Just to clarify I am on the autism spectrum and so my emotional experience seems to differ from most neurotypicals. However, I do have a few theories about emotional responses that I've kicked around for the past few years.
I recently helped a friend get clean from methamphetamine and sort through their borderline personality disorder. When I say help, I mostly just mean that I gave them a safe spot to be, connected them with the appropriate resources, and pointed them back on the path to mental health when they got too close to falling off of the wagon.
It was a very long process (roughly 2 years to get to stability/success), and I don't think it's something most neurotypicals would have seen through to the end despite claims of heightened empathy.
What does all this have to do with being a slave to emotional reasoning? My friend's bpd was fascinating and incredibly frustrating to watch. He would loop rapidly throughout the day. Something minor would trigger him, and he'd have an intense meltdown (think a two year old throwing a tantrum in an adults body).
After the episode he felt genuinely awful. He'd resolve not to loop again, and then the next day we'd be right back where we started.
At first, I thought it was chosen behavior, and I was angry. Then I realized that it really wasn't.
I saw his bpd as the extreme of neurotypical emotional reasoning. His feelings and emotions literally dictated his reality. If he felt betrayed then it was because he had been betrayed, if he felt scared then it was because he was in intense danger.
There was no ability to slow the emotional loop, insert logic, and get off the train. But, once he was calm he could explain how he had interpreted things and then his reactions made logical sense in his version of reality.
I suspect that there is a continuum among neurotypicals in there response to emotional stimuli. Most are not as extreme as my friend (who created patently false realities based on his feelings) and couldn't function, but some degree of emotional reasoning is socially functional.
To a psychopath I suspect that neurotypical levels of emotional reasoning look a lot like how neurotypicals would view my friend with bpd's emotional reasoning.
In both cases, I suspect that it isn't within the individuals full control. In my friends case it took years of therapy and practice to change the neurological pathways.
Today, he is still someone I consider to be on the higher end of emotionally reactive/driven by emotional reasoning, but he falls within the range of what neurotypicals would call normal, and he can function in society.
In terms of choice overall, there is a commonly cited study that shows our brain sends a behavioral impulse before we become consciously aware of it. So, instead of the causal chain of events going conscious awareness of choice, brain signal, action, it actually goes brain signal, conscious awareness of choice, action.
My takeaway from that is that we are actually reactionary beings not choice driven beings. Change the upbringing, the genetics, and/or the environment and you will get different reactions over time. My two cents. Hope you found it interesting.
The behavior impulse sent prior to awareness is what brings to question the notion of free will and if it is real or not. Interesting, but not one I can say I have an answer to.
Your friend does sound like my perception of neurotypical reality, however, instead of within a day, it seems those emotional experiences are stretched out over weeks or months, sometimes years. It's watching the same loops, and same responses, and same outcomes again and again. I can offer advice, but their emotions make them think that it will be different this time somehow. It never is, and it's the same lesson that they should have learned, but haven't, and won't.
Perhaps BPD and NTs aren't so different, maybe it's just their timelines are. BPD cycles rapidly, where NTs have a slower trip on the same route. Likely I am over simplifying things to an extreme degree. I admit where I have a lack of information, and this is one of those subjects.
It's not an official diagnoses yet(what a surprise, lol), but it's beginning to get traction as a risk factor for multiple disorders later in life., and it hits both neurotypicals and autistic people (or does it? but that's a completely different discussion now)
To answer your question, yes, some neurotypicals can. But I've met extremely few. I would label this ability "awareness of cognitive bias". It's also a component of what it means to have little/no ego by my definition. The two people who I know who can do this are my best friends (one is a high-functioning psychopath and the other person is a neurotypical); I find it extremely hard to bond with people who can't.
I have to work hard to do this consistently. My neurotypical friend also shared with me once that he has to as well, during a conversation about it. It is a painful process, as when we are wrong, part our ego dies. But in pursuit of a true, objective worldview, it is necessary.
The rule you defined about considering information more strongly when you have an emotional response to it is very clever. My technique involves being aware of such biases from experience and when in a situation where it will be triggered, to create equal opposite thoughts that challenge the potentially biased belief. I created these habits many years ago when I became aware of how plagued I was by invalid beliefs that were holding me back from navigating the world successfully.
Another interesting bias is the self-serving bias, often manifesting itself in the form of blame. However, any highly rational person knows that shifting focus anywhere outside of your immediate control (e.g blaming) relinquishes their autonomy. So to remain in control, I've made a habit that whenever my subconscious thoughts push up blame, I consciously block it and assess what I could've done better in that situation.
One thing I can share as a neurotypical from experience and also observation of others, is that the stronger the emotion, the harder it is the reevaluate beliefs. However, with great discipline, even in those situations information can be evaluated without bias. Also, I find that while men are ridden with emotionally-driven biases, their more emotional counterparts are even worse.
What you said reminds me of a quote by Larry Elder;
"My dad always told me and my brothers this:
Hard work wins. You get out of life what you put into it. You can’t control the outcome, but you are one hundred percent in control of the effort. And before you get mad at someone else for what you think that they have done to you, go to the nearest mirror, look into it as say; What could I do to change the outcome. And he also said, no matter how good you are, no matter how hard you work, sooner or later bad things are going to happen. How you respond to those bad things is what is going to tell your mom and me whether or not we raised a man."
I have always liked that quote. It reminds me of the thinking I have towards competition. If you are competing with anyone but yourself, you have already lost the fight.
People have a tendency to look outwards for motivation, for a target of blame, for responsibility, for many things that would be best found within, but for some reason aren't good enough to rely on when they are from the self.
For me, I will always look to myself. Where did I fail, what can I improve, when can I try again? When I cook something for the first time, I am already thinking about how I will make it better next time, and the time after that. How can I challenge myself to make this even more tasty. I don't have an interest in people telling me how good it is, tell me what's wrong with it, so I can work out how to fix it next time.
That has always been how my mind works, and when I don't know, that's okay too. The idea of being wrong, or not knowing something gives me a new path forward to be somewhere different that I am right this moment. I like that, I suppose if I was plagued by fear, and were resistant to change however, it might seem very disconcerting.
This is a very interesting topic! I have thought on this a lot too, and I am not sure we can know the answer. It touches on arguments re. "free will" that never have complete solutions, I think.
One issue -- I am not sure that there is such a thing as completely "logical" human thought. One can get back to premises of arguments/thoughts, and examine those for emotional influence, for evidence of addiction to a belief system... but I've never found any thoughts to be definitely completely free of emotional influences, if I dig deep enough. However one can generally argue about whether such thoughts are free of those influences or not! But how can you prove it? One's internal experience is not good enough, imo, since humans tend to be (blind) to the internal motivations that one hasn't examined well enough to be conscious of yet. In my experience to date, there is always something more to discover about myself; it's like an infinite progression. I have had the experience of discovering an assumption in my thoughts that was affecting conclusions. I'm still not sure that discovering it completely removes its influence though.
That doesn't necessarily apply to all people or neurotypes! (I kinda feel it probably does, but that's probably my problem!) Just my experience and observation.
One of the differences I feel exists between my processing and that of (likely) "neurotypicals" who I know: it seems to me like more of their thoughts are sort of "compiled" with emotions. If you're a computer person, you might know that word. It is like their emotions are part of the thoughts more, and they seem unable to see the effect of the emotions as well as I think I can. Am I imagining this? Who knows! Maybe I just have similar effects but can't see them. Maybe we can see other peoples' better than we can see our own, and those that are more different from ours, are more evident to us.
However autistics have been shown in some research (I'll try to find it) to be less susceptible to "groupthink" than ostensible NTs. I believe that particular issue is related to emotions they have that I have less of; I don't care as much in a certain way about the views of others, it does not mold my thoughts, though I do "care" often, it just doesn't seem to change my thinking as directly.
Athena, have you read on "implicit bias"? That is possibly related, if I'm understanding your question right. It theoretically has to do with brain wiring; the shortcuts (many?) human brains take to reduce decision-making time, some of which lead to biased treatment of members of various groups of people. It's a measurable effect.
I would agree, there isn't such a thing as completely logical thoughts, because we are still subjected to out limitation of information. What may seem extremely logical to us is simply our perception based on what we know.
Imagine a world in which it is entirely run by an AI system. We, as humans, earn money by completing tasks that the AI assigns us. We would just be living out livs, and our phone would ding wit a message, "jump up and down three times", and we do it. As soon as we do, a bitcoin drops into our account, we shrug, and go cool!
It seems completely illogical to us, and random at best, but to the AI, that can see a much larger puzzle, it is entirely logical. It was the most efficient way to accomplish a task that it needs accomplished, and used it's little hamster humans to do it. The hamster humans are happy to get paid, and will complete the task without question, the AI is satisfied, and the world continues on.
Logically, the action makes sense on a purely utilitarian level. You jump three times, you get money. If you really evaluate it however, it is illogical, and pretty well nonsensical to just randomly jump up and down three times. That's just because we aren't able to see past our own contribution, but the computer can.
Thoughts are a lot like this. We think what we think based on the picture we can see, but we have no idea if that picture is even in focus. We just take it on faith that it is. Perhaps the emotional neurotypicals, and the cold psychopaths are just cogs in a machine that cannot be perceived by the hamster humans.
I would only add that there are actually completely logical thoughts, it’s just the conclusions that we arrive at using logic don’t always (and often) reflect the reality, because there is either not enough information or we have false information. (Or information that is irrelevant (like false analogies).
p.s. while I am unsure, and doubtful, that individuals can completely get out from under the influence of emotions, I do hold people responsible for working on the issues to the best of their abilities -- and as a society we have to treat (most adult) people as though they have control, agency, in some basic ways under our laws etc. even if they might not.
Well I'm late to the party but here goes. As a child, and to a lesser extent as a teenager, I was very destabilized by others different beliefs. I wanted certainty and had the arrogance of youth. That all changed quickly with education, introspection, and real life experiences. The key point is that I was emotionally reactive to different beliefs, but intellectually, holding things up for scrutiny was natural and inevitable. This becomes self reinforcing as one learns the lessons of recognising having been very limited in understanding or very wrong about something. The feeling of discovery and illumination outweighs the cringe. So while it is a long time since I have felt strongly threatened by different beliefs per se, I can remember the feeling.
What does affect me extremely strongly is actions that go against my Humanist values. I am deeply upset by people arguing in bad faith, being disingenuous, intellectual dishonesty, intentionally deceptive lines of argument, lack of intellectual courage, perverse willfull stupidity, cynical exploitation of ignorance, refusal to look at evidence etc. I felt this same disbelief and upset confusion as a child, long before I had the words for such things, I just could see how unhelpful such things are, how they could lead only to bad stuff, in relationships, in knowledge. And that has not changed, the upset is still intense and visceral. Supposedly this is an Aspergers trait. Perhaps.
Yes. While I don't have psychopathy, I'm very cold and callous in nature - I don't feel remorse or regret unless caught, and I never have. Few things can send me into the realm for such a strong emotional response, but one is abuse of children.
