gave two general reasons. What makes you wonder as to what you are missing?

If you asked others, they surely did give you answers too. Why was it not satisfactory to you, what were these unsatisfying answers specifically?

Also. Some of this cannot be described with "logical words", like when I speak of "emotional connection", I do not have words for conveying to you what's so fulfilling in it. Or when you spoke of human life having value but not feeling this; feeling it emotionally too gives additional value, that I cannot explain in words if someone didn't experience it. It's just certain basic and fundamental aspects of life that maybe a poet or writer could express but I can't for sure. And even if a writer does express it well, I would not have understood it without experiencing it for myself. And having experienced such things myself, I have to say, it's been worth it. My life would not have been complete without these things. It is the experience itself too (i.e. the taste of the food, to use the earlier analogy) but also it provides additional value, additional drive, motivation, better prioritisation of important things and values ... all these additional things are of the kind that's priceless (the function of the food).

For better prioritisation, I can give examples from family life. Kind of stereotypical examples if you want me to give any specific ones. For your cost and benefit analysis tho', helps with the development of your kids, too (as a big benefit), if you can connect with them emotionally. Your spouse won't be dissatisfied and their leaving you will be less likely. Etc. For the other general reason I gave (not relationships but hard life situations), an example too, when you get in deep shit in life, and your rationality can no longer overpower the (unconscious) emotional effect without blocking out too much, nothing else will really save you.

EDIT: I've just read OldFolksBoogie's post here, it lists a few more examples of how the emotions are useful. And, I genuinely don't get it now, have you never been told such things before? Or do you (or Earl Grey even) just dismiss all of it out of hand by just seeing it as meaningless word salad? Or?

I think some people really do make fewer, or less serious, mistakes than others. One factor in this is the ability to learn from others' mistakes without having to make them oneself. I don't know whether this applies to Earl Grey, but it does to me.

I'm not buying the idea whenever someone says "oh I'll never make a big mistake in my life like others have". That to me is just too ignorant a claim.

Btw I'll say more below to Earl Grey about mistakes, do read that too.

How does it diminish it? I don't see this either.

It's simple enough. If you only utilise objective rationality, you will always remain blind to the emotional aspect of the situation. You may try and pick up some of it by inferences and general understandings on people, to try and do cognitive empathy, but it will lag a lot behind direct (emotional or affective) empathy that would give more information on the *actual* situation.

And if someone tries to utilise cognitive empathy too much without actually tuning in emotionally, let alone being interested in that, that can lead to disastrous results. Even if the person has good intentions only..... I've experienced that first-hand. Very heavily.

Why is it rude to expect someone who enjoys those social pleasantries to go without them, but not rude to expect someone who finds them pointless to offer them anyway? Seems the shoe can never be on the other foot in these situations. Catering to emotions is nearly always put forward as the correct path. Honestly, I don't care how "antisocial" someone is in these terms, as long as they are honest, competent, and reliable.

What I found rude there was calling the fact of the other person feeling bothered irrelevant or incorrect. What does it even mean, them feeling bothered being not "correct"? That doesn't even make sense beyond seeing that it's a criticism of an otherwise perfectly valid feeling of someone else's, hence rude. And calling it irrelevant, same issue with disregarding heavily the other person's experience.

What you mention about it being rude to expect someone who doesn't like doing x thing, to do x thing anyway. Well it depends on what's expected and why. It could be rude or intolerant even of differences. But, I don't see it as a terribly hard expectation or task to acknowledge someone else's presence in the workplace i.e. who's not even a stranger. Who you are going to collaborate with regularly, perhaps all day. It's quite a basic thing.

I'm going to say I had an issue understanding what's wrong with not focusing on social nuances of expression when discussing things in a completely technical environment (or so I thought, i.e. that it really is technical and not social whatsoever, heh). So I kind of understand your dilemma there, even if I never had an issue with seeing the point to saying hi.

So... when I say acknowledge their presence I don't mean that rationally you must have seen they are there and that the person should know this rationally. I mean it in a more emotional-social sense.

