Category: Mastering Emotions as Tools

including facts you didn’t know, your emotional toolkit, and more

The Emotional Mastery Cycle and Asking questions Part 1

Note:

This is the first of a two part series of posts on asking questions as part of the the Emotional Mastery Cycle (EMC).

In Part 1 of this two part series, I will address general issues involved in asking questions to help us master our emotions as strategic tools.

In Part 2, I will further explore the issue of asking questions and will use the emotion of anger as a specific emotion.

This EMC describes both how the emotions we experience are elicited and how we can strategically deploy those emotions as tools to improve our lives and our relationships.

Recall that the EMC starts with our constantly scanning of our surroundings.

This unconscious process is..

  • protective in that we continuously  and automatically scan for any threats,
  •  informative as it alerts us to any situation which requires that we quickly take action to insure our “survival” and
  • energizing as it automatically prepares our bodies to take the necessary action.

The “survival” focussed emotions are primitive threat detectors and include emotions such as anger, fear, disgust, anxiety.  These primitive threat detectors prepare us for “fight or flight”.

Other emotions such as happy, anticipation, and excitement prepare us to engage with what  is going on.

Once we experience an emotion, the conscious part of our brain kicks in and provides us with the opportunity to validate the emotion by both accepting that the emotion is giving us information about how we perceive what is going on and examining the extent to which our initial perception matches what is actually happening.

Once, we determine the degree to which what we think is happening matches what is actually happening, we can choose how we want to respond to the situation.

The process of validating our emotions involves asking questions.

While it sounds easy to “just ask questions”, the process of asking the right question in order to elicit useful answers isn’t easy as it involves:

  • lowering your arousal level
  • focussing your attention on the situation at hand
  • remaining both mindful and somewhat objective, or detached, from that situation, so that you can and
  • understanding the nature of the informative answers you are seeking.

Indeed,  if we don’t ask the right questions, the answers we get won’t be of much use to us in generating an adaptive response to our situation. So, learning how to ask the “right” question is critical in dealing with emotions.

The “right” question is the one that focuses your attention on, and attempts to gain insight into, what is actually going on in your situation that elicited the emotion you are experiencing.

So, let’s take a closer look at both the process of asking questions in the context of gaining insight into your situation by validating your emotions and exploring some examples of questions you might ask.

The Process of Asking Questions

I. Create safety.

Before you can effectively deal with any emotional situation, you have to create some “safety” in that situation.  You need to put some physical distance between you and your situation and you need to put some  psychological distance  between you and your situation.

If you are not “safe”, asking questions will not happen.

So, the first step is to take a step back from what is going on.

Taking a step back from your situation not only creates physical safety, if this is an issue, but it gives you some  perspective on what is going on. The  creation of space between you and your situation is very important.

But, and this is also critical, you will have to practice taking this step in emotional situations in order for it to be available to you when you need it.

The second step is to take a deep breath (or more).

The deep breath has a calming effect on the body and provides an opportunity for you to  increase your objectivity.  The more intense the emotion, the more problematic it will be to remain objective or “detached”.  But, it is doable and the more you work at maintaining some detachment, the easier it gets.

II. Asking Clarifying Questions

The focus here is to ask questions the answers to which will give you the information you need to understand what you are experiencing so you can make an adaptive decision which will allow you to strategically master your situation.

Identify your initial feeling.

What am I feeling here?

The emotion you initially experience is elicited by your subconscious perception of what is going on.  It is influenced by the present environment, the other person’s behavior, perceived differences in status between you and the other person, your own past and any emotional “baggage” you may bring with you into the present.  This baggage can involve previous situations which seem (but may not be) to be similar to the present, your insecurities or doubts, your interpersonal skill sets, etc.

The important issue here is to remember that your initial emotional reaction may, or may not, be accurate.

It’s nice if only one feeling comes up but sometimes you may experience several (or mixed) feelings.

You will need to accept whatever answer comes up and avoid judging (in any way) what you are feeling.

Accepting the feeling is the first step to validating it.  You do this by remembering that:

  • you are entitled to feel whatever you feel
  • you may not be entitled to act on the feeling
  • this is your initial reaction
  • you will be exploring this feeling to see how well it fits the situation
  • you can change the feeling.

Clarify the situation.

What is actually happening here?

This is where you attempt to be as objective as you can.

This question encourages you to look at both what appears to be happening (your initial perception) and what might be happening (other ways to view your situation).

Other questions include:

  • Could I be missing something here?
  • What interpretations or judgements am I making about the other person and what he/she is doing?
  • What is the other person trying to accomplish here?
  • Could his/her actions be the result of a lack of ability to express his/her needs in a more appropriate way?

NOTE:

  1. By asking the above questions, you are either redirecting your thoughts so as to change how you perceive what is happening and your feelings about it or you are confirming your initial perception as a precursor to taking action.
  2. It is important to note that you are not excluding the possibility that your initial perception is accurate and that the other person’s behavior is both inappropriate and represents the actual threat your feeling is telling you exists.

Bring your feelings in line with the situation.

To what extent does what I am feeling match what is going on?

Here, your intent is to bring what you are perceiving and feeling in line with what is actually happening.

Other questions you might ask include:

  • Does the intensity of my feelings match the situation?
  • Do I have several feelings I need to consider?

Now, that you have decided what is going on and how you feel about it, the next step choose an adaptive response.

Choose an adaptive response.

Note:

  • An adaptive response is one that takes into account what is going on in the situation, validates the initial emotional responses of both participants, and, where possible, seeks to resolve any emotional issues which exist.
  • This is a win-win.
  • A direct response may not always be possible and you may be in a situation where only your emotional issues are resolved.

What is the best way for me to respond to what is going on?

What often happens when someone reacts to an emotional event is that they overreact, get a response from others they later regret, and blame the emotion for “causing” them to do what they did.

They might say, “If I wasn’t so angry, I would not have (done something stupid, acted out aggressively, hurt someone, etc.).  While it may be true that if the emotion were not present, the inappropriate action would not have occurred, it is NEVER true that the emotion CAUSED the inappropriate action.  What we do is ALWAYS our CHOICE!

Other questions you might ask here include:

  • What are my options for expressing my feelings?
  • Are there “display” issues I need to consider?
  • What actions do I want to take?
  • What are the consequences of each option?
  • What result am I hoping for?
  • What if I do nothing?

