Discouraging Emotional People

[ak666]

This is somewhat of a follow-up to a previous MyTake I attempted entitled, "Unemotional is Strong, Emotional is Weak".

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/guys-behavior/a35010-emotional-is-weak-unemotional-is-strong

One of the things I'm guilty of doing that others have pointed out is that I bastardized definitions of "unemotional" and "emotional" behavior to make these terms fit ideas of "strong-minded" vs. "weak-minded".

This was partially in response to some discussions I've had in the past where perception of males being "unemotional" was considered a very negative quality, and in response to the conclusion that we should encourage men to be "more emotional" and "sensitive".

Encouraging Emotional Behavior

What does it mean, exactly, to encourage someone to become "more emotional"? This is riddled with ambiguity. I would suggest that there are some cases where it is arguably good and substantially more cases where it is clearly bad for a person to behave "more emotionally".

Negative examples:

1. A guy punches someone else for a remark which wasn't even intended to offend. Clearly such a guy is behaving in a "very emotional" way. Is that what we want to encourage?

2. A female leader at her workplace who others (male and female alike) look up to for strength and guidance is having a bad day and breaks down crying in the middle of a presentation when asked a challenging question. In the process, she loses the respect of those who look up to her. That's obviously very emotional behavior, but is it really productive?

3. A boyfriend slams a door on his girlfriend and refuses to talk to her even though she was being very gentle and affectionate towards him. He's obviously behaving in a very emotional way, but do we want more guys like this in society?

4. A person prone to high levels of stress and misery turns to self-destructive behavior to cope with the misery (self-harm, substance abuse, stress eating, etc). Such a person is acting in a very emotionally-impulsive way, but do we want to encourage this type of behavior?

Unless we're very careful to distinguish the cases where it's beneficial to act "more emotionally", we could be in danger of seeing far more behaviors and individuals such as those described above.

Encouraging Mature, Strong-Minded People

Because the concept of being "more emotional" is so prone to ambiguity, I think it's typically better to err on the side of encouraging what was classically considered "strong-minded" and "mature" as opposed to "weak-minded" and "immature". This stance requires some level of self-discipline and restraint against our emotional impulses because emotional discipline is typically a key component of maturity and strength of mind.

One of the few cases where I can see being "more emotional" as a good thing is when acting on emotional impulses is productive towards an individual's well-being and potentially others around him/her. That typically requires some level of emotional discipline as well. It cannot come from a being who is completely uninhibited whatsoever and uses only the figurative heart without ever likewise involving the brain.

For example, an individual who cries in front of trusted peers at the loss of a loved one isn't necessarily behaving in a counter-productive way. Doing this in a suitable environment could be therapeutic and productive, and discouraging that behavior in such a context could be very counter-productive. Yet someone who cries excessively over petty things is clearly behaving in a completely impulsive and counter-productive way.

Another case is communication of thoughts and feelings. Yet it seems rather bizarre to me to lump those who are capable of effectively communicating their thoughts and feelings as "more emotional", as it typically requires a fairly calm mind to do it.

One last case is being empathetic. It's also somewhat bizarre to me to suggest that someone who is very empathetic is "more emotional". We typically don't say things like:

Wow, that girl is acting so emotionally. She's so empathetic and kind towards everyone.

Empathy isn't necessarily a quality achieved through being "more emotional" (at least I find this idea confusing), though it requires one form of outward sensitivity.

Encouraging Sensitivity

Encouraging sensitivity is also not necessarily a good thing. It depends on the kind of sensitivity. "Sensitive" is also an ambiguous term.

One type of sensitivity is an inward kind. In that case, an individual who is described as "sensitive" would typically be prone to take heavy offense at things that weren't even intended to offend, and potentially get extremely upset over the most trivial of things. This is not a good quality to encourage if we want productive individuals in a society.

Another type of sensitivity is the outward kind. That would be sensitivity towards others. Such an individual would tend to be empathetic, diplomatic, and tactful, careful to rationally choose their actions with careful considerations of how their actions would likely make others feel. This is certainly a good quality to promote as it encourages productive individuals who avoid unnecessary social conflicts.