Where you speak of the shoe never being on the other foot. You get that feeling because most people and society in general do have a different preference from you there.

Note: I personally am not terribly bothered by someone not saying hi or otherwise make "noises" or movements to acknowledge my presence, though it is definitely jarring a bit. I don't take it personally, bc I know some people are just like that, and I'm not the most social in some aspects myself lol. But yeah, it's a bit jarring. For others who are more connected emotionally with others, I guess it's even more jarring... As I get more in touch with some emotions myself, I notice more of that in some situations and I understand it better when others are bothered by certain things. And that, eventually, has more advantages than disadvantages.

This is worth remembering, that people will have different degrees of natural ability with handling emotions, as with other tasks and skills. For some of us, emotional "data" really do come across as noise, or at least signal that falls outside the spectrum of our receiver. Most career counselors will tell people it pays greater dividends to develop your strengths than to shore up your weaknesses. Turning to others whose strengths are complementary is a legitimate way to address problems, whether personal or professional, and most workplaces value diversity of thought and approach just for this reason.

Yes. It came across as noise for me too. Until I started on the level that my brain was ready for. That is what I meant by that statement. That Earl Grey is not to be blamed for it if he couldn't manage it in years if he was given the too advanced tasks.

I would say you DO have to pay attention to weaknesses, what would not be paying off is if you worked too much on them expecting to become proficient in the area - but you do have to make sure they don't become an embarrassingly (or worse) weak link in the chain. Nothing wrong with turning to others too for help but you cannot always expect handholding.

Goodness. There's this, too. I maintain and cut my friendships, and they are not much emotionally-based, pain or joy or whatever. Every time I explain this, people either don't believe it, or cannot understand it. If they cannot understand my lack of emotionality- that is understandable. I cannot understand, nor can I even emulate their emotionality either, so it's a two-way thing. On the other side, this makes me fair- I don't overstay out of a compulsion of attachment, but I also don't just end it simply out of pain.

Usually I bring up the 'abusive people' example to illustrate how my approach and 'emotionality' (or lack thereof) works. People do note I have a much easier time calling people out or even making the decision of cutting them off when faced with abuse/disrespect. You can try all you want till you froth in the mouth, I cannot be swayed with emotional appeals- none of this funny "But we're friends/partners/lovers!" or "If you love me!" or any other of that kind of business. It really doesn't matter how long we've known each other or how long we've been friends. It has been true for as long as I can remember, and I have had no good reason to change it, unless it is about improving how I do it. Thankfully, a lot of my peers are catching up with that attitude (I consider it overall positive with good results) with age. Again, maybe a more 'extreme' example, but I don't have better ones that has helped make people understand how my approach works. This is also the reason I find it very easy to criticize even close friends, and I am confused when other people express difficulty in doing so (be it remaining critical: being able to spot the mistakes to begin with- or being criticizing: acting on it, and providing criticism).

I actually understand you there. I was the same way.

I find though, that as I get more and more in touch with feelings and emotions, I find it a more challenging (and so more satisfying when weathered and mastered) task to use objectivity along with facing the emotions of myself - and of other people's as well. Especially the latter, now that's the most fun challenge with this. (OK, sometimes only fun after I already mastered the specific aspect. ...until then very hard.)

As for finding it "very easy" to criticise close friends, that's a can of worms ofc. Some people don't simply get offended at criticism, but you can seriously affect their self-esteem in the wrong way (and yes such people could even be intelligent people otherwise, could have a very functional life without those egregious mistakes, just simply way more emotional in ways), or you can make people distance from you internally and eventually lose more and more benefits of the relationship. Or never gain them in the first place. Especially true with marriage and family life.

Anyway, where you said earlier that you don't make some mistakes others do... it's entirely possible that what you see a mistake, others don't perceive and experience as such i.e. not having bad consequences from it. Since you evaluated it based on your personal preferences only. Ofc some mistakes are objectively really big, I'm not talking about those.

Case in point: you said you had 96% Cautiousness or whatever. Someone who has less of this may have another way to deal with situations by winging them, where you'd see their lack of preparation as a mistake or bad risk.