Final notes.

You have now  completed the emotions cycle starting with your initial unconscious perception and ending with your conscious choice of what actions you want to take.

You did this by asking relevant questions, paying attention to the answers to those questions, changing your perceptions as dictated by those answers, and choosing a response.

 

Mastering the Emotions of “missed opportunities”.

A few weeks ago, some friends of mine entered into a contract to buy a house. They asked many questions and secured the best deal they could.  When they took ownership and looked further into the house, they realized that they had “failed” to add a clause to the contract regarding any problems they encountered once they moved in.

Upon realizing their error, they began to engage in “regretful” thinking..

“Regretful” thinking involves thoughts which imply both that what you did was, in some way, wrong, inadequate, hurtful or damaging to you, the situation, or another person and that, by some unknown means, you could go back and change what you did.

Here are some examples of regretful thinking..

Shoulda’s…

as in “We should have …”

If only ida’s…

as in “If only I had…”.

I wish I hada’s…

as in “I wish I had…..”

There are several maladaptive issues with regretful thinking..

Regretful thinking can be rather powerful because it has a veneer of truth to it.  Yes, if you had acted differently, the outcome would have been better. The main issue, however, is that you can’t go back and change what you did or did not do.

Secondly, depending on the emphasis you place on your regretful thoughts, other emotions will be elicited by those thought which could be problematic  for you including:

  • regret (I did something dumb and I can’t change it),
  • sadness (I lost something important),
  • shame (I’m really a bad, dumb, or worthless person),
  • anxiety (My future will always be messed up.), or
  • anger (that seller really screwed me).

The Emotions as Tools (EaT) Model informs you of the steps you need to take to deal with “regretful” thoughts and the emotions these thoughts elicit.

The EaT steps..

  1. Take a deep breath and a step back from the situation. This might involve taking a walk, putting the situation “on hold” for a moment, doing some other important task and so forth.
  2. Acknowledge and label the feeling you are experiencing and the message of each emotion. (Deal with only one emotion at a time.)
  3. “IWBNI”      Explain to yourself that you did what you did (We’ll come back to this below with the BRR) and assertively invoke an IWBNI (It Would Be Nice If) you had acted differently. Viewing your situation through the lens of an IWBNI enables you to acknowledge both what you did (or did not) do and the actions you wish had done instead.
  4. BRR.   Eliminate judgement by remembering (and applying) the BRR (Basic Relationship Rule) which states that everyone (including you) always does the Best they can (not the best possible) given their Model of the World (how they are perceiving, viewing or conceptualizing) what is going on in the moment and their Skill Sets (the tools, behaviors, abilities, emotions, knowledge) they bring to the situation.  The BRR does not justify or excuse any action or inaction.  It only helps to understand what took place and eliminate any personal condemnation.  Any judgement of one’s actions, if appropriate can come later.  So, if what you did was not what you have preferred to do, take a look at how you perceived your situation (your Model) and the tools you used to determine what actions you did take.  Did you fail to fully understand what was going on or did you not use some tools to help you act differently than you did?
  5. Forgive Yourself.  Forgiving involves letting go of any self-condemnation as in “I should have…”.
  6. Learn from the situation so that you can make a different decision in the future.  This involves learning from the information you now have to be more aware in the future and make a different decision.
  7. Acceptance.  Acknowledge that your situation is what it is, you’ve extracted whatever learning you can from it, and it is time to move on.  In other words, “This, too, shall pass.”

My friends basically did all of the above.  They finally decided that they would just have to live with their actions and “In time, it would pass.”

As a follow-up to the above, in my next post, I will republish a post from July 2022 dealing specifically with the emotion of regret.

 

2 Problematic Processes which Activate and Energize Emotional Threats and How To Neutralize Them.

In many of my posts, I have presented, discussed, addressed, and explained the Emotions Cycle.

At its core, the Emotions Cycle involves the following 4 steps…

  1. starting from the unconscious scanning  for threat,
  2. proceeding through the  unconscious perception of that threat (based on whatever “definition” you have currently “loaded” into your scanning process regarding the situation you are in),and,
  3. moving from the subconscious to the conscious by assessing the nature of the threat and
  4. choosing an adaptive response.

While steps 1 and 2 occur at the subconscious level and are outside of your awareness, your perception of threat stems from and is based on your inherent definition of what constitutes a threat (to you in the context of your current situation).

Your definition of “threat” is based on your past, your self-image, your skill sets, your tolerance for risk and many other factors. The objective situation (or what is actually taking place), of course, is a contributing factor but pales compared to other subjective factors.

Extraordinary (extra-ordinary) actions

As an example, there are numerous reports in the news where bystanders have rushed into burning buildings, run toward  burning cars,  or  just acted in extraordinary ways to rescue someone from what is, to any observer, a dangerous situation.

When told they are a hero, these otherwise normal people, deny their hero status saying they only did what anyone else would have done.

Clearly, they are extraordinary because they did what others did not.

Their actions stemmed from their definition of threat at the moment they moved to take extraordinary action.

Most of us might view the fire, the danger of being severely injured, or the possibility of dying as the critical survival threat we needed to avoid.

This is normal.

These individuals saw the same survival issues that others saw but viewed the threat of the victim’s possibly dying as the real issue confronting them and rushed into the situation.

The possible death of the victim constituted the critical threat they wanted to avoid.

While this is extra-ordinary, the emotional process is the same for both bystanders.  It is also why these individuals did not see themselves as “heroes”.  They were just acting “normally” or “doing what anyone else would do”.

Both the ordinary bystander and the extraordinary bystander are correct in their definitions of threat in their shared experience.  Their different actions stemmed from their divergent definitions of what constituted the primary threat facing them that they wanted to avoid.

Perception of threat is YOUR reality not necessarily THE reality.

I’ve mentioned in previous posts the situation in which, when I was a new supervising psychologist, one of my staff psychologists got very angry regarding a memo I sent out to all of my staff.

As a review, one of my staff was acting in a way which came very close to insubordination.  I was a new supervisor and folks at the home office suggested I put out a general memo pointing out how important it was for everyone to follow policy.  The idea was that I should take the path of least resistance and not single anyone out.