While I can feel this cold murderous sensation rising in me, I have no problem flicking the switch.
With one exception - sexual predators.
If you can, do you find yourself in the habit of doing so, or is the threat response to strong to counter it?
Yes, constantly, but I think that has something to do with my manipulative nature. I had a very manipulative and abusive mom and absent dad. I learned her behavior early.
I like my herd of sheep thick. If one of them breaks a leg, I don't shoot it. I take the wool, the milk, the lambs - it doesn't make sense to me to react emotionally.
But..
When I got my hands on the guy who raped my sister, I was helpless though.
When I saw a guy grope my ex butt at a nightclub, I broke his hand.
When I saw my friend punch his gf while drunk, I knocked his teeth out.
Do you find yourself to be more logical in your consideration of the world, or do your emotions attach to your beliefs, making them hard to reevaluate?
I think I'm logical in how I view the world and respond to it. However, people don't call me logical, but cold and callous.
But, the exception to the rule is sexual predators. I wouldn't say this about all murderers.
But these pathetic waste of meat and flesh scumbags that prey on the weak?
That belief will never change, no matter what.
So, yeah, I guess I'm a slave under some of my beliefs, very much so.
I guess it's a weakness; a blind-spot where somebody could ruin my life by manipulating it correctly and making me react in a manner that is not socially acceptable.
I have a very similar regard for those that prey on the weak. Someone having to take advantage of those that cannot put up a defense is a person of worthless character, and not valuable enough to warrant consideration.
I can't understand why we waste money as a society on keeping them locked up when you can buy bullets whole-sale. What scares me more are "normal" people who just turn the other cheek.
What you once wrote about empaths is so true - most neurotypicals claim to be just that, but lack any and every trait of it, when it boils down to something beyond campfire Kumbaya-sing alongs.
More and more I am seeing a push to normalize this sort of thinking, and these little intrusions or tests to see what might be considered acceptable. There is a bigger intrusion, pushback, and then a reset, almost like the thought of "too much too fast".
All of it is too much, and normalizing the sexualization of children is never acceptable. People need to think about this far more critically, and stop allowing their boundaries about it to be erroaded away, and replaced by a new normal.
I have considered this without the annoyance of public pressure, and while I know many NTs have a hard time separating themselves from the group think mentality, I wouldn't think "don't sexualize children" would be one that they could arrive to a conclusion about without feeling like they are about to be thrown out of society, or at the very least not care if they are.
"I have considered this without the annoyance of public pressure, and while I know many NTs have a hard time separating themselves from the group think mentality, I wouldn't think "don't sexualize children" would be one that they could arrive to a conclusion about without feeling like they are about to be thrown out of society, or at the very least not care if they are."
This is so, so true. And sad at the same time.
The only people here (Sweden) who actually are moral in this regard, are the biker gangs. They beat child-abusers and rapists to death or into wheel-chairs, in and outside of prison. But the average Jane & John Doe don't do anything. At all.
A handful of my old friends had their sisters/girlfriends raped. Most of the knew the assailants, none did anything. I'm not a violent person. It makes me nauseous. But I know the difference between violence and violence. Some of it is necessary.
People complain and want a better society, but nobody wants to get their hands dirty. And somebody's hands will get dirty when shoveling shit.
It's funny, because people are often taken aback by what I have to say on the matter, and take it for an emotional statement, when in reality it isn't. I don't even care for children. However, I have had a friend that has worked with severely abused people for years, and I have interacted with a number of them. This is lifelong abuse, and some were only rescued as an adult, but many as children themselves.
I have no time for those that are so ill prepared for consequences of their ill actions that they try to mitigate them by preying on the weak. It was well said once;
"Don't tell me you came to kill, without being prepared to die yourselves."
Haha. Same here. I don't like kids, but they are kids.
Whenever I have uttered this sentiment, I can feel the air getting sucked out of the room.
Could you maybe describe how'd you react to, let's say finding a sexual predator. Would your code of conduct possess you to do anything, or could you just shrug it off and walk away?
How do you think you'd react?
I'm not trying to belittle the struggles that comes with psychopathy in this day and age, but somedays I can't help but think that not having to feel anxiety, for example, must be such relief.
I do believe that heroes and psychopaths are cut from the same cloth; without psychopathy, I don't think humanity would've made it this far - it's a predatory world and most people aren't equipped, or equipped to heavy with emotions and other evolutionary "defects" that stunt us, to be predatory when necessary.
"Don't tell me you came to kill, without being prepared to die yourselves."
I can override this response, but it takes nontrivial mental energy to do so, meaning that over some given time frame (lets say, a day), if I'm exposed to things that cause this sort of response, I'm less likely to try overriding it. Also, as my day-to-day functioning steadily declines, I find myself often not having the mental reserves to consider worldviews and opinions I am opposed to, especially those that I find (justifiably or not) stupid and/or disturbing. I find that my ability to calmly assess a position that makes me uncomfortable is very dependent on my general mental condition. There are definitely things that I believe because I want to believe, and the danger of letting such things set in my mind is not lost on me but at the moment I have no idea how to manage it short of shutting down all thinking and going into deep sleep until I somehow get better.
I don't mean to sound like I'm fishing for sympathy, the point is, the ability to reflect on beliefs like this, especially when it takes you out of your comfort zone, is not some static trait of character. I'm pretty convinced that it really suffers from the enormous information influx that comes from being very online as well.
That is extremely interesting. I imagine that online exposure to information is a large part of this. It can be unreal how much we are expected to sift through to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. It could drive a person mad.
I sometimes think that the Internet (and whatever global information networks that may follow in the future) is a sort of superpowerful remote organ, or a cybernetic, that we have developed/that has emerged in us as a species, that has the potential to propel us into a completely different level of consciousness and intelligence but to which we are simply not adapted yet. You just have to wonder what kind of world would we live in if everyone who has Internet access had maximized its' potential as a learning tool, rather than a way to accrete so much informational detritus that you can't tell which way is up anymore. You justifiably write that the world is built to fit nts by and large in one (or more) of your Quora posts, and I just want to add that that includes not just the ways to make us emotionally comfortable, possibly at the expense of people that are not like us, but also systems that exploit and reward our various emotional impulses viciously to make us think, feel and behave a certain way, sort of like twitter emphasizes anger and snappiness over careful deliberation by the very premise of its design. It's both fascinating and unnerving, seeing how these things are more often than not emergent, rather than results of planning, or at least it seems so to me. They catalyze the cycle of emotions begetting emotions, which already exists and is already a force to be reckoned with both at an individual level and in a society, making the mechanism you described in this post just that much harder hitting. I think that this is one major reason for why we see such massive amounts of barely challenged disinfo and shockingly many people buying into it. What would have taken a proper cult and a lot of time before happens now almost spontaneously, and startlingly quick too.
I agree with waxcatape's comment here. It takes nontrivial mental energy to override my impulse to dismiss points of view that I see as absurd (because based on disinformation or mindsets that I do not respect). OTOH, I also have strong impulses and interest in trying to understand points of view that I deeply disagree with. That is, I wonder how and why conservatives hold the opinions they do. So I will read and explore research and discussions that shed light on the "underneath" attitudes that lead to political conservatism.
I do this because one of my strongly held values is respecting and understanding other people. I wouldn't say it's because I value logic and reasoning above all else. Those have an important role in life, yes. And as a typically emotional neurotypical, I also value the role of emotion in my life. (Which is one reason why I find your explanations and descriptions of psychopathy so fascinating! Coming to understand what it's like to live without that in one's life.) Emotion certainly complicates my life, but it also enriches it. To me, it's like the difference between bland food and the variety that spices bring.
But as to "do differing points of view evoke a threat response for me?" Mostly not, unless that point of view relates to a direct threat to my life or the life of people I hold dear. Eg, abortion. I'm a botched abortion survivor from back in the day when it was illegal. So all these pro-choice folks who want to control what we women can do with our bodies--that makes me a bit crazy. And yet, I'm still interested in WHY they hold the views they do. But I can explore that only when I'm well rested.
Dunno if that answers your question. As others have said, there's my two cents.
To answer your question, I have in the past had a mild tendency to want to have, what I would call a knee jerk reaction when it comes to my beliefs being questioned. However I don't react that way, I always try to be open minded. But yes I think people with NT emotions, tend to have their emotions intertwined with their beliefs. Why? Because our beliefs are part of who we are, so in some cases, when you disagree with someones beliefs they feel threatened as though it's a personal attack on them. Of course it's not, but to them it feels that way.
Also people are very often afraid of what they don't know or don't understand and it takes them out of their comfort zone, some people can't handle it. They think they know something and are happy with what they think it's right, when you can prove they are not they then question themselves, which puts them in the unknown, now that causes them fear, much like backing a cat in a corner, except it's all emotional. They aren't in my opinion rational.
I have had Many discussions with my son about my religious beliefs, on some things he makes very valid points and we discuss them, my beliefs are very personal and I find I have some emotional attachments to them as well, but I think I'm pretty open minded and don't just believe what I read as fact, but rather as lessons. So we always end on a good note. With logic and science being part of what we both believe and we find common ground.
I think what you're getting mostly is a fear response from people that don't want to learn anything new or accept that they may be wrong. I suspect that they're convinced that psychopaths are evil and that causes them to feel fear, so your not dealing with anything reasonable at that point.
That makes sense, and I can understand it to a degree. I can rationalize it in terms of religious beliefs as it relates to the immortal soul and the origin of self.
Psychopathy on the other hand, it just seems like one that doesn't need that level of investment. I look at it this way, I am a psychopath, and I am not that invested. If the person that is the thing that is being discussed isn't so rigid, perhaps take it down a notch.
You're right of course, if you're talking about a rational person or a person with some smarts. There are people out there who just don't have the ability to reason things out, or who are just so invested in their beliefs that they take offence to anything that challenges them.
Then there are the so called religious people that think that a psychopath is really someone who is evil, they are so convinced by their beliefs that anything or anyone not of their faith is bad. They don't believe in science or psychology. These are the people that I believe are not rational. They aren't really looking for a discussion, they are only trying to pick a fight.
Some religions teach fear of others not like them, it's sad really but I believe it's a control thing, done intentionally by religions of different sorts. I could go on about this forever, but the point is that they are so emotionally wrapped up in their faith that anyone not like them it's seen as bad or a threat to what they believe that they are not able or don't want to be open minded. Your going to find these people on the net, on the street, in politics... Well you get it. I agree they could take it down a notch but they won't, don't waste your time on them.
I think anyone who is smart and has some sense of confidence in themselves will be more open to new information even if it challenges what they think they know .
I also think there are people who can't separate their emotions from their beliefs be it religion or just what they've been taught growing up. I don't know why. Except maybe their beliefs make them feel safe somehow. So I'm no help on that part. As someone that has emotions, I do know that they are somehow attached to what we believe to be true. I think most people can control their responses to others beliefs, even if it's just agreeing to disagree. I do think there are some who just can't. Again I don't know why but they're out there. If someone comes at you in a threatening manor, like your example, you can pretty much assume they aren't here too learn anything or have a civil exchange of ideas.
