About 1.4% of the US population has an allergic reaction to peanuts with a range of severity of physical reactions, from mild to severe, itchiness to asphyxiation resulting in death. What this means is that if 1000 people were given a peanut, 14 of them would react adversely to the allergen while the other 986 would be unaffected. People who are allergic have a predisposition to being allergic while they may happily eat a walnut, like in the picture below.
In a class today my client told me of a story he read where a father murdered his six year old daughter. I have no other details than that by I will work under the assumption that the little girl, no matter what she may have done was not to blame for her father's behavior, she was an innocent. My client said his wife doesn't want to read the news anymore because it is all so negative.
We had been talking in the class about emotional control and how we are responsible for our actions, no matter the catalyst for our feelings. If I have a fight with my wife, drive angrily and happen to run over someone at a zebra crossing, it would not be my wife's fault, she would not be liable. Although my inattentive and reckless driving might be due to a mood she evoked, my actions are always mine. Aren't they?
Going back to the peanut allergy and the physical reactions associated, are those predisposed at fault? This gets into a free-will area however, there are things that those who know they have a peanut allergy can do to limit their risk such as avoidance of allergen and carrying a tool like an epi-pen to counteract the effects. Once the predisposition is known, one can create habits and tools to deal with it.
There is a problem we have created in society as for decades we have encouraged people to increasingly show their emotions publicly and have often enough discouraged emotional control. We have made it "unnatural" to control ourselves and labelled those who do as unfeeling robots. There is a difference between feeling something and acting upon it though.
The father who killed his daughter showed his emotions didn't he? He was in the moment, lived his feelings, shouldn't he be celebrated for being true to himself? Of course not. He is a pathetic excuse for a human who due to his ability to control himself took the life of an innocent. Yet, he has been encouraged to do so.
The problem is that no matter how angry people are, most people are not going to react in such a way even if they want to but, there are always going to be some percentage who are unable to limit this emotional reaction. Some might be predisposed to it but encouraging them their whole life to show it without also encouraging self-limitation is going to see an increase in unlimited expression of emotion and more such events.
This is of course great for the news media as they have an increasing amount of extreme behavior at the global level to gather and sell to the public while concurrently telling them to be free, unrestrained, true to themselves. A ramping up of extremism.
As I see it, emotions are personal and should always come with the tools of self-control before they are shown outwardly, before they move a hand or a mouth. This is especially true with negative emotions and reactions that can lead to violence. Yet, we have built safe zones where we expect others to not cross our negative emotional zones and the politically correct world has obliged. As a result, we have an increasing number of people who have physical allergic reactions to simple words and ideas without the proverbial epi-pen to control themselves.
Your emotions, like your genitals, are yours. If you want to show them it is your choice but there are consequences to flashing them in public. No matter how you feel, you can't walk around the streets with your tackle out no matter how you feel about it. You have to have the maturity of emotional control, no matter how you feel or what you believe is okay.
It was no excuse for that father and you being upset is no excuse for behavior you would find inappropriate under normal emotional circumstances. but in a world of "show your emotions as your truth", this takes the responsibility of reaction out of the hands of the actor. It is a freeing of emotional control and in encouraging it universally, is going to result in those predisposed to "allergic emotional reaction" to act uncontrollably as they don't necessarily have the mental tools to do anything other than behave badly.
I have argued with many people who believe emotional control is not a natural part of life but hose same people want restrictions placed on the words and actions of others. they want to be free to act openly on their feelings but of course, they don't want to be raped and murdered by those who act freely on theirs. They expect everyone to react identically to themselves yet want to feel unique. They expect people to respect their boundaries and their decision to react as they choose but want to restrict that same choice in others.
It is emotional immaturity, the behavior of a toddler and without consequence of action due to protective safe zones, becomes the reactions of tyrants and dictators in adulthood. Could you call a man who kills his own six year old daughter anything other than a tyrant, an emotionally uncontrolled, tantrum driven, violent dictator who's expression of his own emotions are more important than the life of a child?
We live in a world that is increasingly emotionally charged resulting in continually polarizing views and less and less chance of effective discourse and therefore, solutions to the problems we face. Instead of taking control of our own experience and actions and developing our personal toolset, we expect others to curtail their words and behaviors for us and even if they try, they can't know the increasing number of things are allergic to.