***

And one more thing, both to you and to Coriolis: your main arguments rely on ignoring the perspective of others completely. How's that a valid argument, when it's just born out of the convenience of ignoring that which can't be immediately explained, where the contradictions can't be easily resolved without a lot of further research. ...

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[...snipped] That's the million dollar question, isn't it? The folks who like to preach the virtues of emotional intelligence to the likes of us never seem to be able to come up with any concrete advice on what we should do about it. For that matter, I have yet to see a convincing explanation of how taking more of an interest in this will improve things for myself or others. I suppose that is something I hope to learn from discussions such as this one.

Also, [MENTION=35920]Earl Grey[/MENTION] (I quoted Coriolis, but I'm addressing everyone in general.)

I haven't been following the discussion in this thread on empathy in particular; I still haven't had time to delve into the long discussions earlier in the thread. The posts are just too long.

But whenever the subject of empathy comes up, I think it's important to raise one important point: There are multiple forms of empathy. And they each have important strengths and important weaknesses.

So when someone is accused of not having enough "empathy," usually it just means that they are practicing a different form of empathy. For example, I wouldn't say that Coriolis is bad at empathy. Instead, I think she mainly uses cognitive empathy rather than affective empathy.

Anyway, there are two main categories of empathy, and I'll focus just on them for this post:
1) Affective empathy leans more toward the emotional side.
2) Cognitive empathy leans more toward the rational side.

Here is a side-by-side comparison:

1) Affective empathy is the "warm, emotional" kind: You pretty much feel what the other person is feeling: you walk a mile in their shoes. You "feel their pain" and would genuinely like to help out any way you can.

2) In contrast, cognitive empathy is the cool intellectual kind: You take an interest in the problems and concerns of other people, but you don't really "feel their pain"; instead, you weigh their concerns against other perspectives and make a rational decision as to what's needed to solve the problem.

To spell things out for each one individually:

1) Affective empathy (the "emotional" kind) is good on a personal, one-to-one basis, but it's frequently awful for policy-making or in the workplace. Affective empathy can be overly sentimental or even strident. Affective empathizers can "care too much" and end up in a lot of drama: They can turn hysterical, shrieky, and outraged when it comes to the problems of their family, their friends, some underprivileged group with whom they identify, their tribe, their flag, their country, etc. That's affective empathy at its worst.

2) The other kind of empathy is cognitive empathy (the "rational" kind): Self-restraint, backing off and taking the overview, and making a cool, rational, fair assessment of what the situation requires. For example, medical professionals and first responders who deal with emergency situations are often cognitive empathizers. They "care" enough to devote their lives to helping others, but it's a more intellectual kind of "caring" that allows them to handle lots of patients quickly. They rely on a combination of cognitive empathy to understand the perspective of their patients and rationality to make correct, decisions for the good of their patients. (First responders and medical personnel usually aren't affective empathizers, because affective empathizers tend to burn out from the emotional overload of all that pain around them.)

As for me personally:

Like most people, I'm perfectly capable of both kinds of empathy. In my youth I tended toward using lots of affective empathy (the "emotional" kind). Most of the time things worked out fine: In many cases I was genuinely helpful to people, they were genuinely grateful, and some excellent friendships and alliances arose from this wellspring of affective empathy.

But in some cases people tended to abuse my generosity, and sometimes I got sucked into other people's problems to the point that I became something of an enabler. For example, that was pretty much the story of my two marriages: I played the white knight for a couple "damsels in distress" and then came to regret it as the years passed. But it wasn't just my two marriages; there were plenty of other times where I just got sucked too deeply into other people's drama and ended up in over my head. Affective empathy just runs too hot sometimes, and it tends toward drama.

So in my old age I tend toward cognitive empathy (the "rational" kind). I take an interest in people's problems, and I dole out advice. But I keep a respectful distance, and the second I sense an ounce of drama occurring, I head for the exit. I realize that advice-giving can come off as haughty and remote. People in need generally don't want advice; they want feelings and actual physical assistance. But these days, I'm wary of overcommitment and getting sucked in too far. So I maintain that distance. I do genuinely care about other people's problems, at least enough to take an interest and even help dig up some resources for them. But that's as far as I go, at least when it comes to the general public. (Of course I'll make exceptions for family and people I know very well as being worthy of extra care.)