I imagine utilizing that fear is a very effective manipulation tactic. It keeps them in the fold, and keeps the coffers full. I also imagine that it is self feeding. The more fearful a person is, the more easily they are manipulated this way, the more they think they have a reason to be fearful, the more money they pay to be told what they want to hear, the more they get fed the same narrative.
I would think that this is very destructive, and that people would prefer not to be caught in this loop, but if it is all you know, how can you break it. Most vexing.
Also they tell people because you believe X that you're better then everyone that doesn't so that feeds the positive emotions and feeling of belonging.
Emotions are a powerful thing for both good and bad.
I was re-reading this topic, and had a thought that perhaps we are using a type of perception bias; if we are only flagging events where the neurochemical (addictions) lead us to resist change, but not other sorts of events, perhaps we are missing a part of this that makes it difficult to modify this all... to be more specific, we all have lots of thoughts every day. Those thoughts follow lots of learned patterns, with some cognition thrown in here and there. What would our thoughts be like without that neurological setup?
Is there really a difference between what a biological being would need to mentally do in order to function day to day (using learning in some sort of stable way, not re-examining their perspectives from the ground up every moment), versus how various humans function re. the "problem" issues we are thinking of, where "those people" resist change? Are we all doing this stuff all the time, and just noticing it in others where it really bugs us?
Firstly, Joe Dispensa is worth reading, even just for kicks. I find his ideas definitely worthy of thought, and mostly, practice and not as pop psychology/self-help crappy as you might think.
Second, although I know you are a diagnosed psychopath, and I am not (although I do find I that my “system” is very sensitive to certain chemicals/medications, and my own ability to bond, think logically has a continuum all its’ own ((and I wonder about chemically-induced psychopathic traits, not being a true genetic diagnosis, but are there such conditions, and if so, is the brain altered to function as such?)) I find your treatment of others very much deserving of applause. I know you don’t do it to feel “good” about yourself (can you on an emotional level, or is it only by cognition?) it is nevertheless a good way to treat others. Many NT’s would do well to act as you do. :)
If I get a chance, I’ll throw in my two cents (my gosh, the colloquial language coming out of me in this post! For shame!). :)
I wanted to ask, on another totally different topic, how you experience/describe your experience with humour. Humour can be cognitive but I also find it linked to happiness/contentment and often also that “sense” changes us chemically and vice versa. It can also be developed, like a skill, in a way. Perhaps a topic for another time?
And I do have some definite experience with logical realizations that have, literally, set off a storm of physical symptoms of, if not traumatic stress/withdrawal, a sense of denial, almost like an awakening to a different reality. I won’t bore people with details except that yes, sometimes a persons’ extreme reaction hides inner doubt. Does Shakespeare’s quote about protesting too much seem apt here?
I would be happy to address the humor question if you could elaborate what you mean by chemical changes and such. Then, once I have an understanding of exactly what you want to know, I will pay attention to myself in context of humor to see if I note what you are asking about.
Yes, actually that indeed is apt quote for the post.
I couldn’t imagine challenging believes can trigger a threat response in someone, to be honest. I have seen many people going crazy over trivial stuff in political discussions but I thought the emotional response that was there was different, at least most of the times. I stand up for my believes, but I don’t identify with them (or my belief system), nor my emotions are attached to them. I have challenged and changed my believes and was fine with that.
I too often see things I disagree with, both ridiculous arguments and relatively good, though still incorrect ones. I don’t have any reaction to them most of the time, they can be funny, they can be annoying, but definitely don’t feel attacked and don’t get an urge to join or start an argument. Including things that are not some abstract philosophical problems, but are ‘personal’ political conflicts I have seen people have physical fights over.
To add about the “personal” thing, it’s interesting if people have the same reaction to any belief they grew to think is true or only ones they feel involves them somehow.
Another very interesting thing I cannot really understand is the mentality of people who wouldn’t even consider your point just because “they were raised differently and were always taught X”, without any further explanation, just that. They don’t want to listen and to think at all. I wonder if it could be caused by the same thing.
I used to dream about conducting a social experiment in which I would be able to observe, what happens when different groups of people are given different types of arguments for and against something, then revealing that some (or all) of these arguments are false. I think however that it would take time (which is also interesting to study tho) for people to get attached to their believes and would take a certain amount of people around them who would ‘motivate’ them to believe something by potential exclusion from the group. I don’t have resources to conduct such experiment for now, unfortunately, but thinking about it and discussing it is very interesting. I have already observed this phenomena in the wild, but as it is harder to track the development of ideology and its effect on the group because of its size and form it’s harder to systematize information about it.
As for your original question I would say, the vast majority of people can override the response, they just don’t want to and don’t see a need to, considering how normalized it is. Embrace emotional discussions and using your reactions to something as an argument. You have a right to feel rage, your opponent deserves, and to leave mid-conversation when you get uncomfortable. Don’t listen to people who tell you it’s not what a civilized discussion look like, it’s their privileged position to not be bothered. Some modern attitudes to argument etiquette remind me of the social culture after communist cultural revolutions, the less you control yourself, the better.
Likely you would be unable to conduct the experiment anyway. I had a somewhat similar notion where I wanted to explore false confessions. I wanted to see if it was possible to convince college students to confess to murdering a classmate that wasn't dead. In a more extreme version of the experiment I wanted to create a classmate that did not exist, and see if they could be convinced that they not only knew this person, but also then coerce them to confess to their murder.
However, I was informed that because of the Stanford Experiment, and the Milgram Experiments, they psychological community put ethics standards on experimentation, and you can't cause harm to the subjects. Putting them through psychological distress, such as giving them false beliefs or getting them to confess to a fictitious murder would violate those standards.
Emotions, and 'because I say so" are not arguments. I have a difficult time understanding why people think that either one gets them anywhere, and more of a difficult time understanding why anyone provides cover for someone using those arguments. If you have a point, it isn't helped by a tantrum. There seems to be a lot of tantrums in recent years.
Just read the paragraph about the experiment again, I didn’t fully describe the experiment. I wanted to hold discussions about some topics, five different groups of people different arguments for and against something, probably in first form of the experiment just giving this arguments to people and in the second form conditioning them to believe them, and only then revealing to all the groups that all the arguments each particular group was taught were the strongest, were actually all false.
I imagine in your experiment some strong conditioning would be needed, however I don’t have a single doubt about it being possible. I am not sure about it being so possible in the college, because I imagine it would be harder to convince a group of people in the “open” environment, than it would be a group of people surrounded by a bigger group of people agreeing with the conditioning ideas.
I have conducted small false believes experiments already, not with groups of people though, individually, learning about someone’s views, learning their logic and what type of arguments they find strong, then using their logic leading them to bizarre false believes, they could technically arrive at themselves. The more someone is invested in their ideas and seeks validation for their belief system, the easier it is to feed them bullshit. Proving someone’s ideas wrong is more difficult, though is still possible.
What I find even more interesting is hooking people on false believes. After giving them false believes, waiting for them to settle in, you as a person who introduced people to them, say you were wrong and the arguments you gave were weak, but people will not reject them, instead they will start viewing you as one of those “other stupid people who disagree”, whom you conditioned them how to interact with, when you still “supported” those believes.
I don’t understand why people provide cover for those, who use those arguments, but I imagine it would be useful for propagandists. I am not sure, however, if that’s the case.
Oh, I intended for them to be arrested and brought in for interrogation, with cops, and the whole nine yards. I would have had them sign up for an experiment, with the details unknown but agreeing that it might be something stressful, and then actually putting them through similar things that have brought about false confessions in the past. Not actual physical assaults of course, I am interested in how it can be brought about through the mind, not through physical pain.
Interesting about the false beliefs on a smaller scale. It is a similar process to manipulating people that are completely convinced that they are not capable of being manipulated. It is those that have this belief about themselves that can be absolutely broken by someone else, because they believe it isn't possible. They are blind to their weak spots, and someone with a mind to do it, an the knowhow, can destroy them. However, if you point that out to them, they get very defensive, and insist that they have no weaknesses. Such a strange choice, but it is the one that they make.
Once a person like this has seen the other side they have two choices, be broken, or live in denial. They will often live in denial, and yes, it is very useful for propagandists.
Then I am sure it’s possible. I get it, the whole point is not just to make them confess, but to confess genuinely believing the confession. Just read about the legal aspect of such experiments in my country and turns out here they don’t have to be ethical, for you to be able to conduct them, you
only need consent of the participants.
Oh, I have done this, with the primitive tactics right after a person said they were immune to manipulation. Both with those who said so because they watched 3 psychology videos and those who had read a lot of books about manipulation, with the later it being funnier because of how significant the “master of deception” whole part of their identity is.
It’s indeed a very strange choice and a rather bad one.
Quora's search being what it is, I wasn't able to dig it up, but Habib Fanny wrote something very related to this a while ago. I'm guessing 3 or 4 years ago, I can't really remember when I started following him.
I can only paraphrase a summary of it from memory. Basically he talked about the distinction between beliefs and identity. Over time, people's beliefs become fully intertwined with their identity to the point of being inseparable. Then, when they feel like those beliefs are under attack, they feel like their whole identity is under attack.
I wish I could find the original, he worded it much better, including a little Habib-made drawing.
As to your question posed to your readers, when I have this response, can I override it? Yes, absolutely. But I've had to spend a lot (lot lot lot lot lot) of time practicing. Long story short, because I have depression, I've had to learn to... struggling to find a word... sort of ignore my feelings. I don't actually mean ignore. They're impossible to ignore. I think of it as sort of a loud, unwanted television with a broken volume knob blaring in the background. For me, that television is a steady stream of negative thoughts and feelings. I had to learn to live with it. But I force myself to treat it as background noise.
So, when I feel my fight-or-flight response kick in, in general, I know it's just that television in my head blaring really fucking loudly. I already know I can't trust my feelings. All I have left at that point is to start thinking critically about whatever it is. Once that happens, I can mostly work things out fairly well.
I've gotten pretty good at it. I don't even take medication anymore, but I have to very cognitive about it. I doubt there will ever be a time where I won't have to consciously refuse to listen to that damn television in my head.
I could go on at length, but this is getting off-topic. I only mean to illustrate that I have a genuine reason to be a person who doesn't simply react based on emotion.
So, thinking critically, not simply reacting to feelings for feeling's sake? The notion that all feelings are supposed to be felt, that all the feelings you feel are valid, and you're supposed to act on those feelings? I don't think the majority of people give a moments thought that it should be any other way.
Sometimes it seems as if people with critical thinking skills are the exception, not the norm anymore. I think the stronger a person's critical thinking skills, the less likely they are to be ruled by emotion. I would bet any amount of money that any kind of scientific study would reflect that in what you're asking. The stronger the critical thinking skills, the lower the difficulty in overriding the response you asked about.