As this was the first step in beginning to hold this one staff member accountable, I was instructed to send out a memo to all staff with the general caveat that “failure to follow policy could result in disciplinary action”.

One of my staff fumed into my office and indignantly proclaimed that she had been working over 20 years as a  Psychologist, had never violated policy, and was incensed that she was being threatened with disciplinary action.

You will recall that the message of anger is that you perceive a threat that will “kill” you and that you must go to war to eliminate.

With this staff member, the threat was to her self-image as an unrecognized, reliable, ethical and self-disciplined worker who followed all the rules. To be threatened with disciplinary action was viewed as unnecessary, inappropriate, and insulting. With her reputation (and self-image) at stake, she went on the offensive and lashed out.

She assumed the memo was directed at her, viewed the memo as unacceptable and acted as-if this were the only explanation for the memo.

More on this below…

Once I clarified that it was a general memo and was not directed at her specifically, that she was a valued and responsible team member and that no disciplinary action was pending, she calmed down.

Given her new “reality”, there was no threat.

The Emotional Cycle

What is often not discussed in the context of anger, or any other emotionally based threat, is that how one defines the current threat (and the resulting perception of threat based on that definition) often stems from two actions, both of which are often automatic, inappropriate and highly problematic.

While I have addressed anger as an emotion which alerts us to and prepares us to go to war to defend against a perceived threat, I’d like to dig a little deeper and explore two processes which activate, energize, and transform our perception of threat: assuming and acting as-if.

Together, these two processes constitute an extreme case of tunnel vision.

Assuming:

We make an assumption when we come to a conclusion (or make a judgement) about a situation based on “facts” which we believe fit, clarify and explain the situation we are facing.  Assumptions often fill in for information which is unavailable, ambiguous, or doesn’t fit our perception.

Our assumptions are often problematic because they are presumed to be correct but are not validated.

One example is assuming you know what another person is thinking or feeling.

Acting as-if:

The second problematic process occurs when you act as-if your perception of the situation is inclusive, accurate and descriptive of the situation.  Indeed, we act as-if our perception is the best and only way of perceiving what is going on.

To put it another way..

The actions you take in your own defense are based on your perception of the situation.  This is part of the emotional process.

The problematic issue is that you consider your perception to be both totally inclusive of all possible explanations and completely exclusive in that yours is the only way of perceiving what is going on.

This is problematic because it narrows your assessment of what is going on, blinds you to other explanations, accentuates the destructiveness of the threat, and energizes your efforts to eliminate the threat.

The Antidote

To neutralize the insidious impact of assuming and acting as-if, when (in step #3) you engage the conscious process of assessing your situation, you need to make a special effort to be as objective as possible (not easy to do but definitely doable with practice).  Taking a physical step back from the situation (creating physical distance) and a deep breath (creating psychological distance) can be a signal to you to focus your attention both on what appears to be happening and on other possible explanations for what is happening.

With this information available to you, you can choose your response.

How to effectively understand and deal with other people in their relationships with you.–A Quick Guide

Does this apply to you?

You are interacting with another person and their reaction to you leaves you “scratching your head” and wondering what is going on with them or elicits an emotional reaction in you such as anger which isn’t consistent with the situation or your history with this person.

In this post, I will address how to begin to understand others who direct their emotions at you.

There are several issues which you should take into account when you are dealing with an emotional  reaction of another person.

They are (in order of importance):

I. The specific emotion the other person is expressing and the message of that emotion as well as your emotional reaction (if relevant).

II. The situation including the nature of the relationship between you and the other person.

III. The BRR: Giving meaning to their behavior.

IV. How you want to respond or “intervene”

I. The specific emotion and the message of that emotion.

As soon as you become aware that someone is directing a specific emotion at you, your first actions should be to take a deep breath to calm yourself down and take a step back from the situation to initially create some physical space between you and the other person.

You can then become aware of and begin to assess the specific emotion the other person is expressing and the message of that emotion.

The emotion that you observe in the other person is a direct reflection of how they perceive their interaction with you.

The message of the emotion will inform you about how the other person is perceiving you and your situation and their interactions with you..

By attending to the message of the emotion, you gain important insight into how the other person perceives, conceptualizes and understands what is going on between the two of you.

Their perception may or may not conform to what you intend to happen between you.

This information will be critical when you decide how to interact with this person and address the emotion which stems from their perception.

Some examples:

Anger: they perceive a threat in the situation that they want to eliminate.  Anger prepares one for war.

Anxiety: a future based emotion the message of which is that there MAY be a future threat that might be “dangerous”. They are facing a possible threat in their relationship with you.

Shame: the message of shame is that the person believes they are inherently a bad or damaged person. There is something going on between you that is eliciting self-consuming thoughts in them.

Fear: this is a here and now emotion which communicates that they see you as an eminent threat which must be immediately avoided.

The message of your emotional reaction communicates to you how you are perceiving them.  You may need to pay attention to your initial reaction so that you do not overreact, escalate the interaction, and make it more difficult to master what is going on between you and the other person.

II. The situation including the nature of the relationship between you and the other person

Awareness of the emotion is the beginning of the process of responding to that emotion.

The next issue for you is to be aware of the situation as your options may be limited by elements of the situation in which your interactions with this person are occurring.

At least 3 situations come to mind…

1.Are you at risk?

If you need to escape or hide, what are your options.

2. Are you in a position to comfort, advise, or offer assistance to  this person?

If the person is opening up to you about an emotion such as anxiety or sadness, are you in a position to offer assistance?

3.Are there power differentials which impact how you can respond?

  •   Is the other person a superior or boss?
  •   Is the other person someone you want or need to respond to as opposed to “dismissing” them in an appropriate manner?
  • Does your “status” as a woman, a manager, an hourly employee, impact your response options?

III. BRR: What is motivating their behavior

You are aware of the emotion which informs you of how the other person perceives you and their interactions with you and of your situation which gives you additional information regarding your options.

You can now look at the individual and what how they are interacting with you. You do this using the Basic Relationship Rule (BRR).

The BRR tells you that every person in every situation does the best they can (not the best possible) given their Model of the World (how they perceive what is going on) and their Skill Sets (The behavioral tools they can call upon to help them deal with their interaction with you.)