Some will avoid people and places that trigger them, some learn how not to be triggered, not how not to feel. A trigger is a detonation device, it sets something in motion. An emotion never need be a trigger that sets violence in motion but unfortunately, it is increasingly the case. It is possible to have genitals and show them at an appropriate time to appropriate people. It is also possible to have emotions and do the same.
Take some responsibility for action and learn a little self-control and have the tools in place in case you find an emotional allergen that triggers a reaction in you.
Taraz
[ a Steem original ]
Greetings, @tarazkp
I think this part says it all
I agree this society we're living in has committed to denaturalize a lot of things that worked pretty well in the past, such as parental discipline, for instance, which we associate with emotion control and maturity or the lack of them.
In the name of freedom, much is being done to undermine past achievements. Ironically, when it comes to political control, then, the same system that promotes free expression of emotions can be very harsh on restraining politically adverse emotions.
people are filled with internal conflicts of position without necessarily understanding even most of the factors that influence upon them. It leads to a range of breakages in experience as expectations and predictions go unmet.
This is an interesting point of view. Emotional expression is promoted by psychologists. Inability to express one’s emotions, to bottle things up until it’s too late can be fatal, as often seen in some societies (Japan, Switzerland as just as an example).
Fortunately or unfortunately people aren’t molded as identical units with different serial numbers. And as much as you d like them to all be equipped with the same set of skills, even going as far as giving the same curriculum at schools, it’s not going to work. There are as many variables existing that would interfere as there are cells in one body :)
As far as the allergy analogy goes, though, it’s nice but not the way allergies work. Some are there present from birth. Some disappear as kids grow and some can take years to develop and present themselves as a sudden onset :)
Like this one recent example:
https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/antarctica-scientist-stabbed-colleague-for-spoiling-book-endings-report
I'd posit that emotional expression and emotional reaction are two different things. The controlling of emotions first needs acknowledgement of that emotion and choosing not to react in a way that would be detrimental. Bottling up emotions speaks to me more of blocking them off and not acknowledging them, which isn't a good way to deal with them either.
Admittedly, in the past we never really talked about emotions, so I guess that led to bottling up. Now we are learning that emotions need acknowledgment in order to be handled better in the heat of the emotion. A psychologist can not fix us, but they can guide us in seeing what triggers those emotions and how we can learn to handle them.
Posted using Partiko Android
Emotional control is not "bottling up", it is control. Unrestrained emotional reaction is what leads to polarized emotional positions and views like, "bottling it up".
People aren't identical which means that they have to learn to control themselves but instead, they outsource the responsibility to a society and people like pscychologists who can do as much harm as good. Some external authority.
Allergies change over time, some are treatable or manageable, some fade, some grow. Just like people. Understanding our own allergies is the way to go rather than expecting everyone else to do the work for us. The analogy works fine. People are hyper-sensitive to the world yet do not know how to control themselves which is why some people snap, some go dull, some suicide, some murder, some happen to have happy lives. Learning what works for the individual takes effort most people outsource to groups with agendas.
So basically self-development is a cool thing :) can’t dissagree with that.
i used to here people say you hurt my feelings. no i didn't. You allowed your feeling to get hurt;)
yep, deflecting blame from oneself is a strategy that can work... until it doesn't. I am not sure how many people can live an emotionally uncontrolled life where they feel victimised before they look in the mirror.
Makes me think that it's a shame that anger management classes are taught mostly to adults, when they should be a part of the school curriculum. (Maybe in some territories they are?)
Even if you don't have an "emotional allergy" yourself, you're bound to be in a situation where you have to deal with someone who has. There may be serious injury or even a life may depend on it. I was in a situation like that at least once as a child, thankfully it was resolved safely, but only through blind luck...
Posted using Partiko Android
THis is very true which means one not only has to control themselves but have strategies to deal with others. Removing oneself from potential violence is the go to for physical risk. When it comes to ideological only, one can choose to stay and discuss. :)
There are actually many people who are allergic to some food, and we have to pay attention to the reactions of the body towards these substances because there are reflections that may be serious sometimes, enjoy something we love is beautiful but the most beautiful is to pay attention to how much our body benefited from it or damaged by eating. The pleasure will be for a moment, but the health will be damaged and it will take a long time to repair it if not completely damaged. Special theme. Greetings.
this is true but not really what the article was about :) aLthough yeah, we might emotionally react and feel good while our own actions will have future consequence that does not benefit us.
yes, this is true👍
I continue to believe that we should be required to study emotional intelligence as we mature and into adulthood in order to gain these key behaviors and avoid the fantasy world we learn from the media and entertainment industries.