Thank you for your response, it was most interesting.
Critical thinking is becoming more rare, and as I watch people embrace emotions for the sole fact of having them, it is literally like watching people descend into addiction. There is a physical and mental transformation that astounds me. What I can't fathom is the disconnect from seeing it and linking their overall unhappiness to this new form of existence that they adopt.
Then there are people like you, who have strong emotional messaging, but you are not willing to give those emotions the reins to your life. I don't imagine that was an easy thing to master by any stretch, but you did the work, and have gained significant control in your life. It seems like that would be the better choice, and yet there must be something in the short term that feels good to go the opposite direction for those that make the choice to do so.
I don't necessarily think it's a matter of it feeling good. I think it really is because of people's general wiring that because they feel a feeling, it must be valid, even if it doesn't feel good.
I was with a borderline for many years. It was... not good for my mental health. She used to say stuff like that a lot. "They're my feelings, they're not wrong or invalid, they're feelings." I used to take that at face value. It took me a long time to realize that, yes, feelings can be 100% wrong. Especially with a BPD. OMG, her feelings were basically wired wrong all the time.
Once I finally knew what was wrong and did some further reading and learning, I almost felt bad for her. Unfortunately the substance abuse component was basically a show stopper.
BPD is like an extreme version of what we're talking about. There's such a disconnect that they just aren't capable of seeing. At least not without help. Seeing her reactions to her emotions doesn't make me think it felt good.
That's one of the last areas of my fight-or-flight response that I still struggle with. It's always when my wife ends up stepping on some of the damage I took from being with my BPD ex. In particular with anything that resembles gas lighting. OMG. It takes every single thing I have in me not to react to that. My wife is going through menopause. Sometimes I'm in the line of sight when she's wearing her rage colored glasses. Being rational is not one of her strengths under those circumstances...
I fully acknowledge that I am the mental health equivalent of an armchair warrior, though. I could very well be projecting my own experiences when I say that I don't think it's because it feels good. Maybe it does feel good for more typical people reacting to their feelings. 🤷
I find what you posted about it being like addiction very interesting though. It kind of makes sense. I've heard a lot of different conversations between addicts (I listen to a lot of podcasts) and a lot of them say that after a while it's NOT like it feels good anymore. They've said it's like they're chasing that time way back at first when it did feel good, when they first starting using.
I wonder if it isn't so much feeling good in the situations that you describe, but rather a pressure release valve, and that is what feels good. Sort of like when someone is insecure, and the fret over it, and worry about it, and it builds up, until someone reassures them that they are good at something, or valuable in some way, and they feel good for a moment, but then the nagging insecurity comes back.
Or the jealous mate who is convinced that their SO is cheating, so they suspect them, follow them, accuse them, snoop through their phone, start fights with them, until they get that moment of clarity that they are loyal, so they feel okay again for a moment. However, when that moment passes, the same notion of suspicion starts all over again. It really isn't about the insecurity, or the jealous, it's about that payoff. All the rest of it leads up to that moment of relief or ego assurance. The rest is the buildup to the finale.
All spoken from someone that is just watching from the outside in of course, but it seems that the motivation, conscious or not, is that personal payoff, and the rest is just the buildup to get to that point. Now, your wife, with menopause, that's a bit different I suppose. I am familiar with how hormones can affect the person's mood, but it isn't something that has ever worked that way with me, so for a long time I thought that it was a rather convenient excuse to have tantrums. It took me awhile to figure out that hormones really are powerful influencers over emotions. Has she tried bioidentical replacement hormones? It might help.
Chasing a memory to get back to it, instead of realizing that moment is over and to feel a new way is probably better than feeling this current and terrible way. But again, outside looking is. What do I know.
Interesting, and learning true self-criticism (I’d say analysis) is part extreme experience, and part ability. I would say those who are able to take something valuable, like the learning about ones’ self (which I believe, for the NT, can only really happen as/after a person faces seemingly insurmountable turmoil or hardship) are fortunate. Please don’t think I disregard it trivialize your experience with depression. Far from it. Medical depression can be a fatal illness and is as devastating as any. I just admire your ability, bravery and coping mechanisms. :)
For context, I am an extremely empathetic person. But I never engage with people that just want to impose their point of view and are not willing to have a healthy debate where arguments given are, at least, considered. Nor I would feel the need to express my point of view if I read/hear anything I disagree with.
I would actually say it is the other way around, unless I know that the person I am about to engage with in a debate, is willing to have a reasonable debate, I won’t even bother.
First I just wanted to say thank you. It's a slower day at work, and I'm kind of just pounding through a lot of these posts with my downtime.
This is an interesting question. I'm definitely sitting on your end of the spectrum in regards to seeing and hearing differing opinions. I have a lot of interactions with people including my partner about responding and reacting to these things. She definitely has a tendency to respond to random posts saying things that I'll agree are dumb. My thing is, responding to these comments and posts will never change their opinion and she usually end up feeling worse after they respond to her comments. I say, "well don't do that." I've switched to saying, "Okay do that, but know that you'll end up feeling worse after the exchange." The only way to win in these exchanges are to not care. Or care, but manage your expectations about how it is going to end. And even with all of that intellectual knowledge, people can still slip into doing the thing based on emotions, and going through that same process again.
I have found over the years writing about psychopathy, that if a person has already made up their mind to the point of writing down those words and pushing them out into the world, it is very unlikely that they will change their minds.
For my part, since becoming self aware of my own... adaptations, I have been training myself to push pause, and think about whatever I'd just got done reading that makes me feel the urge to respond with... Emotions blazing.
Honestly I think it might have more to do with a person's intellect, because it has been a sure sign of an intelligent, scientific mind to be able to, when confronted with an idea which runs contrary to a long held belief, discard that belief when the evidence soundly points toward the new idea being more scientifically correct. So I pause, and assess the words first.
On an unrelated note, I appreciate the invite that I had received to your content here. On Quora it seemed nearly impossible to just read, and occasionally comment your posts without seeing some ... Individuals going apeshit in the comments. I had a hard time getting why those folks were so emotionally invested in what you wrote about your own experiences.... Even Elinor Greenberg seems to value and agree with your viewpoints, so why go apeshit? Anyway, this concludes my wall of text commenting for the day, I swear.
I think people get so angry because if what I say is correct, and psychopaths aren't the monsters of the deep,. it makes them have to reevaluate their beliefs about things, and that makes them upset.
> Any new external idea that disrupts that balance, irrespective of whether it's true or even if it's better for the person than their existing ideas will therefore disrupt homeostasis and create huge physiological discomfort - since at the time it's the body (feelings) that begin to drive the thoughts, not the other way around.
As an autistic person, I can confirm that I have this discomfort when an argument goes/break my ideology/belief system.
When it occurs (except when I am not able to go back and forth with the disturbing information, like in the case of one shot conversations where lots of stuff where said and I already forgotten most of them), I "seek" (but don't enjoy) this kind of discomfort and obsess about it until reaching a new understanding that ends up suppressing the flaws/inconsistencies generating this discomfort in my belief/thinking system.
But it may well be that NT that lack the autistic obsession are unwilling to work trough the inconsistency because there isn't anything that override/force to go trough it.
For my part, I value authors that generate this kind of discomfort, because it allow me to fix and build a better belief/thinking system.
But I must also say that it is not because I consider this kind of material as high quality (the kind that disturb me and allow me to enhance my believe system) that I don't get reluctant about reading it, because it would feel as lot of work and I get lazy and prefers waiting to be in the right mood (energetic and not wanting to just get light&fun distractions). [probably related to autistic executive dysfunction / getting overwhelmed by planning to do something that ask too much work]
It's not just biases, as person below mentioned. I mean, do biases even apply while talking about emotional, not cognitive, responses? I think not xD
It's the complexes and frustrations, completely ego related. If someone's opinion crosses their boundaries of what's acceptable (or in other words, when accepting that opinion would mean accepting they are flawed, faulty or limited somehow), their ego gets hurt and their emotions take over. Some more educated individuals might then use biases in attempt to rationalize what is, quite certainly, nothing rational to begin with. I was the latter one :D
"My question is, if you have this response, can you override it?"
I could had overridden them only in rare cases, when I was already exhausted from "defending" my beliefs beforehand. In most of the cases, the cause is the flawed logic resulting from lack of cognitive empathy/perspective taking, inadequate knowledge or experience related to some belief ingrained to us by our environment and memories, fueled by an underlining disorder (any personality disorder and probably most of the affective ones + ADHD and Autism - even Aspergers. you'd be surprised.
So once the underlying logic is fixed, the belief is no longer bound to our ego. It simply becomes a "perspective", and now we can readily recognize the situations where it might get someone else triggered, as well as the idea who would be ready to correct their logic and who wouldn't, but this "skill" only gets better with experience.
"If you can, do you find yourself in the habit of doing so, or is the threat response to strong to counter it? "
When you don't know the underlying logic, the urge depends on the importance of the belief to our ego AND on the amount of emotions waiting to be released somewhere (displacement!). In my experience, the threat response is too strong to counter it most of the times. I mean, it's not purely emotional - you could look at it as if countering it would cost us more than it would get us in return. We use those occassions to blow some steem, simply put.
"Do you find yourself to be more logical in your consideration of the world, or do your emotions attach to your beliefs, making them hard to reevaluate?"
I've always considered myself overly emotional and hypersensitive, and that changed when I realized that emotional sensitivity = sensitivity to changes in the environment = intelligence, and intelligence happens to be related to both working memory AND logic, as well. Now I'm completely in control of my emotions and dare to say that they're balanced with logic and experience (I use emotions to fuel logic and to choose which experiences to save in memory and which ones to discard).
Don't forget experience/memory - that variable is as important as emotions and logic are; there is no logic vs emotions conundrum. Sometimes your empirical facts (experience) counter the logical facts, and your emotions (gut feeling) leans to those empirical facts as well. In this case you can say that experience decided a "winner" between emotions and logic.
Perhaps it's true psychopaths don't learn from experience, after all :P
Just to clarify I am on the autism spectrum and so my emotional experience seems to differ from most neurotypicals. However, I do have a few theories about emotional responses that I've kicked around for the past few years.
I recently helped a friend get clean from methamphetamine and sort through their borderline personality disorder. When I say help, I mostly just mean that I gave them a safe spot to be, connected them with the appropriate resources, and pointed them back on the path to mental health when they got too close to falling off of the wagon.
It was a very long process (roughly 2 years to get to stability/success), and I don't think it's something most neurotypicals would have seen through to the end despite claims of heightened empathy.
What does all this have to do with being a slave to emotional reasoning? My friend's bpd was fascinating and incredibly frustrating to watch. He would loop rapidly throughout the day. Something minor would trigger him, and he'd have an intense meltdown (think a two year old throwing a tantrum in an adults body).