Changing their Model

If you know how they are perceiving their current interaction with you (the message of the emotion) and you know that their perception is elicited by their Model or how they make sense of, understand, or interpret of what is happening, and you can change this Model by asking questions, offering some suggestions, then intervening to change the Model is a good choice.

Dealing with a skill set deficit (They don’t have the right tools for the situation.)

If their inappropriate actions are stemming from a skill set deficit, then they are in a situation in which they don’t really know how to interact with you and are struggling.  In this case, you may have to resort to reassuring them that it will work out, give them some space, avoid confrontations, or use distraction if possible and so forth.

IV. Choose an adaptive response.

Based on all of the above, choose how you want to respond and take action.

Anger as an example…

This is the scenario I used..

You are at _____ (work, home, walking the dog) and someone interacts with you in such a way that it seems clear to you that this person is angry with you.  He (or she) might be yelling at you, talking fast, accusing you of having done something and so forth.  It is not immediately clear why they are angry.

I discussed 7 general issues and 6 steps.

Here are the 7 general issues that I originally addressed in my book Beyond Anger Mastery: Master Your Anger as a Strategic Tool.

  1. What is the nature of the threat the other person perceives?
  2. Are they telling you that you have done something wrong? If so, what is it? Is is something you did recently, are currently doing, or something you did in the past?
  3. Are they just venting and you just happened to be in the way?
  4. Is the threat, or the implied threat, that they perceive in the present and something you may be able to resolve?
  5. Is the threat they perceive, or the implied threat, in the present but totally unrelated to you?
  6. Are they using their anger to “manipulate” you in some way or get you to do something specific like back-off (anger as a communicator) or give in (instrumental anger)?
  7. If there is no obvious threat, what else might be going on? Could they be using their anger to cover over some other feeling (secondary anger)? Or, if they are attacking you or demeaning your character, could they be attempting to divert attention away from issues you have raised and onto you as an individual?

Here are the 6 Steps…

Step 1:  Prepare to engage.

Sub-steps:  a. Calm yourself by taking a deep breath   b. Take a physical step back if your physical safety is an issue.

Step 2: Insure your safety.

Sub-steps: a. assess personal threat level   b.Assess need for immediate action.

Step 3: Validate their anger.

Sub-steps: a. Assume their anger is valid.  b. Calm them down.

Step 4: Forgiveness.  

Sub-steps: a. understand what forgiveness is. b. Don’t take their anger personally.

Step 5: Empathize with and attempt to understand the other person’s anger.    

Sub-steps: a. Seek first to understand.  b. Address 7 general issues.

Step 6: Decide how to respond.  

Sub-steps: a. If you did something.  b. The issue is in their head.

Here are the links to a series of 3 posts I published in Febuary and March of 2017 which address how to intervene when another person is angry with you. These three posts and the suggestions I made in them are as relevant and valid today as they were in 2017.

You are the target of someone’s anger: Part 1

You are the target of someone’s anger: Part 2

You are the target of someone’s anger: Part 3

 

Let’s take a look at “hate” and why you might want to avoid it.

I recently listened to an episode of the “Divorce Devil” podcast in which the host noted that while you might want to get past the emotion of hate after divorce as quickly as you can, a little bit of self-hate for a little while (I’m paraphrasing here.) was acceptable.

I disagree as I’ll discuss below.

I also recently watched the news in which the latest shooting was labelled a “hate” crime.

There is, indeed, too much hate in America today.

So, let’s look at the emotion of hate.

The Emotions as Tools Model notes that each emotion informs you about how you perceive your surroundings.  This is the message of the emotion.  I have discussed the Emotions as Tools Model in numerous past posts and in my book Emotions as Tools: Control Your Life not Your Feelings.

The message of hate is that you perceive a situation or person as extremely negative or even demonic.  Your perception of another person or situation doesn’t get much worse than that which elicits hate.

So, your emotion motivates you to eliminate the object of your hate.

Hate is a very strong emotion that is usually reserved for people whose actions you view as unacceptable, evil, despicable or reprehensible.  Presumably, you would want nothing to do with this person because he, she, or it is extremely toxic, negative or hurtful.

Logically, you’d think that your emotional reaction to hate would be to cut ties with or avoid the person you view with such animosity and disdain.

This is not, however, what frequently happens.

Let me digress here for just a moment.

In this post, I am addressing the emotion of hate.  This is so strong an emotion that its presence and the actions it elicits are cletarly recognizable, if not always correctly labelled.

So, I am not talking about how the word “hate” is often used in every day conversation.

Indeed, when we say “I hate Brussels Sprouts.” the word hate is the same word as that used for the  emotion and “hate” crimes.

The meaning and intent, however, of the word in the latter instances are very different.

To be accurate, while you may say that you “hate” Brussels Sprouts, in reality you just dislike them. Indeed, you may even dislike them a whole lot. (By the way, I did not like Brussels Sprouts as a kid because of the way my mom cooked them. Now, when they are served in butter with bacon, I have to make sure I leave some for every body else.) So, while you may dislike Brussels Sprouts, I really doubt that you are emotionally attached to them.

With the emotion of hate, however, your actions are the exact opposite of what you’d expect.  Instead of being repelled from the object of your hate, you bind yourself to the  person or situation just as powerfully as if you were in love with them.

Let me give you an illustration of what I mean.

Let’s look at love.

Imagine that you are facing a person and you are firmly holding both of their hands in yours. Everywhere they go, you go.  And, vice versa.

Think of this as love.

You are emotionally connected to the the person you love and they are with you all the time.

Now, let’s look at hate.

Imagine that you are now standing back to back with this person with both of their hands firmly in yours. As you can see, you are now opposite to them.

This is the basis for people believing that love is the opposite of hate.

But, let’s take a deeper look.

Indeed, with hate, you are just as securely attached emotionally to the object of your hate.  Wherever you go, they go with you.  And, they are with you all the time.

If you truly hate someone, you need to understand that you can be consumed by your hate. Just as you can be consumed by your love.

This may or may not be okay with love.  It definitely isn’t okay with hate.

Anger and Hate

To the extent that you are dealing with a person or group through the emotion of hate and you see this person as evil and a threat, you also are most likely experiencing anger.