 

[Earl Grey]

I actually understand you there. I was the same way.

I find though, that as I get more and more in touch with feelings and emotions, I find it a more challenging (and so more satisfying when weathered and mastered) task to use objectivity along with facing the emotions of myself - and of other people's as well. Especially the latter, now that's the most fun challenge with this. (OK, sometimes only fun after I already mastered the specific aspect. ...until then very hard.)

As for finding it "very easy" to criticise close friends, that's a can of worms ofc. Some people don't simply get offended at criticism, but you can seriously affect their self-esteem in the wrong way (and yes such people could even be intelligent people otherwise, could have a very functional life without those egregious mistakes, just simply way more emotional in ways), or you can make people distance from you internally and eventually lose more and more benefits of the relationship. Or never gain them in the first place. Especially true with marriage and family life.

If they cannot handle it, it is in their best interests to leave. I tell them as much.

Anyway, where you said earlier that you don't make some mistakes others do... it's entirely possible that what you see a mistake, others don't perceive and experience as such i.e. not having bad consequences from it. Since you evaluated it based on your personal preferences only. Ofc some mistakes are objectively really big, I'm not talking about those.

Case in point: you said you had 96% Cautiousness or whatever. Someone who has less of this may have another way to deal with situations by winging them, where you'd see their lack of preparation as a mistake or bad risk.

Objective considerations apply only in objective measures. I do not (or at least try not) apply them to areas there other approaches would work better. Your example is irrelevant because it focuses on the method instead of the end results- the 'correctness' can only be measured by if the desired end result is gained, unless the subject of measurement takes into account the integrity of the process itself. I do mention from time to time that the realm of personal preferences is one place where there is no real answer- exactly because it is measured by personal preferences.

And one more thing, both to you and to Coriolis: your main arguments rely on ignoring the perspective of others completely. How's that a valid argument, when it's just born out of the convenience of ignoring that which can't be immediately explained, where the contradictions can't be easily resolved without a lot of further research. ...

I have mentioned at least once that I do not diminish those perspectives, or claim to be able to speak for others. I have mentioned that I speak only for myself, and that the things you have mentioned do not work for myself, but that others may find help in what you see. I would not say such a thing over nonsense. In fact- I try my best to incorporate them as long as those factors are made known, just like in the example of asking others for advice (or being in this thread at all)- that is anything but ignoring the matter, rather finding a way to resolve or consolidate factors I know exist, even if I may not have the expertise or understanding to resolve them myself. You are off the mark again here.

 

[Meowcat]

Isn't asking someone how they process emotions like asking them to take a scan of their brain? How can we measure how someone processes emotion? The intensity of the emotion? How long the emotion lasts? How they handle it/react to it? How aware they are of their emotions?

Good questions : p

And since I didn't really say much on the original OP yet. ...

I process in an inefficient way compared to you feelers lol .... [edit: I'm not calling you a feeler, I'm talking in general.] Inefficient in that it takes quite some brain resources. First I just try to run deductive logic for a while until I'm ready to see the emotion itself I guess - actual access will always be the hardest for me - or some insight randomly comes up bc of what I've been analysing about emotions and then I'm ready for accessing it, this is faster for some reason, sometimes anyway. And then I try to keep the deductive logic in the background as a lifeline so I don't die LOL while accessing emotional things.

Joke it's not always THAT bad.

You mentioned conditioning in the rest of your post. I think that actually does play a big role too. Like... if I figured out a new emotional situation, the whole situation really, not just the in-the-moment emotional state, then I condition myself to the right response (or right one of the possible responses depending on context). And then when it repeats enough times, the situation, it's much easier to respond to it fast and with much less energy expenditure (I mean mental and emotional energy too). Over time it all integrates itself into my worldview, too, I guess. Into my instinctual responses, even.