After the episode he felt genuinely awful. He'd resolve not to loop again, and then the next day we'd be right back where we started.
At first, I thought it was chosen behavior, and I was angry. Then I realized that it really wasn't.
I saw his bpd as the extreme of neurotypical emotional reasoning. His feelings and emotions literally dictated his reality. If he felt betrayed then it was because he had been betrayed, if he felt scared then it was because he was in intense danger.
There was no ability to slow the emotional loop, insert logic, and get off the train. But, once he was calm he could explain how he had interpreted things and then his reactions made logical sense in his version of reality.
I suspect that there is a continuum among neurotypicals in there response to emotional stimuli. Most are not as extreme as my friend (who created patently false realities based on his feelings) and couldn't function, but some degree of emotional reasoning is socially functional.
To a psychopath I suspect that neurotypical levels of emotional reasoning look a lot like how neurotypicals would view my friend with bpd's emotional reasoning.
In both cases, I suspect that it isn't within the individuals full control. In my friends case it took years of therapy and practice to change the neurological pathways.
Today, he is still someone I consider to be on the higher end of emotionally reactive/driven by emotional reasoning, but he falls within the range of what neurotypicals would call normal, and he can function in society.
In terms of choice overall, there is a commonly cited study that shows our brain sends a behavioral impulse before we become consciously aware of it. So, instead of the causal chain of events going conscious awareness of choice, brain signal, action, it actually goes brain signal, conscious awareness of choice, action.
My takeaway from that is that we are actually reactionary beings not choice driven beings. Change the upbringing, the genetics, and/or the environment and you will get different reactions over time. My two cents. Hope you found it interesting.
The behavior impulse sent prior to awareness is what brings to question the notion of free will and if it is real or not. Interesting, but not one I can say I have an answer to.
Your friend does sound like my perception of neurotypical reality, however, instead of within a day, it seems those emotional experiences are stretched out over weeks or months, sometimes years. It's watching the same loops, and same responses, and same outcomes again and again. I can offer advice, but their emotions make them think that it will be different this time somehow. It never is, and it's the same lesson that they should have learned, but haven't, and won't.
Perhaps BPD and NTs aren't so different, maybe it's just their timelines are. BPD cycles rapidly, where NTs have a slower trip on the same route. Likely I am over simplifying things to an extreme degree. I admit where I have a lack of information, and this is one of those subjects.
You are intuitively pretty close to what I understand to be the case:
- 40% of individuals on the Autism spectrum are said to have BPD
- 20% of inpatients, and 6% outpatients in USA (NT-s, but highly underdiagnozed due to stigma)
Now, what's in the middle of ASDwBPD and NTwBPD?
The answer is: sensory processing sensitivity or more popularly, hypersensitivity. You can read about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_processing_sensitivity
It's not an official diagnoses yet(what a surprise, lol), but it's beginning to get traction as a risk factor for multiple disorders later in life., and it hits both neurotypicals and autistic people (or does it? but that's a completely different discussion now)
That is quite interesting. Thank you for the link
To answer your question, yes, some neurotypicals can. But I've met extremely few. I would label this ability "awareness of cognitive bias". It's also a component of what it means to have little/no ego by my definition. The two people who I know who can do this are my best friends (one is a high-functioning psychopath and the other person is a neurotypical); I find it extremely hard to bond with people who can't.
I have to work hard to do this consistently. My neurotypical friend also shared with me once that he has to as well, during a conversation about it. It is a painful process, as when we are wrong, part our ego dies. But in pursuit of a true, objective worldview, it is necessary.
The rule you defined about considering information more strongly when you have an emotional response to it is very clever. My technique involves being aware of such biases from experience and when in a situation where it will be triggered, to create equal opposite thoughts that challenge the potentially biased belief. I created these habits many years ago when I became aware of how plagued I was by invalid beliefs that were holding me back from navigating the world successfully.
Another interesting bias is the self-serving bias, often manifesting itself in the form of blame. However, any highly rational person knows that shifting focus anywhere outside of your immediate control (e.g blaming) relinquishes their autonomy. So to remain in control, I've made a habit that whenever my subconscious thoughts push up blame, I consciously block it and assess what I could've done better in that situation.
One thing I can share as a neurotypical from experience and also observation of others, is that the stronger the emotion, the harder it is the reevaluate beliefs. However, with great discipline, even in those situations information can be evaluated without bias. Also, I find that while men are ridden with emotionally-driven biases, their more emotional counterparts are even worse.
What you said reminds me of a quote by Larry Elder;
"My dad always told me and my brothers this:
Hard work wins. You get out of life what you put into it. You can’t control the outcome, but you are one hundred percent in control of the effort. And before you get mad at someone else for what you think that they have done to you, go to the nearest mirror, look into it as say; What could I do to change the outcome. And he also said, no matter how good you are, no matter how hard you work, sooner or later bad things are going to happen. How you respond to those bad things is what is going to tell your mom and me whether or not we raised a man."
I have always liked that quote. It reminds me of the thinking I have towards competition. If you are competing with anyone but yourself, you have already lost the fight.
People have a tendency to look outwards for motivation, for a target of blame, for responsibility, for many things that would be best found within, but for some reason aren't good enough to rely on when they are from the self.
For me, I will always look to myself. Where did I fail, what can I improve, when can I try again? When I cook something for the first time, I am already thinking about how I will make it better next time, and the time after that. How can I challenge myself to make this even more tasty. I don't have an interest in people telling me how good it is, tell me what's wrong with it, so I can work out how to fix it next time.
That has always been how my mind works, and when I don't know, that's okay too. The idea of being wrong, or not knowing something gives me a new path forward to be somewhere different that I am right this moment. I like that, I suppose if I was plagued by fear, and were resistant to change however, it might seem very disconcerting.
Good answer
Thank you
You're welcome
This is a very interesting topic! I have thought on this a lot too, and I am not sure we can know the answer. It touches on arguments re. "free will" that never have complete solutions, I think.
One issue -- I am not sure that there is such a thing as completely "logical" human thought. One can get back to premises of arguments/thoughts, and examine those for emotional influence, for evidence of addiction to a belief system... but I've never found any thoughts to be definitely completely free of emotional influences, if I dig deep enough. However one can generally argue about whether such thoughts are free of those influences or not! But how can you prove it? One's internal experience is not good enough, imo, since humans tend to be (blind) to the internal motivations that one hasn't examined well enough to be conscious of yet. In my experience to date, there is always something more to discover about myself; it's like an infinite progression. I have had the experience of discovering an assumption in my thoughts that was affecting conclusions. I'm still not sure that discovering it completely removes its influence though.
That doesn't necessarily apply to all people or neurotypes! (I kinda feel it probably does, but that's probably my problem!) Just my experience and observation.
One of the differences I feel exists between my processing and that of (likely) "neurotypicals" who I know: it seems to me like more of their thoughts are sort of "compiled" with emotions. If you're a computer person, you might know that word. It is like their emotions are part of the thoughts more, and they seem unable to see the effect of the emotions as well as I think I can. Am I imagining this? Who knows! Maybe I just have similar effects but can't see them. Maybe we can see other peoples' better than we can see our own, and those that are more different from ours, are more evident to us.
However autistics have been shown in some research (I'll try to find it) to be less susceptible to "groupthink" than ostensible NTs. I believe that particular issue is related to emotions they have that I have less of; I don't care as much in a certain way about the views of others, it does not mold my thoughts, though I do "care" often, it just doesn't seem to change my thinking as directly.
Athena, have you read on "implicit bias"? That is possibly related, if I'm understanding your question right. It theoretically has to do with brain wiring; the shortcuts (many?) human brains take to reduce decision-making time, some of which lead to biased treatment of members of various groups of people. It's a measurable effect.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html
I would agree, there isn't such a thing as completely logical thoughts, because we are still subjected to out limitation of information. What may seem extremely logical to us is simply our perception based on what we know.
Imagine a world in which it is entirely run by an AI system. We, as humans, earn money by completing tasks that the AI assigns us. We would just be living out livs, and our phone would ding wit a message, "jump up and down three times", and we do it. As soon as we do, a bitcoin drops into our account, we shrug, and go cool!
It seems completely illogical to us, and random at best, but to the AI, that can see a much larger puzzle, it is entirely logical. It was the most efficient way to accomplish a task that it needs accomplished, and used it's little hamster humans to do it. The hamster humans are happy to get paid, and will complete the task without question, the AI is satisfied, and the world continues on.
Logically, the action makes sense on a purely utilitarian level. You jump three times, you get money. If you really evaluate it however, it is illogical, and pretty well nonsensical to just randomly jump up and down three times. That's just because we aren't able to see past our own contribution, but the computer can.
Thoughts are a lot like this. We think what we think based on the picture we can see, but we have no idea if that picture is even in focus. We just take it on faith that it is. Perhaps the emotional neurotypicals, and the cold psychopaths are just cogs in a machine that cannot be perceived by the hamster humans.
I would only add that there are actually completely logical thoughts, it’s just the conclusions that we arrive at using logic don’t always (and often) reflect the reality, because there is either not enough information or we have false information. (Or information that is irrelevant (like false analogies).
I am very familiar with the identitarian movement that "implicit bias" relates to. I do not find anything about it credible.
p.s. while I am unsure, and doubtful, that individuals can completely get out from under the influence of emotions, I do hold people responsible for working on the issues to the best of their abilities -- and as a society we have to treat (most adult) people as though they have control, agency, in some basic ways under our laws etc. even if they might not.
Well I'm late to the party but here goes. As a child, and to a lesser extent as a teenager, I was very destabilized by others different beliefs. I wanted certainty and had the arrogance of youth. That all changed quickly with education, introspection, and real life experiences. The key point is that I was emotionally reactive to different beliefs, but intellectually, holding things up for scrutiny was natural and inevitable. This becomes self reinforcing as one learns the lessons of recognising having been very limited in understanding or very wrong about something. The feeling of discovery and illumination outweighs the cringe. So while it is a long time since I have felt strongly threatened by different beliefs per se, I can remember the feeling.
What does affect me extremely strongly is actions that go against my Humanist values. I am deeply upset by people arguing in bad faith, being disingenuous, intellectual dishonesty, intentionally deceptive lines of argument, lack of intellectual courage, perverse willfull stupidity, cynical exploitation of ignorance, refusal to look at evidence etc. I felt this same disbelief and upset confusion as a child, long before I had the words for such things, I just could see how unhelpful such things are, how they could lead only to bad stuff, in relationships, in knowledge. And that has not changed, the upset is still intense and visceral. Supposedly this is an Aspergers trait. Perhaps.
Whether it is, or isn't, I think it is the way more people should look at things. It would make the world a far more reasonable place.
if you have this response, can you override it?
Yes. While I don't have psychopathy, I'm very cold and callous in nature - I don't feel remorse or regret unless caught, and I never have. Few things can send me into the realm for such a strong emotional response, but one is abuse of children.
While I can feel this cold murderous sensation rising in me, I have no problem flicking the switch.