The message of anger is that you perceive a threat to your values or sense of right and wrong and you believe you can eliminate the threat by throwing enough force at it.  Anger prepares y0u for war.

To mix anger and hate together can be very dangerous.  The hate tells you that this person is evil and reprehensible and it emotionally binds you to that person. Your anger motivates y0u to take destructive anger to eliminate this perceived reprehensible threat. Under these circumstances, logic and thinking about consequences often are overwhelmed or eliminated.

Think about hate groups, hate crimes, extreme discrimination and prejudices etc.

Avoiding Hate (Not easy, but doable)

This is why you might want to avoid hating another person.

“Huh”, you say, “What do you mean?”

Well, as I said above, hate is a very strong emotion which when you are under its influence can hijack your critical thinking and result in your not taking the important step in mastering your emotions as tools of assessing your situation and the validity of the message your emotion is communicating to you.

Thus, with hate (and anger), you should assess both whether the object of your hate is, indeed, demonic AND whether the actions you are about to engage in (such as shooting someone) will improve the situation in which you find yourself.

So, what are your options?

First of all, when you experience the emotion of hate, force yourself to step back from the situation and take a very deep breath.

This is part of the Emotions as Tools Model.

Once you have calmed down, remind yourself that hate is not an emotion you want to stay engaged with because it can be consuming and elicit actions you may later regret.

With some distance between you, your hate, and the “hated” object, assess the degree to which this object is, indeed, terrible, reprehensible or demonic.  If they are also dangerous, use the energy of your anger to take evasive action.

If you are not in danger, then choose to see them as disgusting and disdainful.

The message of disgust is that you should act to avoid to dispel the disgusting object from your life. Think of Brussels Sprouts as disgusting.

The message of disdain is that someone or something is unworthyof one’s consideration or respect; contempt.

The point here is that, as you are not emotionally intertwined with the previously hated object, you are now in a position to choose how you want to interact with that object.

Getting back to the divorce podcast….

From the above perspective, would you, as a  counselor, really want to green-light self-hate (or other-hate) after divorce in your client?

My answer is “No”.

While the individual who has just gone through a divorce might engage in self-blame (They do need to assess their role in the divorce.) seeing themselves  as demonic or reprehensible, probably won’t help them to get past the divorce.

Hence, no self-hate.

Hating the spouse (tho they might be reprehensible) is not healthy as they need to become emotionally independent of, not emotionally bound to, the now legally separated spouse.

Hence, other-hate is not appropriate either.

Criticism as gotten a bad rap. Learn to strategically deploy it using Emotions as Tools Model and the Basic Relationship Rule.

Note:

We live in a world today when words such as criticism, understanding, accommodation, and compromise are “dirty” words.

Because we are so siloed in our own belief systems, the world becomes very binary.  I am right and you are wrong. Criticism is seen as an attack.

While I can’t address all of the above issues, I will attempt to shed some light on the topic of criticism. 

When you think about the idea of criticism, you probably think of a situation in which..

  • you were told you had messed up
  • you were presented with negative issues about yourself
  • you were demeaned or marginalized or felt attacked
  • the person delivering the critical comments to you wasn’t very nice

All of the above examples imply an undesirable situation in which you are the target of hurtful comments directed at you by someone who may, or may not, have your best interests in mind.

This is the typical way we tend to view criticism and it is the reason that criticism has gotten a bad rap and is viewed as something we want to avoid.

In this post, I will suggest that you change your approach to criticism, utilize the concepts from the Emotions as Tools Model and strategically deploy criticism by view it as a potential source of useful information and not getting emotionally trapped by the way in which the criticism was delivered.

I am assuming that there is a relationship between you and the other person and that you are not being irrationally (or unsafely) attacked.

Let me give you an example.

I am a college professor. My students tell me that I am good at what I do and I enjoy the teaching experience.

But, it didn’t start out this way.  In fact, I started teaching because I was very anxious about speaking in public.

When I first started teaching, I was terrible.  I read my notes, probably bored my students half to death and avoided any feedback (or criticism) because I was not confident enough to receive it.

At one point, however, I made a crucial decision.

I decided to seek out comments from my students and viewed it as a source of information that might make me a better teacher.

From the comments of my students (favorable and unfavorable), I was able to grow as a professor.

Now, I need to say that it didn’t matter whether the student liked me or not.  The reason for this is that even if a student was just being critical out of a desire to be hurtful, there might be something of value in what he, or she, said.

Put another way, wrong motivation… right information.

I also had to learn to master my own emotional response to the criticism.

Anxiety to anticipation

I received.  I had to change my approach to the information I received from viewing it as a possible threat (anxiety) to viewing it as a possible source of useful information (anticipation).

Anger to acceptance

I had to change my view of the information and the source of that inforrmation not as an attack (anger) but as an opinion to be considered on its face value (acceptance).

These are some of the emotions you might need to master as you lead to deal with criticism…

Anger so that you do not get offended and Attack

Anxiety so that you do not get nervous and Avoid

Guilt so that you do not go into self-blame

Anticipation so that you remain open and receptive

Resentment is that someone has wronged or hurt you by taking advantage of you.  They have an asset (power, gender, position) that you do not and they have exploited that asset to gain an advantage over you.

The Emotions as Tools Model

The Emotions as Tools Model notes that all emotions are just tools that we need to learn to master.

Each emotion conveys a message about how we perceive our surroundings. Emotional mastery happens when we accept our perception, assess the validity of the message for us in that situation, and choose an adaptive response

This approach to emotions is adaptive whether we are seeking to master our own emotions or the emotions directed at us by another person.

The Emotions as Tools Model applied to Criticism

Criticism is just a tool which conveys a message about how the individual delivering the criticism perceives the situation.

Our job in mastering criticism  is two-fold.

  1. We need to master our own emotional response so that we avoid unnecessarily escalating the interaction and cut off communication
  2. We need to master our own emotional response so that we remain open to the possible message of the criticism.

The Basic Relationship Rule (BRR) and Criticism

The BRR states that “Everyone in every situation does the best they can (not the best possible) given their Model of the World (the information they have about the situaiton) and their Skill Sets (the tools they have to engage in the situation they are facing).

Remembering the BRR will help you remain open to the message by attempting, when needed, to understand and avoid judging the individual delivering the criticism (the message).