As a result, we should discourage inward sensitivity (people who are easily offended) while simultaneously promoting outward sensitivity. We need to make that careful distinction as we do not want to encourage a society filled with individuals who get offended about everything.

Some people tend to lump these concepts together, as though one cannot exist without the other. I've not found that to be true whatsoever, as I've encountered some very diplomatic people who are very sensitive towards others but are not easily offended whatsoever. Perhaps they once had this type of inward sensitivity as well, but they've matured and overcome it. These are typically some of the most productive members of society when it comes to forming and improving relationships with those around them while simultaneously avoiding unnecessary conflicts.

Conclusion

I hope I've made a case for why we need to at least be very careful when it comes to simply encouraging individuals to be "more emotional" or "more sensitive". Unless we are very careful to make distinctions, this could lead to an explosion of the negative qualities and individuals described above.

This subject is dear to me because the last thing my teenage self needed with anger management issues was encouragement to simply be "more emotional and sensitive".

My former self would have interpreted that in a way where he would have grown increasingly comfortable and secure with his anger management issues instead of seeking to overcome them as I did years later. If anything, in this context of interpretation, he needed to become "less emotional" and "less sensitive" to grow into a more mature, calmer, and stronger-minded individual.

[Eternallylucky]

This take is not written well. It's just too black and white. Poor wording of words. People have a right to be emotional but not to the point of letting it get out of control. The point is not to become passive - aggressive but still learn to express it calmly and through words without all the primal screaming and violence that comes from their voice.

When people get all out of control, it's because they were triggered by a negative situation that's to do with abuse or someone hurt them deeply that they never got to express. I believe the people can express emotions rather than be a robot: are very emotionally intelligent. There are ways to release those intense emotions especially anger and transmute into something more constructive than destructive.

[Eternallylucky]

expressing emotions effectively

[ak666]

The poor choice of words was what I was attempting to criticize. Encouraging people to become "more emotional" can suggest that they act directly on their impulses, like anger, in ways that lead to regrettable outcomes and heightened stress for everyone (even the person acting directly on that anger).

We can't make someone "more emotional" in the sense of feeling more emotions, or "less emotional" in the sense of feeling less emotions. People cannot help but feel what they feel.

What they can help is how they behave in response to how they feel. What I'm trying to encourage is to separate actions from feelings a little bit better in favor of a calmer mindset. The calmer mindset would also be the type required to take gentle and pacifistic actions such as communication to deescalate, rather than create or escalate, conflicts.

[ak666]

The practical dichotomy to me is not between making someone feel more or feel less. That's largely incapable of being controlled.

It's the dichotomy between whether they can separate some of their outward actions from what they feel or not. The person who decides to calmly lead others to a safe exit in the presence of danger isn't necessarily feeling less fear than the others. The difference is that they've developed the type of discipline and calmness to not act directly on that fear in those moments.

Now when I get into an argument with a friend or colleague, I still feel the anger and the temptation to act on it in counter-productive ways. What I can now control, having trained myself, is to instead calmly and gently talk to them in an affectionate way. Lacking that training I would have shouted, insulted, become belligerent right back -- that was natural tendency before when feeling anger until I learned how to become "less emotional and less sensitive".

[ak666]

This article is also more targeted towards a male demographic. I don't know what females are naturally inclined to do, for example, when they female anger or feel offended. Their natural instinct might be to communicate calmly and gently.

For guys that often isn't the case. If we're feeling anger, our instincts, rather due to social conditioning or biology, is often to act aggressive or want to be alone -- to shout, to become belligerent, maybe even violent, or to shut the other person out completely. That's the natural inclination we tend to have when we're feeling this emotion, and if we act on it intuitively and instinctively, those are the types of "emotional" behaviors that result.

It takes defying those emotions, to act against what they're strongly urging us to do, to instead calm ourselves and gently talk things out. But that's part of what I'm encouraging -- to take "less emotional" courses of actions which don't come natural to us but help the situation and ourselves.