With one exception - sexual predators.
If you can, do you find yourself in the habit of doing so, or is the threat response to strong to counter it?
Yes, constantly, but I think that has something to do with my manipulative nature. I had a very manipulative and abusive mom and absent dad. I learned her behavior early.
I like my herd of sheep thick. If one of them breaks a leg, I don't shoot it. I take the wool, the milk, the lambs - it doesn't make sense to me to react emotionally.
But..
When I got my hands on the guy who raped my sister, I was helpless though.
When I saw a guy grope my ex butt at a nightclub, I broke his hand.
When I saw my friend punch his gf while drunk, I knocked his teeth out.
Do you find yourself to be more logical in your consideration of the world, or do your emotions attach to your beliefs, making them hard to reevaluate?
I think I'm logical in how I view the world and respond to it. However, people don't call me logical, but cold and callous.
But, the exception to the rule is sexual predators. I wouldn't say this about all murderers.
But these pathetic waste of meat and flesh scumbags that prey on the weak?
That belief will never change, no matter what.
So, yeah, I guess I'm a slave under some of my beliefs, very much so.
I guess it's a weakness; a blind-spot where somebody could ruin my life by manipulating it correctly and making me react in a manner that is not socially acceptable.
I have a very similar regard for those that prey on the weak. Someone having to take advantage of those that cannot put up a defense is a person of worthless character, and not valuable enough to warrant consideration.
I can't understand why we waste money as a society on keeping them locked up when you can buy bullets whole-sale. What scares me more are "normal" people who just turn the other cheek.
What you once wrote about empaths is so true - most neurotypicals claim to be just that, but lack any and every trait of it, when it boils down to something beyond campfire Kumbaya-sing alongs.
More and more I am seeing a push to normalize this sort of thinking, and these little intrusions or tests to see what might be considered acceptable. There is a bigger intrusion, pushback, and then a reset, almost like the thought of "too much too fast".
All of it is too much, and normalizing the sexualization of children is never acceptable. People need to think about this far more critically, and stop allowing their boundaries about it to be erroaded away, and replaced by a new normal.
I have considered this without the annoyance of public pressure, and while I know many NTs have a hard time separating themselves from the group think mentality, I wouldn't think "don't sexualize children" would be one that they could arrive to a conclusion about without feeling like they are about to be thrown out of society, or at the very least not care if they are.
I completely agree.
"I have considered this without the annoyance of public pressure, and while I know many NTs have a hard time separating themselves from the group think mentality, I wouldn't think "don't sexualize children" would be one that they could arrive to a conclusion about without feeling like they are about to be thrown out of society, or at the very least not care if they are."
This is so, so true. And sad at the same time.
The only people here (Sweden) who actually are moral in this regard, are the biker gangs. They beat child-abusers and rapists to death or into wheel-chairs, in and outside of prison. But the average Jane & John Doe don't do anything. At all.
A handful of my old friends had their sisters/girlfriends raped. Most of the knew the assailants, none did anything. I'm not a violent person. It makes me nauseous. But I know the difference between violence and violence. Some of it is necessary.
People complain and want a better society, but nobody wants to get their hands dirty. And somebody's hands will get dirty when shoveling shit.
It's funny, because people are often taken aback by what I have to say on the matter, and take it for an emotional statement, when in reality it isn't. I don't even care for children. However, I have had a friend that has worked with severely abused people for years, and I have interacted with a number of them. This is lifelong abuse, and some were only rescued as an adult, but many as children themselves.
I have no time for those that are so ill prepared for consequences of their ill actions that they try to mitigate them by preying on the weak. It was well said once;
"Don't tell me you came to kill, without being prepared to die yourselves."
If we could undress our emotions and see them for what they are, "beautiful" would probably not be the word we used to describe them.
Haha. Same here. I don't like kids, but they are kids.
Whenever I have uttered this sentiment, I can feel the air getting sucked out of the room.
Could you maybe describe how'd you react to, let's say finding a sexual predator. Would your code of conduct possess you to do anything, or could you just shrug it off and walk away?
How do you think you'd react?
I'm not trying to belittle the struggles that comes with psychopathy in this day and age, but somedays I can't help but think that not having to feel anxiety, for example, must be such relief.
I do believe that heroes and psychopaths are cut from the same cloth; without psychopathy, I don't think humanity would've made it this far - it's a predatory world and most people aren't equipped, or equipped to heavy with emotions and other evolutionary "defects" that stunt us, to be predatory when necessary.
"Don't tell me you came to kill, without being prepared to die yourselves."
Superb quote. Very true.
English is not my native tongue; please forgive the grammar errors.
I can override this response, but it takes nontrivial mental energy to do so, meaning that over some given time frame (lets say, a day), if I'm exposed to things that cause this sort of response, I'm less likely to try overriding it. Also, as my day-to-day functioning steadily declines, I find myself often not having the mental reserves to consider worldviews and opinions I am opposed to, especially those that I find (justifiably or not) stupid and/or disturbing. I find that my ability to calmly assess a position that makes me uncomfortable is very dependent on my general mental condition. There are definitely things that I believe because I want to believe, and the danger of letting such things set in my mind is not lost on me but at the moment I have no idea how to manage it short of shutting down all thinking and going into deep sleep until I somehow get better.
I don't mean to sound like I'm fishing for sympathy, the point is, the ability to reflect on beliefs like this, especially when it takes you out of your comfort zone, is not some static trait of character. I'm pretty convinced that it really suffers from the enormous information influx that comes from being very online as well.
That is extremely interesting. I imagine that online exposure to information is a large part of this. It can be unreal how much we are expected to sift through to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. It could drive a person mad.
I sometimes think that the Internet (and whatever global information networks that may follow in the future) is a sort of superpowerful remote organ, or a cybernetic, that we have developed/that has emerged in us as a species, that has the potential to propel us into a completely different level of consciousness and intelligence but to which we are simply not adapted yet. You just have to wonder what kind of world would we live in if everyone who has Internet access had maximized its' potential as a learning tool, rather than a way to accrete so much informational detritus that you can't tell which way is up anymore. You justifiably write that the world is built to fit nts by and large in one (or more) of your Quora posts, and I just want to add that that includes not just the ways to make us emotionally comfortable, possibly at the expense of people that are not like us, but also systems that exploit and reward our various emotional impulses viciously to make us think, feel and behave a certain way, sort of like twitter emphasizes anger and snappiness over careful deliberation by the very premise of its design. It's both fascinating and unnerving, seeing how these things are more often than not emergent, rather than results of planning, or at least it seems so to me. They catalyze the cycle of emotions begetting emotions, which already exists and is already a force to be reckoned with both at an individual level and in a society, making the mechanism you described in this post just that much harder hitting. I think that this is one major reason for why we see such massive amounts of barely challenged disinfo and shockingly many people buying into it. What would have taken a proper cult and a lot of time before happens now almost spontaneously, and startlingly quick too.
I think that it is like feeding a maelstrom more and more fuel, and wondering why it won't just calm down.
I agree with waxcatape's comment here. It takes nontrivial mental energy to override my impulse to dismiss points of view that I see as absurd (because based on disinformation or mindsets that I do not respect). OTOH, I also have strong impulses and interest in trying to understand points of view that I deeply disagree with. That is, I wonder how and why conservatives hold the opinions they do. So I will read and explore research and discussions that shed light on the "underneath" attitudes that lead to political conservatism.
I do this because one of my strongly held values is respecting and understanding other people. I wouldn't say it's because I value logic and reasoning above all else. Those have an important role in life, yes. And as a typically emotional neurotypical, I also value the role of emotion in my life. (Which is one reason why I find your explanations and descriptions of psychopathy so fascinating! Coming to understand what it's like to live without that in one's life.) Emotion certainly complicates my life, but it also enriches it. To me, it's like the difference between bland food and the variety that spices bring.
But as to "do differing points of view evoke a threat response for me?" Mostly not, unless that point of view relates to a direct threat to my life or the life of people I hold dear. Eg, abortion. I'm a botched abortion survivor from back in the day when it was illegal. So all these pro-choice folks who want to control what we women can do with our bodies--that makes me a bit crazy. And yet, I'm still interested in WHY they hold the views they do. But I can explore that only when I'm well rested.
Dunno if that answers your question. As others have said, there's my two cents.
I appreciate you telling me your perspective, Wyn. It is helpful.
You're very welcome. I find your own perspective fascinating. It has opened my eyes to a very different flavor of human experience.
To answer your question, I have in the past had a mild tendency to want to have, what I would call a knee jerk reaction when it comes to my beliefs being questioned. However I don't react that way, I always try to be open minded. But yes I think people with NT emotions, tend to have their emotions intertwined with their beliefs. Why? Because our beliefs are part of who we are, so in some cases, when you disagree with someones beliefs they feel threatened as though it's a personal attack on them. Of course it's not, but to them it feels that way.
Also people are very often afraid of what they don't know or don't understand and it takes them out of their comfort zone, some people can't handle it. They think they know something and are happy with what they think it's right, when you can prove they are not they then question themselves, which puts them in the unknown, now that causes them fear, much like backing a cat in a corner, except it's all emotional. They aren't in my opinion rational.
I have had Many discussions with my son about my religious beliefs, on some things he makes very valid points and we discuss them, my beliefs are very personal and I find I have some emotional attachments to them as well, but I think I'm pretty open minded and don't just believe what I read as fact, but rather as lessons. So we always end on a good note. With logic and science being part of what we both believe and we find common ground.
I think what you're getting mostly is a fear response from people that don't want to learn anything new or accept that they may be wrong. I suspect that they're convinced that psychopaths are evil and that causes them to feel fear, so your not dealing with anything reasonable at that point.
That makes sense, and I can understand it to a degree. I can rationalize it in terms of religious beliefs as it relates to the immortal soul and the origin of self.
Psychopathy on the other hand, it just seems like one that doesn't need that level of investment. I look at it this way, I am a psychopath, and I am not that invested. If the person that is the thing that is being discussed isn't so rigid, perhaps take it down a notch.
Maybe it's just me.
You're right of course, if you're talking about a rational person or a person with some smarts. There are people out there who just don't have the ability to reason things out, or who are just so invested in their beliefs that they take offence to anything that challenges them.
Then there are the so called religious people that think that a psychopath is really someone who is evil, they are so convinced by their beliefs that anything or anyone not of their faith is bad. They don't believe in science or psychology. These are the people that I believe are not rational. They aren't really looking for a discussion, they are only trying to pick a fight.
Some religions teach fear of others not like them, it's sad really but I believe it's a control thing, done intentionally by religions of different sorts. I could go on about this forever, but the point is that they are so emotionally wrapped up in their faith that anyone not like them it's seen as bad or a threat to what they believe that they are not able or don't want to be open minded. Your going to find these people on the net, on the street, in politics... Well you get it. I agree they could take it down a notch but they won't, don't waste your time on them.
I think anyone who is smart and has some sense of confidence in themselves will be more open to new information even if it challenges what they think they know .