Understanding the Process of Criticism

There are two aspects of criticism:

How the criticism is delivered (Giving) and how it is received (Taking)

In our discussion so far, I have only addressed the taking aspect of criticism and I would like to explore the important characteristics involved in taking (or receiving criticism).

Regardless of how criticism is delivered (We’ll get to this below.), you always have a choice regarding what you do with the information directed at you.

In the above example of my teaching, I started out with a maladaptive approach to criticism. I avoided it.

Other maladaptive approaches to taking criticism include:

  • demeaning the message and defending oneself before assessing the message for any useful content,
  • demeaning or attacking the messenger,
  • stonewalling,
  • superficial acceptance (yes-but)

Approaching criticism from an Emotions as Tools perspective represents as adaptive receiving of criticism and involves:

  • maintaining a neutral or inquisitive emotional attitude toward the message
  • accepting the message as representative of the perspective of the giver and involves both his Model (how he sees you and the actions you have taken) and his skill sets (the communication tools he can use to get his message across).  This is the BRR.
  • assessing the message (regardless of how it is communicated) for any useful content which might help you grow
  • choosing how you want to respond to the criticism including taking the person for sharing their thoughts or implementing their suggestions.

Note: You can always come back later, if necessary, and revisit the way the criticism was delivered to you, the impact of the delivery on your relationship with the person criticizing you and other interpersonal issues.

In doing the above, you have mastered the criticism and strategically deployed it as a tool to help you grow.

In case you are interested, there are adaptive and malaptive ways of giving criticism as well.

Adaptive giving of criticism involves:

  • being clear that your criticism will be helpful
  • using a non-judgmental communication style to deliver the criticism
  • avoid blaming or assuming you know their reasons for their actions
  • remaining sensitive to both their emotions and your own as you deliver your message
  • clearly stating the behavior you are criticizing and what new behavior you wish to see and that they are capable of doing what you are suggesting
  • making sure that your message is understood
  • successfully “closing” the interaction

Maladaptive giving is

  • judgmental,
  • accusatory,
  • often  non-specific and
  • insensitive.

So, the next time someone criticizes you…

  • Take a deep breath (or two)
  • Take a physical step back from the situation.
  • Assess what is going on.

As a long-time reader of this blog, this should sound very familiar to you.

 

July 4, 2023— Celebrate TWO “Independences” and the 7 Steps to Emotional Independence.

This is an update of a post from 2021.  At the time, we were in the midst of Covid-19.  Well, Covid is basically “handled” but clearly we, in the US, are still dealing with some significant emotional issues including hate crimes against Asians and Jews and shooting of innocent people going to the wrong address.  Consequently, I believe the message is as appropriate now as it was then.In

In  two weeks  on July 4, we, in the US, will celebrate Independence Day. It is often a fun Holiday marked by fireworks and outdoor barbecues.

This year, I am suggesting you celebrate BOTH our country’s independence (#1), AND your independence from your emotions (#2) if you find yourself making decisions and doing stuff, based on your emotions, that you later regret.

So, what does “independence” mean?

To the extent that you are “independent”, you are capable of making your own decisions, creating your own destiny, and taking control of your own life to impact the directions in which you want to go and the relationships you wish to create and nurture.

Independence:

  1. Our country fought the war of independence to get out from under the onerous rule of the English Monarchy.  Independence meant being able to    determine our own destinies.
  2. Now, you may wonder what I mean by celebrating your independence from your emotions.

Well, as a reader of this blog, you know that I write about strategically mastering your emotions as tools to improve your life and your relationships.

To the extent that you are doing this, you are independent of your emotions.

Many people, however, believe that their emotions control them.

This belief stems from their experience that emotions seem to just happen and to just happen to them.  As I have explained in the Emotional Mastery Cycle, the unconscious reaction to a perception of threat does happen very quickly and is beyond one’s control.  This is a survival mechanism and evolved to protect us.

But, and this is crucial, another part of the Emotional Mastery Cycle is the activation of the Cerebral Cortex or thinking part of the brain.  The Cerebral Cortex empowers you to decide how you want to utilize and strategically deploy the energy the emotion provides.

The truth…..

Your emotions do not control you.  

They alert you, inform you, and motivate you.  But, you always have a choice about how you will respond to the situation in which you find yourself.

So, if you believe that your emotions control you, then, maybe, this July 4, is your opportunity to declare your independence from your emotions.

I have written numerous blog posts talking about what emotions are and how to strategically deploy them as tools.

In this post I want to list, for you, the 7 steps to emotional independence.

Step 1: Declare, regardless of how you feel about them, that “Emotions are ONLY tools.”.

Step 2: Declare that you can learn how to use a tool.

Step 3: Pick a specific emotion you want to learn how to use and write down any questions you may have about that emotion and the control it feels, to you, that it exerts over you.

Step 4: Hit the Index tab in the upper Left hand corner of this homepage, click on a category, and pick a post which seems to address your major questions about that emotion.

Step 5: Using the information from the posts you have read regarding the specific emotion you want to learn to master (become independent of), decide what new decisions you need to make regarding how you relate to that emotion.

Step 6: Make a Plan and a Commitment to yourself to make these decisions  and apply them in your life.

Step 7: Execute your Plan.

But, remember that making changes in your life takes time.  Be kind and supportive of yourself and you begin to establish that your emotions are there for you to deploy, as tools, to improve your life and your relationships.

Happy July 4th Independence Day!

Blaming Your Emotions (Person or Situation) for Your Behavior is Always Inappropriate.

The Statements:

  1. “You make me so MAD!”
  2. “I wouldn’t have said (or done) THAT if I hadn’t been so MAD!“

Sound familiar?

The Facts:

#1 is completely false.

#2 has an element of truth to it but is basically misleading and incorrect and is, essentially the same as #1.

The Explanation:

In my last post, I talked about the Emotions Cycle,  the perception of threat (in the context of heroic behavior, and the two processes of Assuming and Acting As-if

In this post, I am going to expand on my earlier discussion and take in a different direction and talk about the impact of believing that our anger or the actions of another person control us.

Here is the short form of the Emotions Cycle in 4 steps..