[ak666]

[...] I don't know what females are naturally inclined to do, for example, when they female [/feel] anger or feel offended.

I think the only practical use of "more emotional" or "less emotional" is not in terms of what the person is feeling, but their choice of actions. For example, if i'm feeling intense anger, I would say:

Most uninhibited, impulsive, emotional action: punch someone.

Very emotional action, a little bit inhibited (but not much): be belligerent, insult, shout, abuse verbally.

Emotional action, a bit more inhibited: refuse to talk to the person and ignore them.

Most unemotional action, completely inhibiting my instincts and taking a moment to use level-headed, calm thinking: hug the person I'm furious at and gently talk things out.

I have reached a point of discipline where I can actually take the most unemotional action in spite of feeling incredible anger. And I've found it has improved my entire life. My hope is for others to learn to do the same.

[Eternallylucky]

Too bad you didn't mentioned this take was directed more at very masculine males type A who have trouble containing their emotions. If these emotions were provoked, it means they still got to release it somehow.

[ak666]

I wish we could edit these takes. I often find the answers revealing in how to clarify intentions. In my case there is that spectrum of "emotional" to "unemotional" behavior which has nothing to do with what the person is feeling, but how impulsive their actions are vs. how calm and level-headed they are. "Unemotional", in this sense to me, is often empathetic and calm.

[ak666]

... for the simple reason that remaining calm and empathetic in our outward actions is challenged by intense emotions. It takes a tremendous amount of discipline to empathize and act calmly towards someone who you despise in the moment, or to empathize with a criminal, for example, who did horrible things.

[Eternallylucky]

What is your method of being emotionally disciplined? telling people to think before they act, isn't that easy because those emotions are like things stuck onto them. In practice, people release it by taking it out on others unknowingly by emotionally abusing them or worse, it turns into physical abuse atimes.

[ak666]

My personal relation to it that made sense to me was using a boxing analogy. When someone throws you a punch, your instinct is to step back and lose your footing. Now you're in a worse position than before. Yet with some discipline, you can learn how to side-step and actually gain even better footing than before. That's just a personal analogy that made sense to me to overcome anger.

I learned how when my girlfriends were pushing my buttons and trying everything they could to provoke me to stop getting angry. I had learned to inhibit my anger to the point beforehand of just shutting them out and ignoring them, but it wasn't inhibited enough.

One day I just recognized my tendencies here and, in that moment where I wanted to shut the girl out, I just learned how to hit a virtual "pause" button. I asked myself, "What is the best course of action right now? Is it really to shut the girl out?" And it became obvious in the briefest of moments, that the answer was "no". It would just [...]

[ak666]

[...] make our relationship worse and make it more difficult to recover from that situation. All I needed was a few seconds to think about this calmly in spite of feeling anger, all I needed was that virtual "pause" button.

After I thought about this, as much as it defied every fiber of my being, I forced myself to hug the girl and ask what was really bothering her. She melted and confessed some of her feelings to me. The first time I did this, it turned out to be some insecurities on her part, and our mutual understanding grew in that moment.

I strengthened, rather than weakened, the relationship by choosing to defy my emotional impulses.

The first time was the hardest. The second time, that "pause" button was easier to jam. The third time, it was a piece of cake. Over time it become natural for me to do this.

[Eternallylucky]

It sounds like some volatile relationships you've had in the past.

[ak666]

Yes, though it took two to tango. I made things worse often by escalating the arguments, and in retrospect after discovering my wife with whom I live together so peacefully, it wouldn't have necessarily been so beneficial for me to have tried to make them work.

Yet my actions were still regrettable. It takes two to tango in an argument. It ceases when one becomes the bigger person and allows some things to slide, calms down, and talks gently and calmly. I never had it in me before that point to be the "bigger person".

That's another part of this as I see it. Bigger person implies that you let some perceived injustices and unfair treatment slide here and there. This idea of obsessing over what is and isn't fair can also become a very destructive force, since fairness is a subjective idea (two partners could have incompatible ideas on what is and isn't fair exactly).