I also think there are people who can't separate their emotions from their beliefs be it religion or just what they've been taught growing up. I don't know why. Except maybe their beliefs make them feel safe somehow. So I'm no help on that part. As someone that has emotions, I do know that they are somehow attached to what we believe to be true. I think most people can control their responses to others beliefs, even if it's just agreeing to disagree. I do think there are some who just can't. Again I don't know why but they're out there. If someone comes at you in a threatening manor, like your example, you can pretty much assume they aren't here too learn anything or have a civil exchange of ideas.
I imagine utilizing that fear is a very effective manipulation tactic. It keeps them in the fold, and keeps the coffers full. I also imagine that it is self feeding. The more fearful a person is, the more easily they are manipulated this way, the more they think they have a reason to be fearful, the more money they pay to be told what they want to hear, the more they get fed the same narrative.
I would think that this is very destructive, and that people would prefer not to be caught in this loop, but if it is all you know, how can you break it. Most vexing.
That's a huge part of it, this fear also gives the people in charge power as well
Also they tell people because you believe X that you're better then everyone that doesn't so that feeds the positive emotions and feeling of belonging.
Emotions are a powerful thing for both good and bad.
Indeed, it seems so
I was re-reading this topic, and had a thought that perhaps we are using a type of perception bias; if we are only flagging events where the neurochemical (addictions) lead us to resist change, but not other sorts of events, perhaps we are missing a part of this that makes it difficult to modify this all... to be more specific, we all have lots of thoughts every day. Those thoughts follow lots of learned patterns, with some cognition thrown in here and there. What would our thoughts be like without that neurological setup?
Is there really a difference between what a biological being would need to mentally do in order to function day to day (using learning in some sort of stable way, not re-examining their perspectives from the ground up every moment), versus how various humans function re. the "problem" issues we are thinking of, where "those people" resist change? Are we all doing this stuff all the time, and just noticing it in others where it really bugs us?
I am going to take some time to consider this.
Firstly, Joe Dispensa is worth reading, even just for kicks. I find his ideas definitely worthy of thought, and mostly, practice and not as pop psychology/self-help crappy as you might think.
Second, although I know you are a diagnosed psychopath, and I am not (although I do find I that my “system” is very sensitive to certain chemicals/medications, and my own ability to bond, think logically has a continuum all its’ own ((and I wonder about chemically-induced psychopathic traits, not being a true genetic diagnosis, but are there such conditions, and if so, is the brain altered to function as such?)) I find your treatment of others very much deserving of applause. I know you don’t do it to feel “good” about yourself (can you on an emotional level, or is it only by cognition?) it is nevertheless a good way to treat others. Many NT’s would do well to act as you do. :)
If I get a chance, I’ll throw in my two cents (my gosh, the colloquial language coming out of me in this post! For shame!). :)
I wanted to ask, on another totally different topic, how you experience/describe your experience with humour. Humour can be cognitive but I also find it linked to happiness/contentment and often also that “sense” changes us chemically and vice versa. It can also be developed, like a skill, in a way. Perhaps a topic for another time?
And I do have some definite experience with logical realizations that have, literally, set off a storm of physical symptoms of, if not traumatic stress/withdrawal, a sense of denial, almost like an awakening to a different reality. I won’t bore people with details except that yes, sometimes a persons’ extreme reaction hides inner doubt. Does Shakespeare’s quote about protesting too much seem apt here?
I would be happy to address the humor question if you could elaborate what you mean by chemical changes and such. Then, once I have an understanding of exactly what you want to know, I will pay attention to myself in context of humor to see if I note what you are asking about.
Yes, actually that indeed is apt quote for the post.
I will - let me think on that, too!
Very interesting.
I couldn’t imagine challenging believes can trigger a threat response in someone, to be honest. I have seen many people going crazy over trivial stuff in political discussions but I thought the emotional response that was there was different, at least most of the times. I stand up for my believes, but I don’t identify with them (or my belief system), nor my emotions are attached to them. I have challenged and changed my believes and was fine with that.
I too often see things I disagree with, both ridiculous arguments and relatively good, though still incorrect ones. I don’t have any reaction to them most of the time, they can be funny, they can be annoying, but definitely don’t feel attacked and don’t get an urge to join or start an argument. Including things that are not some abstract philosophical problems, but are ‘personal’ political conflicts I have seen people have physical fights over.
To add about the “personal” thing, it’s interesting if people have the same reaction to any belief they grew to think is true or only ones they feel involves them somehow.
Another very interesting thing I cannot really understand is the mentality of people who wouldn’t even consider your point just because “they were raised differently and were always taught X”, without any further explanation, just that. They don’t want to listen and to think at all. I wonder if it could be caused by the same thing.
I used to dream about conducting a social experiment in which I would be able to observe, what happens when different groups of people are given different types of arguments for and against something, then revealing that some (or all) of these arguments are false. I think however that it would take time (which is also interesting to study tho) for people to get attached to their believes and would take a certain amount of people around them who would ‘motivate’ them to believe something by potential exclusion from the group. I don’t have resources to conduct such experiment for now, unfortunately, but thinking about it and discussing it is very interesting. I have already observed this phenomena in the wild, but as it is harder to track the development of ideology and its effect on the group because of its size and form it’s harder to systematize information about it.
As for your original question I would say, the vast majority of people can override the response, they just don’t want to and don’t see a need to, considering how normalized it is. Embrace emotional discussions and using your reactions to something as an argument. You have a right to feel rage, your opponent deserves, and to leave mid-conversation when you get uncomfortable. Don’t listen to people who tell you it’s not what a civilized discussion look like, it’s their privileged position to not be bothered. Some modern attitudes to argument etiquette remind me of the social culture after communist cultural revolutions, the less you control yourself, the better.
Likely you would be unable to conduct the experiment anyway. I had a somewhat similar notion where I wanted to explore false confessions. I wanted to see if it was possible to convince college students to confess to murdering a classmate that wasn't dead. In a more extreme version of the experiment I wanted to create a classmate that did not exist, and see if they could be convinced that they not only knew this person, but also then coerce them to confess to their murder.
However, I was informed that because of the Stanford Experiment, and the Milgram Experiments, they psychological community put ethics standards on experimentation, and you can't cause harm to the subjects. Putting them through psychological distress, such as giving them false beliefs or getting them to confess to a fictitious murder would violate those standards.
Emotions, and 'because I say so" are not arguments. I have a difficult time understanding why people think that either one gets them anywhere, and more of a difficult time understanding why anyone provides cover for someone using those arguments. If you have a point, it isn't helped by a tantrum. There seems to be a lot of tantrums in recent years.
Just read the paragraph about the experiment again, I didn’t fully describe the experiment. I wanted to hold discussions about some topics, five different groups of people different arguments for and against something, probably in first form of the experiment just giving this arguments to people and in the second form conditioning them to believe them, and only then revealing to all the groups that all the arguments each particular group was taught were the strongest, were actually all false.
I imagine in your experiment some strong conditioning would be needed, however I don’t have a single doubt about it being possible. I am not sure about it being so possible in the college, because I imagine it would be harder to convince a group of people in the “open” environment, than it would be a group of people surrounded by a bigger group of people agreeing with the conditioning ideas.
I have conducted small false believes experiments already, not with groups of people though, individually, learning about someone’s views, learning their logic and what type of arguments they find strong, then using their logic leading them to bizarre false believes, they could technically arrive at themselves. The more someone is invested in their ideas and seeks validation for their belief system, the easier it is to feed them bullshit. Proving someone’s ideas wrong is more difficult, though is still possible.
What I find even more interesting is hooking people on false believes. After giving them false believes, waiting for them to settle in, you as a person who introduced people to them, say you were wrong and the arguments you gave were weak, but people will not reject them, instead they will start viewing you as one of those “other stupid people who disagree”, whom you conditioned them how to interact with, when you still “supported” those believes.
I don’t understand why people provide cover for those, who use those arguments, but I imagine it would be useful for propagandists. I am not sure, however, if that’s the case.
Oh, I intended for them to be arrested and brought in for interrogation, with cops, and the whole nine yards. I would have had them sign up for an experiment, with the details unknown but agreeing that it might be something stressful, and then actually putting them through similar things that have brought about false confessions in the past. Not actual physical assaults of course, I am interested in how it can be brought about through the mind, not through physical pain.
Interesting about the false beliefs on a smaller scale. It is a similar process to manipulating people that are completely convinced that they are not capable of being manipulated. It is those that have this belief about themselves that can be absolutely broken by someone else, because they believe it isn't possible. They are blind to their weak spots, and someone with a mind to do it, an the knowhow, can destroy them. However, if you point that out to them, they get very defensive, and insist that they have no weaknesses. Such a strange choice, but it is the one that they make.
Once a person like this has seen the other side they have two choices, be broken, or live in denial. They will often live in denial, and yes, it is very useful for propagandists.
Then I am sure it’s possible. I get it, the whole point is not just to make them confess, but to confess genuinely believing the confession. Just read about the legal aspect of such experiments in my country and turns out here they don’t have to be ethical, for you to be able to conduct them, you
only need consent of the participants.
Oh, I have done this, with the primitive tactics right after a person said they were immune to manipulation. Both with those who said so because they watched 3 psychology videos and those who had read a lot of books about manipulation, with the later it being funnier because of how significant the “master of deception” whole part of their identity is.
It’s indeed a very strange choice and a rather bad one.
Did you get a chance to watch the Experimenter? Super interesting. Highly recommend. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3726704/
I have never heard of it. I will look into it, thank you for the recommendation.
Quora's search being what it is, I wasn't able to dig it up, but Habib Fanny wrote something very related to this a while ago. I'm guessing 3 or 4 years ago, I can't really remember when I started following him.
I can only paraphrase a summary of it from memory. Basically he talked about the distinction between beliefs and identity. Over time, people's beliefs become fully intertwined with their identity to the point of being inseparable. Then, when they feel like those beliefs are under attack, they feel like their whole identity is under attack.
I wish I could find the original, he worded it much better, including a little Habib-made drawing.
As to your question posed to your readers, when I have this response, can I override it? Yes, absolutely. But I've had to spend a lot (lot lot lot lot lot) of time practicing. Long story short, because I have depression, I've had to learn to... struggling to find a word... sort of ignore my feelings. I don't actually mean ignore. They're impossible to ignore. I think of it as sort of a loud, unwanted television with a broken volume knob blaring in the background. For me, that television is a steady stream of negative thoughts and feelings. I had to learn to live with it. But I force myself to treat it as background noise.
So, when I feel my fight-or-flight response kick in, in general, I know it's just that television in my head blaring really fucking loudly. I already know I can't trust my feelings. All I have left at that point is to start thinking critically about whatever it is. Once that happens, I can mostly work things out fairly well.
I've gotten pretty good at it. I don't even take medication anymore, but I have to very cognitive about it. I doubt there will ever be a time where I won't have to consciously refuse to listen to that damn television in my head.