  1. starting from the unconscious scanning  for threat,
  2. proceeding through the  unconscious perception of that threat (based on whatever “definition” you have currently “loaded” into your scanning process regarding the situation you are in),and,
  3. moving  from the subconscious to the conscious by taking a deep breath and a step back and assessing the nature of the threat and
  4. choosing an adaptive response.

Steps #1 and #2 happen very fast.

Based on your subconscious “definition” of threat, your brain constantly scans your situation and when what it perceives matches that definition the Brain (via the amygdala and the thalamus) puts your body on “red alert”.

(anger) If the threat is perceived as one you can eliminate, your brain prepares you for war. You become hyper aware of your surroundings, blood is rerooted to “essential” body parts and so forth.

(anxiety) If the threat is a future possibility, you may begin to catastrophise about everything that could go wrong and act as if it is an inevitability that it will go wrong.

(sadness) If an important element in your life has been lost (spouse, opportunity), your red alert involves wanting to shut down, cry, give up and so forth.

(fear) If the threat is going to “kill” you, your red alert leads you to either freeze or flee.

So, the situation (or your perception of the situation) does elicit the initial emotional response.

The red alert is an evolutionary process that evolved to insure your survival. Thus, if the threat is indeed critical to your survival, you want your brain to act fast and elicit or, indeed, cause the correct response.

For our cave dwelling ancestors, this process worked perfectly.  All threats were real (not based solely on perception) and they had to be dealt with quickly or death would result (survival based).  So, having a brain which would act quickly and (seemingly) autonomously was exactly what was needed.

Note: Because this threat detection process and the resultant physical/ emotional protective reaction happens both automatically and very fast, we tend to make the incorrect assumption that our emotions control us.   Our emotions do control the initial emotional reaction but not (as I will discuss below) our emotional response.

 And, this response is both critical and within our control.

As our cave dwelling ancestors and the  environments in which they lived continued to evolve, the thinking part of their brains (the cerebral cortex) became more prominent and gave them the ability to evaluate those environments and make decisions about what actions they wanted to take.

This is where it gets a bit dicey for us today.

The emotional process is initially the same for us as it was for our cave dwelling ancestors….   perceived threat—red alert.

The problem is that..   most of the threats we face are psychological and not survival based.

Hence, while our perception of threat is critical to the process, our perception of threat (today) could be inaccurate or wrong.

Fortunately, we have a mechanism for making critical decisions about the perceived threat: the cerebral cortex.

Yes, it is true that your brain subconsciously puts your body on red alert. And, in that sense, causes the initial emotional (anger, etc) reaction.

But, it is not correct that your brain makes you angry or sad etc (your emotional response).

And this takes us to step #3 and #4 (the modern upgrade).

In steps #3 and #4, the emotional process moves from subconscious to conscious.

The reason for this move is that your cerebral cortex evolved to allow you to assess and decide whether that original definition of threat even applies to your situation.

And, to choose how you want to respond.

So, whether or not you are initially aware of your (underlying) definition of threat is irrelevant.

In addition, the original source of that definition is also largely irrelevant.

What is important is that..

  • the definition of threat elicits the red alert reaction.  The brain just carries it out.
  • it is you who decides the extent to which the definition of threat is even relevant to your present situation.
  • you, ultimately, have control over and can adjust that definition.
  • you always have control over the actions you take regarding your initial emotional reaction.  This is your emotional response.

Statement #1

So, the claim that “You made me mad.” is always false, is often an excuse to justify one’s actions, and usually is an attempt shift responsibility away from the angerer to another person. It is your definition of threat which set-up the emotional reaction and your decision about your situation which kept the reaction going.

Statement #2

Secondly, the statement that “I wouldn’t have said (or done) THAT if I hadn’t been so MAD!”is partially true in that if there were no anger, there probably would not be  inappropriate or stupid behavior.

But, this statement has a rather insidious  implication.  In many respects, this statement is the same as #1 in that it implies that it is the anger that has caused the behavior not the decision of the one who is angry.

So, yes, you got angry and in your heightened state of emotional arousal, you made a dumb decision and did something you later regret. But, you assumed that your initial perception was both inclusive (the only way to explain everything that was happening) and exclusive (the ONLY way to make sense of your situation), neglected to assess your situation and acted as-if your only option was to lash out.

Failing to assess and choose an adaptive response is always on you.

Your brain informed you of a possible threat (elicited anger) and gave you the option of assessing the validity of your definition of threat  and choosing an adaptive effective response.

If you opted out of that choice, the actions you took (and later regretted) were the result.

or, to put it another way…

It is always your perception (based on your definition) of threat that elicits and leads to your initial emotional reaction and it is always your decision (or lack thereof) that causes your emotional response (inappropriate behavior)!

The same logic, by the way, is expressed by the person who says “If I hadn’t been drunk (high or exhausted), I wouldn’t have (you fill in the action).”

Yes, the alcohol (drugs) blurred your logic but it was you who chose to get drunk so the responsibility for what you did rests, solely, on you.

I think you get the point!

Final thoughts!

I am not saying that your anger (or other emotion) is always inappropriate.  Indeed, if the threat is valid (someone violates your boundaries, a future threat needs to be dealt with, etc), then taking adaptive action is what you should be doing.

Appropriately assigning accountability may be required. Blaming never is.

Taking personal responsibility for both your assessment of the situation and the response you choose to make is the critical issue here.  If you are correct, your actions will be effective in dealing with the threat. If you are incorrect in your assessment, you can apologize and make it right.

The choice is always yours.

 

 

What are your “emotional” prejudices?

In my last post, I discussed the connection between being emotionally authentic and the emotions cycle.

I also mentioned the concept of “display rules” (cultural/work) which impact which emotions are “appropriate” for women or men to express in a given situation.

In this post, I am digging a bit deeper into this topic albeit from a slightly different perspective— predjudice.

To be prejudiced is to pre-judge a person or situation based on a bias, world view, or preconceived set of assumptions which act as filters through which you view, judge, draw conclusions about, and modify your actions regarding the person or situation you are facing.

While you might not be, and probably are not, aware of your prejudices or may not view what you do as based on a prejudice, these beliefs still powerfully impact how you interact with others.