We love the fantasy, we want to be the fantasy so, we consume the fantasy. Emotional control is boring, much like understanding the economy and while people are complaining and in debt, others understand boring isn't bad.
That's quite the click bait title there Taraz! XD I'm impressed at the way you even managed to fit genitalia into the post.
There is a joke about fitting genitalia in there somewhere.... :D
There seems to be no antidote, as yet , to 'the NPC' being looked upon by certain personality types.
Psychologist's are, as we speak, trying to work out how exactly the thin black black line, encapsulating a mid grey shaded area, (with the odd squiggle) then manages to travel down the optic nerve, penetrate the temporal cortex, and then activate the amygdala to such extreme levels....
lol
I don't even know what npc stands for, nor am I interested as a far as I can tell, it just more internet BS that will disappear like every other meme in time without doing anything productive. If it means Non-playing character than those spreading the memes would qualify. :)
.....like every other meme in time without doing anything productive.
You think memes do nothing productive?
Seriously?
Qualify as ...?
lol - I was doing lots of them - and they were very good to!
Spreading them?
You mean that you take the position that those making memes are in someway responsible for the violent reaction of the people who cannot emotionally handle them, when they look at them?
Surely not?
I think (hope), I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
So, all that needs to happen is to find what a person is predisposed to spreading, introduce it and then let the programming do the rest. Memes be definition are spread through culture based on cultural programming. Once the program is known, it can be hacked, much like that of a non-playing character can be moved into various behaviors once one knows how their behaviors are programmed. When it comes to Humans, it is more prediction based, often along political/cultural lines.
The spread memes ridiculing various positions are partly responsible for polarization and lack of useful discourse so various groups can no longer even have a direct discussion but instead mock each other by taking the most extreme cases of either side. pretty ridiculous in my opinion and not overly useful to solving any actual problems. but of course, no one is really interested in solving problems unless the solution is they get exactly what they want, no matter the cost to others.
It is all part of a ramping up effect that divides and conquers, spread through groups who believe they are beating the system that created the process in the first place.
I fundamentally disagree - about 180 degrees!
Political satire has been one of _the most powerful tools _ of communication, and public dissent, and of information, since printing began...
Most memes are of a politically satirical nature.
The beginning of solving problems between opposing parties, is to know exactly what those position are, surely?
Memes do this very well.
If an expression of information divides and conquers, (through humor) then maybe this way more indicative of conversation that has been long overdue, more than anything else...? .
If memes accomplish this, I fail to see the long term downside..
A few hurt snowflakes -without the emotional maturity to handle political satire- is not good enough reason to quell free expression of opinion, surely?
This is the same for those who get pushback and flags isn't it? What is happening is a reduction of value and while you might feel economic value removed, another will react to their emotional/opion blah blah values being diminished.
Push backs and flags (not down voting) is entirely legitimate, and allows for open discourse...you are not taking assets away from another's production/work.
Tangible real world value removed from someones labor - is not the same as a disagreement oover information exchanged..
'If you piss me with off with your message, that gives me the right to devalue your garden by poisoning the grass?.'
Hardly consistent with respecting anothers property rights?
(Content produced by some one on their own blog - is 'their 'property')
That's not a morale or ethical action as far as I can see (within societies norms) - or do you disagree?
If the diminishing the value of someone else's property _because of your hurt emotions, _ and that is legitimate - then you are essentially saying the exact opposite of your own post!
(Hence the confusion and thinking I was misinterpreting it...)
You got a 51.65% upvote from @ocdb courtesy of @tarazkp!
@ocdb is a non-profit bidbot for whitelisted Steemians, check our website https://thegoodwhales.io/ for the whitelist, queue and delegation info. Join our Discord channel for more information
If you like what @ocd does, consider voting for ocd-witness through SteemConnect or on Steemit Witnesses
These are fresh and alluring!
Try commenting on something related to the post.