Last is just reaching a peak state of maturity. I used to excuse poor behavior on my part, saying things like...

[ak666]

... "She did this, therefore I behaved poorly." I had good reasons but I was still being immature, while simultaneously oblivious to the fact, since the highest state of maturity and accountability cannot excuse poor behavior on any account.

Once I started changing my frame of mind, I got to the point where it's impossible for anyone to provoke me now. I think I'm at the stage now where someone could even punch me in the face and I'd respond by calmly and gently asking them what's wrong.

Of course I'd fight back if they didn't desist, but that is my natural instinct now.

[ak666]

Last but not least, this is something I have yet to figure out in terms of how to articulate, but stress and offense has become largely optional to me now. In many scenarios, I have the *option* to be stressed or offended, and therefore I can choose not to be stressed or offended.

I don't know how this came about exactly. It was just a byproduct of starting to accept and live by these other frames of thoughts. Over time I just became a calmer and less stressed out individual who is incredibly difficult to offend. I don't know how I did it exactly except that it seemed to start when I began defying my emotional impulses.

[Eternallylucky]

Have you ever gotten professional help to smooth the trails of your overthinking?

[ak666]

Nope -- never managed to go to therapy. It was mainly losing a girlfriend as a result of failing to be that better person that made me start to realize that I was doing something incredibly wrong.

[Eternallylucky]

I think it's just society conditioning that when you never learnt to express your emotions properly without having the need to get ticked off in the past. Everything that we are, comes from our early family upbringing.

[ak666]

That makes a lot of sense. In my case I was largely raised by a single mother and was given somewhat of a pampered upbringing, encouraging me to be emotional and sensitive. I became that to a large extent but not in the positive sense of "emotional" and "sensitive", like being empathetic and communicating feelings gently. I became that in the sense of becoming impulsive and easily offended by everything. Part of the rectifications I discovered, I think, was just somewhat learning "how to be a man" without the aid of a father.

[Eternallylucky]

sorry to say this but the west tend to be about spoiling the inner child, and letting children get away with too much things

[Eternallylucky]

Children shouldn't have too many rights when they are young.

[Iraqveteran666]

Good take. All true. Seems like people think it's appropriate to spew their options all over you. I blame the media bombarding us with sob stories.

[IvoirianGirl20]

I hope you understand the difference between your opinion/perspective vs what is really going on

[ak666]

Here's a bit more of an authority on the subject:
www.imom.com/.../#.WLEKslN97mg

... same kind of principle:

>> Dr Meeker explains that, when boys are still young, they need to learn that while their feelings can be intense, they do not need to be ruled by them. In fact, she says that moms can put it this way to heir sons, “Are you going to allow your feelings to dominate your decisions, or are you going to take charge of them?”

[ak666]

I realize not all people are controlled by their emotions to such a degree -- but for those who are, as I was in my teens especially, this idea of not letting our emotions dictate our actions can really help a lot. It's what allows me now, in moments of anger, to not act upon it when it's counter-productive.

[Megalizmo21]

Wow. This was so good. I was like nodding my head vigorously while reading it. I wish more people would think like this! Thanks for sharing.

[Imhotep99]

An angry mind is a narrow mind. - Michael Jai White.

[Ovidiu-Nicolae]

Anger is a natural emotion that we all feel

[Imhotep99]

@Ovidiu-Nicolae Yes. But it isn't a good one.

[Ovidiu-Nicolae]

Yes it is a good one, all emotions are good in moderation and are vad in excess

[Imhotep99]

@Ovidiu-Nicolae Yeah. That quote refers to excess anger (it is from a fighting movie by the way). The pupil asks the teacher- isn't anger good for fighting? We work harder when we're angry right?
The teacher answers- No. You don't work harder when you're angry. Anger just makes you feel you're working harder.

[AgentDearestZ]

When you're taught from birth to never cry expect pent up feeling to reveal themselves badly. Somewhat a good take.

[GreatnessBack]

Good take as always.