In a recent episode of “911”, a female firefighter valiantly saves a young victim who was underwater from a traffic accident.  The female firefighter puts herself at risk, stays totally focused, does what she was trained to do and administers CPR.  The “emotions” she expresses while doing her job involve focus, concern, courage and commitment. It is a highly stressful situation in which the survival of the victim is very uncertain.

Once the victim begins to breathe and is out of danger, the firefighter expresses her relief by crying.  She is happy, relieved and decompressing.

While the tears are obvious, the EMT is always in control of herself, is situationally appropriate and it is clear that the tears are an emotional tension release.

Her male partner responds to her by saying ” Is this going to be a regular thing?”

She responds, “Probably”.

From an Emotions as Tools and emotional prejudice  perspective, let’s dive a little deeper into this (fictional) exchange,

I thought the writers hit the nail on the head and very dramatically illustrated several cultural biases against emotional displays.

The male’s comments, while not necessarily demeaning, are clearly derogatory and judgmental and imply that his colleague’s actions might not be “appropriate”. It is clear that he respects his colleague and knows that she did an exceptional job saving the victim. But, he is saying that it isn’t professional (or perhaps too feminine  or “like a woman”) to express this emotion on the job as a first responder.

Interestingly, he responds to the release of tension by also tearing up and says, “Now, you got me doing it. Please don’t tell the guys.”

Or, to put it another way, he did not want to be labelled as weak, overly emotional, unmanly, or out of control by his male peers.

The male labelled his female partner’s emotional display (tears) as “inappropriate”.

Or, to put it another way, women should not cry on the job.

He failed to see that her tears were in the service of relieving tension.  They were not an emotional display of, for example, sadness or frustration which, one could argue, might, or might not be “appropriate”.  He only saw a woman crying and made a snap judgement.

He also, by implication, labelled his own emotional display as “inappropriate”. In his mind, men should not cry.

Again, he failed to see that his tears were both a response to the reduction in stress and an empathic connection with his partner.

Males emotionally judging of females and males emotionally judging themselves or feeling judged by other males are  examples of emotional prejudices and can be problematic.

Emotional Validation

The clear implication in the “scene”  was that the male firefighter was reacting to both the ending of a tense situation and to his female colleague’s tears with his own tears.  This was both a release and an expression of empathy.

And, yet, because of his own prejudices, he chose to invalidate his emotions.

Was his emotional display valid? Yes.

Was it appropriate?

Well, the situation was over and the tension had passed. Both he and his female co-worker were recovering from the emergency. So, psychologically, yes, it was appropriate. And, maybe even according to work display rules (outside of the public’s view), the display may very we’ll have been appropriate.

From the perspective of cultural display rules, however, … no it wasn’t (according to his prejudices) appropriate.

There is a bit of a disconnect here in that typical cultural display rules deem it okay for woman to express tearful emotions as long as the display doesn’t get extreme. Sadness and emotional release are considered a feminine characteristics.

But, he questioned her actions in a professional context which is interesting because it was after the incident, in the firehouse, and did not interfere with anything.

She validated her own emotions when she noted that in the future, under similar circumstances, she would respond in a similar manner.

What are your emotional prejudices”?

  • How do you view female emotions?
  • Can a woman be sad, anxious, hurt, or vulnerable? When and under what circumstances (home, work)?
  • Can a women be angry? When and under what circumstances (home, work)?
  • Can a man be sad, anxious, hurt, or vulnerable? When and under what circumstances (home, work)?
  • Can a man be angry? When and under what circumstances (home, work)?
  • Do you have an emotional double standard in which the display rules for men are different from those that apply to men?

Society does seem to have an emotional double standard.

The best way to determine if you have emotional prejudices is to examine your own thoughts/actions when you implicitly or explicitly judge or criticize the emotional actions of yourself or another person.

If you seem to be judging another person based on an emotion, take a breath, take a step back from the situation, and attempt to make an objective assessment of the situation before you choose an adaptive response to that situation.

If you are a follower of this blog, you will immediately recognize that the recommendations to take a deep breath and a step back and then objectively assess the situation before you decide on a response are the steps involved in mastering emotions as strategic tools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The potential bind of situational authenticity – A follow-up comment.

In my last post, I addressed the idea of emotional authenticity and noted the diference between situational authenticity in which you true to what is going on and you express the emotion you are experiencing and emotional authenticity in which you are true to the emotion you are experiencing but you choose not to directly express that emotion because of display rules which would elicit unwanted  consequences should you  outwardly display the emotion you are experiencing in your situation.

Situational authenticity

The potential bind is this…

  • You view yourself as an honest person.
  • You validate and honor your emotions.
  • Your default position is to directly state and act upon the message of the emotion you are experiencing.
  • You realize that expressing your emotion directly would put you at risk of experiencing negative consequences you would rather avoid.
  • Do you express your emotions, take the risk and pride yourself on being honest and later berate yourself for taking such a risk?
  • Do you choose to hold the emotion in and berate yourself for being weak or gutless?

There are at least two major problems with this scenario.

First of all, it is, for you, a lose-lose proposition because no matter what you do, you end up feeling inadequate or having gotten “the short end of the stick”.

Secondly, as set up, the choices are a false dichotomy  in that while it appears to be a binary decision in which there are only two choices, there is a third choice which allows you to be honest and authentic and avoid unwanted negative consequences.

Emotional Authenticity

Your third option involves  being true to your emotion.

When your focus is on experiencing and validating the emotion, you are being honest, authentic and true to your emotions.

In addition, you are being aware of your situation and the display rules which exist in that situation.

Your plan of action involves using the energy of the emotion as motivation to seek out and plan your actions around dealing with the threat in such a way that you eliminate or minimize the threat using indirect, possibly more passive (as opposed to assertive), means.

By taking a more indirect approach, you avoid being marginalized, demeaned or attacked while taking pride in the knowledge that you are dealing with the problem your emotions have alerted you to and prepared you to take action to resolve.

Hence, you are honoring the emotion AND staying safe.

The above discussion applies to emotionally intelligent women who view the message of and the emotion of  anger  as valid and men who view the messages of anxiety and vulnerability and the accompanying emotions as valid.  The approach these individuals take to their emotions basically states that their emotions are always valid but the message of the emotion needs to be assessed and the choice of one’s resp0nse will vary with and be sensitive to the context in which the emotion is experienced.