***

OP wondered how functions affect this. I still don't have a type on here, but, whatever function you want to associate deductive logic with. You know, build a system and use its rules. Yes I do that to emotions, even if they don't work effectively right away, I'll just perfect the understanding and the rules. I sometimes - rarely - get a "paradigm shift" on the whole system and that helps with better emotional processing too. Before anyone says, "but rules constrain emotions too much". Yeah, however... The rules also have worked for building a connection to the access to emotions itself, kind of like better communication established. Where rules built up a safe area but don't constrain the emotions and feelings so I can experience them and get more info too before running back to the lifeline .

 

[Meowcat]

But whenever the subject of empathy comes up, I think it's important to raise one important point: There are multiple forms of empathy. And they each have important strengths and important weaknesses.

Hell, yeah. Don't get too imbalanced between cognitive and affective empathy. Bad, bad, bad stuff results from it.

1) Affective empathy (the "emotional" kind) is good on a personal, one-to-one basis, but it's frequently awful for policy-making or in the workplace. Affective empathy can be overly sentimental or even strident. Affective empathizers can "care too much" and end up in a lot of drama: They can turn hysterical, shrieky, and outraged when it comes to the problems of their family, their friends, some underprivileged group with whom they identify, their tribe, their flag, their country, etc. That's affective empathy at its worst.

2) The other kind of empathy is cognitive empathy (the "rational" kind): Self-restraint, backing off and taking the overview, and making a cool, rational, fair assessment of what the situation requires. For example, medical professionals and first responders who deal with emergency situations are often cognitive empathizers. They "care" enough to devote their lives to helping others, but it's a more intellectual kind of "caring" that allows them to handle lots of patients quickly. They rely on a combination of cognitive empathy to understand the perspective of their patients and rationality to make correct, decisions for the good of their patients. (First responders and medical personnel usually aren't affective empathizers, because affective empathizers tend to burn out from the emotional overload of all that pain around them.)

You forgot to list the drawbacks for the cognitive empathy. Affective empathy *without* cognitive empathy is indeed awful in the workplace etc. lol. But with cognitive empathy it can be pretty great there too, depending on the work role.

Like most people, I'm perfectly capable of both kinds of empathy. In my youth I tended toward using lots of affective empathy (the "emotional" kind). Most of the time things worked out fine: In many cases I was genuinely helpful to people, they were genuinely grateful, and some excellent friendships and alliances arose from this wellspring of affective empathy.

But in some cases people tended to abuse my generosity, and sometimes I got sucked into other people's problems to the point that I became something of an enabler. For example, that was pretty much the story of my two marriages: I played the white knight for a couple "damsels in distress" and then came to regret it as the years passed. But it wasn't just my two marriages; there were plenty of other times where I just got sucked too deeply into other people's drama and ended up in over my head. Affective empathy just runs too hot sometimes, and it tends toward drama.

Funnily enough, when I just had cognitive empathy (consciously), I would have similar problems minus the drama part. I mean, I had problems with being too helpful. Due to the imbalance, I suppose. And that's not even the worst possible result of having too much of an imbalance between the two empathies.

So in my old age I tend toward cognitive empathy (the "rational" kind). I take an interest in people's problems, and I dole out advice. But I keep a respectful distance, and the second I sense an ounce of drama occurring, I head for the exit. I realize that advice-giving can come off as haughty and remote. People in need generally don't want advice; they want feelings and actual physical assistance. But these days, I'm wary of overcommitment and getting sucked in too far. So I maintain that distance. I do genuinely care about other people's problems, at least enough to take an interest and even help dig up some resources for them. But that's as far as I go, at least when it comes to the general public. (Of course I'll make exceptions for family and people I know very well as being worthy of extra care.)

And funnily enough, that's what affective empathy has helped give me some. That is, better prioritising. Better boundaries. Even the understanding on recognising it if something is going to turn into bad drama soon. (When it'd turned bad enough drama, ofc I could see that in the more imbalanced state too. But too late.) Etc. etc. Still work in progress ofc.

If they cannot handle it, it is in their best interests to leave. I tell them as much.