I could go on at length, but this is getting off-topic. I only mean to illustrate that I have a genuine reason to be a person who doesn't simply react based on emotion.
So, thinking critically, not simply reacting to feelings for feeling's sake? The notion that all feelings are supposed to be felt, that all the feelings you feel are valid, and you're supposed to act on those feelings? I don't think the majority of people give a moments thought that it should be any other way.
Sometimes it seems as if people with critical thinking skills are the exception, not the norm anymore. I think the stronger a person's critical thinking skills, the less likely they are to be ruled by emotion. I would bet any amount of money that any kind of scientific study would reflect that in what you're asking. The stronger the critical thinking skills, the lower the difficulty in overriding the response you asked about.
Thank you for your response, it was most interesting.
Critical thinking is becoming more rare, and as I watch people embrace emotions for the sole fact of having them, it is literally like watching people descend into addiction. There is a physical and mental transformation that astounds me. What I can't fathom is the disconnect from seeing it and linking their overall unhappiness to this new form of existence that they adopt.
Then there are people like you, who have strong emotional messaging, but you are not willing to give those emotions the reins to your life. I don't imagine that was an easy thing to master by any stretch, but you did the work, and have gained significant control in your life. It seems like that would be the better choice, and yet there must be something in the short term that feels good to go the opposite direction for those that make the choice to do so.
I don't necessarily think it's a matter of it feeling good. I think it really is because of people's general wiring that because they feel a feeling, it must be valid, even if it doesn't feel good.
I was with a borderline for many years. It was... not good for my mental health. She used to say stuff like that a lot. "They're my feelings, they're not wrong or invalid, they're feelings." I used to take that at face value. It took me a long time to realize that, yes, feelings can be 100% wrong. Especially with a BPD. OMG, her feelings were basically wired wrong all the time.
Once I finally knew what was wrong and did some further reading and learning, I almost felt bad for her. Unfortunately the substance abuse component was basically a show stopper.
BPD is like an extreme version of what we're talking about. There's such a disconnect that they just aren't capable of seeing. At least not without help. Seeing her reactions to her emotions doesn't make me think it felt good.
That's one of the last areas of my fight-or-flight response that I still struggle with. It's always when my wife ends up stepping on some of the damage I took from being with my BPD ex. In particular with anything that resembles gas lighting. OMG. It takes every single thing I have in me not to react to that. My wife is going through menopause. Sometimes I'm in the line of sight when she's wearing her rage colored glasses. Being rational is not one of her strengths under those circumstances...
I fully acknowledge that I am the mental health equivalent of an armchair warrior, though. I could very well be projecting my own experiences when I say that I don't think it's because it feels good. Maybe it does feel good for more typical people reacting to their feelings. 🤷
I find what you posted about it being like addiction very interesting though. It kind of makes sense. I've heard a lot of different conversations between addicts (I listen to a lot of podcasts) and a lot of them say that after a while it's NOT like it feels good anymore. They've said it's like they're chasing that time way back at first when it did feel good, when they first starting using.
I wonder if it isn't so much feeling good in the situations that you describe, but rather a pressure release valve, and that is what feels good. Sort of like when someone is insecure, and the fret over it, and worry about it, and it builds up, until someone reassures them that they are good at something, or valuable in some way, and they feel good for a moment, but then the nagging insecurity comes back.
Or the jealous mate who is convinced that their SO is cheating, so they suspect them, follow them, accuse them, snoop through their phone, start fights with them, until they get that moment of clarity that they are loyal, so they feel okay again for a moment. However, when that moment passes, the same notion of suspicion starts all over again. It really isn't about the insecurity, or the jealous, it's about that payoff. All the rest of it leads up to that moment of relief or ego assurance. The rest is the buildup to the finale.
All spoken from someone that is just watching from the outside in of course, but it seems that the motivation, conscious or not, is that personal payoff, and the rest is just the buildup to get to that point. Now, your wife, with menopause, that's a bit different I suppose. I am familiar with how hormones can affect the person's mood, but it isn't something that has ever worked that way with me, so for a long time I thought that it was a rather convenient excuse to have tantrums. It took me awhile to figure out that hormones really are powerful influencers over emotions. Has she tried bioidentical replacement hormones? It might help.
Chasing a memory to get back to it, instead of realizing that moment is over and to feel a new way is probably better than feeling this current and terrible way. But again, outside looking is. What do I know.
Interesting, and learning true self-criticism (I’d say analysis) is part extreme experience, and part ability. I would say those who are able to take something valuable, like the learning about ones’ self (which I believe, for the NT, can only really happen as/after a person faces seemingly insurmountable turmoil or hardship) are fortunate. Please don’t think I disregard it trivialize your experience with depression. Far from it. Medical depression can be a fatal illness and is as devastating as any. I just admire your ability, bravery and coping mechanisms. :)
For context, I am an extremely empathetic person. But I never engage with people that just want to impose their point of view and are not willing to have a healthy debate where arguments given are, at least, considered. Nor I would feel the need to express my point of view if I read/hear anything I disagree with.
I would actually say it is the other way around, unless I know that the person I am about to engage with in a debate, is willing to have a reasonable debate, I won’t even bother.
Very interesting post!
Thank you, and I agree, never engage with someone that isn't approaching you with interest in an honest conversation.
First I just wanted to say thank you. It's a slower day at work, and I'm kind of just pounding through a lot of these posts with my downtime.
This is an interesting question. I'm definitely sitting on your end of the spectrum in regards to seeing and hearing differing opinions. I have a lot of interactions with people including my partner about responding and reacting to these things. She definitely has a tendency to respond to random posts saying things that I'll agree are dumb. My thing is, responding to these comments and posts will never change their opinion and she usually end up feeling worse after they respond to her comments. I say, "well don't do that." I've switched to saying, "Okay do that, but know that you'll end up feeling worse after the exchange." The only way to win in these exchanges are to not care. Or care, but manage your expectations about how it is going to end. And even with all of that intellectual knowledge, people can still slip into doing the thing based on emotions, and going through that same process again.
I have found over the years writing about psychopathy, that if a person has already made up their mind to the point of writing down those words and pushing them out into the world, it is very unlikely that they will change their minds.
The same can be said for most topics I think.
For my part, since becoming self aware of my own... adaptations, I have been training myself to push pause, and think about whatever I'd just got done reading that makes me feel the urge to respond with... Emotions blazing.
Honestly I think it might have more to do with a person's intellect, because it has been a sure sign of an intelligent, scientific mind to be able to, when confronted with an idea which runs contrary to a long held belief, discard that belief when the evidence soundly points toward the new idea being more scientifically correct. So I pause, and assess the words first.
On an unrelated note, I appreciate the invite that I had received to your content here. On Quora it seemed nearly impossible to just read, and occasionally comment your posts without seeing some ... Individuals going apeshit in the comments. I had a hard time getting why those folks were so emotionally invested in what you wrote about your own experiences.... Even Elinor Greenberg seems to value and agree with your viewpoints, so why go apeshit? Anyway, this concludes my wall of text commenting for the day, I swear.
I think people get so angry because if what I say is correct, and psychopaths aren't the monsters of the deep,. it makes them have to reevaluate their beliefs about things, and that makes them upset.
> Any new external idea that disrupts that balance, irrespective of whether it's true or even if it's better for the person than their existing ideas will therefore disrupt homeostasis and create huge physiological discomfort - since at the time it's the body (feelings) that begin to drive the thoughts, not the other way around.
As an autistic person, I can confirm that I have this discomfort when an argument goes/break my ideology/belief system.
When it occurs (except when I am not able to go back and forth with the disturbing information, like in the case of one shot conversations where lots of stuff where said and I already forgotten most of them), I "seek" (but don't enjoy) this kind of discomfort and obsess about it until reaching a new understanding that ends up suppressing the flaws/inconsistencies generating this discomfort in my belief/thinking system.
But it may well be that NT that lack the autistic obsession are unwilling to work trough the inconsistency because there isn't anything that override/force to go trough it.
For my part, I value authors that generate this kind of discomfort, because it allow me to fix and build a better belief/thinking system.
But I must also say that it is not because I consider this kind of material as high quality (the kind that disturb me and allow me to enhance my believe system) that I don't get reluctant about reading it, because it would feel as lot of work and I get lazy and prefers waiting to be in the right mood (energetic and not wanting to just get light&fun distractions). [probably related to autistic executive dysfunction / getting overwhelmed by planning to do something that ask too much work]
It is interesting that you value discomfort. Most people avoid it like the plague.
It's not just biases, as person below mentioned. I mean, do biases even apply while talking about emotional, not cognitive, responses? I think not xD
It's the complexes and frustrations, completely ego related. If someone's opinion crosses their boundaries of what's acceptable (or in other words, when accepting that opinion would mean accepting they are flawed, faulty or limited somehow), their ego gets hurt and their emotions take over. Some more educated individuals might then use biases in attempt to rationalize what is, quite certainly, nothing rational to begin with. I was the latter one :D
"My question is, if you have this response, can you override it?"
I could had overridden them only in rare cases, when I was already exhausted from "defending" my beliefs beforehand. In most of the cases, the cause is the flawed logic resulting from lack of cognitive empathy/perspective taking, inadequate knowledge or experience related to some belief ingrained to us by our environment and memories, fueled by an underlining disorder (any personality disorder and probably most of the affective ones + ADHD and Autism - even Aspergers. you'd be surprised.
So once the underlying logic is fixed, the belief is no longer bound to our ego. It simply becomes a "perspective", and now we can readily recognize the situations where it might get someone else triggered, as well as the idea who would be ready to correct their logic and who wouldn't, but this "skill" only gets better with experience.
"If you can, do you find yourself in the habit of doing so, or is the threat response to strong to counter it? "
When you don't know the underlying logic, the urge depends on the importance of the belief to our ego AND on the amount of emotions waiting to be released somewhere (displacement!). In my experience, the threat response is too strong to counter it most of the times. I mean, it's not purely emotional - you could look at it as if countering it would cost us more than it would get us in return. We use those occassions to blow some steem, simply put.
"Do you find yourself to be more logical in your consideration of the world, or do your emotions attach to your beliefs, making them hard to reevaluate?"
I've always considered myself overly emotional and hypersensitive, and that changed when I realized that emotional sensitivity = sensitivity to changes in the environment = intelligence, and intelligence happens to be related to both working memory AND logic, as well. Now I'm completely in control of my emotions and dare to say that they're balanced with logic and experience (I use emotions to fuel logic and to choose which experiences to save in memory and which ones to discard).
Don't forget experience/memory - that variable is as important as emotions and logic are; there is no logic vs emotions conundrum. Sometimes your empirical facts (experience) counter the logical facts, and your emotions (gut feeling) leans to those empirical facts as well. In this case you can say that experience decided a "winner" between emotions and logic.
Perhaps it's true psychopaths don't learn from experience, after all :P
Thank you for your perspective.