Some people are not going to have the awareness or the discipline enough or even the ability to hear you fully on it. If they are already emotionally invested, all this will become harder to manage. And so then, they can only come up to you many years later and saying that their rope lasted only until now. And then .....

Objective considerations apply only in objective measures. I do not (or at least try not) apply them to areas there other approaches would work better. Your example is irrelevant because it focuses on the method instead of the end results- the 'correctness' can only be measured by if the desired end result is gained, unless the subject of measurement takes into account the integrity of the process itself. I do mention from time to time that the realm of personal preferences is one place where there is no real answer- exactly because it is measured by personal preferences.

You missed it where I speak of the end result. Here: "not having bad consequences from it". And you cannot say that focusing on the method automatically invalidates an evaluation (without any further reasoning to prove why it is so in that case).

Where you called someone else's preference incorrect and irrelevant, it was also about personal preferences. What's more, that type of personal preference is the preference of most people.

I have mentioned at least once that I do not diminish those perspectives, or claim to be able to speak for others.

Yet when you criticise others - unless it is a completely objective matter not involving differences of personal preference - you do so.

I have mentioned that I speak only for myself, and that the things you have mentioned do not work for myself, but that others may find help in what you see. I would not say such a thing over nonsense. In fact- I try my best to incorporate them as long as those factors are made known, just like in the example of asking others for advice (or being in this thread at all)- that is anything but ignoring the matter, rather finding a way to resolve or consolidate factors I know exist, even if I may not have the expertise or understanding to resolve them myself.

Like I said before, you come off as being disinterested and having already put the final judgment on it with your favourite word being "irrelevant" about this topic. Or "why bother" and so on. Then you said you are interested after all, so .... that is a big discrepancy and interference in interpreting what you really mean.

But whenever I say anything concrete - and apparently, same for other people who have tried to discuss this topic with you - it's all brushed off immediately with calling it irrelevant and such, so it's hard for me not to categorise this as ignoring it all.

You are off the mark again here.

In your mind. How about considering the discrepancy I mention above?

 

[Earl Grey]

Some people are not going to have the awareness or the discipline enough or even the ability to hear you fully on it. If they are already emotionally invested, all this will become harder to manage. And so then, they can only come up to you many years later and saying that their rope lasted only until now. And then .....

Then?

You missed it where I speak of the end result. Here: "not having bad consequences from it". And you cannot say that focusing on the method automatically invalidates an evaluation (without any further reasoning to prove why it is so in that case).

I was responding specifically to what I bolded- it focuses on the processing over the end result, and is an example of evaluating 'correctness' (whether or not it is a mistake) from the processing.

Where you called someone else's preference incorrect and irrelevant, it was also about personal preferences. What's more, that type of personal preference is the preference of most people.

? Where did I say that? Best I can do is say that they are irrelevant to me. A friend and I walk into a restaurant- it does not matter in the realm of my own choices if they like seafood or whatever else.

Yet when you criticise others - unless it is a completely objective matter not involving differences of personal preference - you do so.

Wrong again. I can tell my friend it was a bad idea for them to gorge themselves on a large pizza and how it is bad for their health. That is anything but diminishing their perspectives- it is validating of the reality that they do indeed love pizza (their preferences themselves) because I cannot criticize what I do not acknowledge to exist.

What this is boiling down to for me is that there are ways to acknowledge emotion and emotional perspectives, without engaging in emotionality itself.

Like I said before, you come off as being disinterested and having already put the final judgment on it with your favourite word being "irrelevant" about this topic. Or "why bother" and so on. Then you said you are interested after all, so .... that is a big discrepancy and interference in interpreting what you really mean.

But whenever I say anything concrete - and apparently, same for other people who have tried to discuss this topic with you - it's all brushed off immediately with calling it irrelevant and such, so it's hard for me not to categorise this as ignoring it all.

Too narrow. I could be interested in this as a general perspective, but not for myself. Back to the seafood example above- I do not need to be interested in seafood personally to want to study it. This much has nothing to do with the thread topic.

In your mind. How about considering the discrepancy I mention above?

I have, and shooting down whichever of your posts are off the mark or presumptuous.