Thanks for stopping by.
March 31, 2013 - analogy cognitive contradiction emotion internal conflict interpersonal relationships metaphor relationships
(http://thoughtrepair.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/img_2755b.jpg)
“Why do I still care about her if I know she’ll never love me back?” “I’m not sure I’m still in love, because so many women continue to catch my eye.” “I obviously don’t care about myself if I keep coming back to this abuse.”
We recognize these instances as conflicts between our emotionally based choices and our rational foresight. This is a tension psychologists make a lot of money helping people through, and one on which many church sermons are based. Rest assured knowing that thousands of experts are on a whim about exactly how this works, and we all care. Of course that’s not useful, so let me give a scalpel to do some self-surgery by way of analogy. I’d like you to begin by imagining a little dog living inside your rib-cage.
The dog is part of you. She might be apprehensive or eager toward the same person that bored him yesterday. One day your dog may completely snap, for no foreseeable reason (or for an obvious one) at someone you like. A piece of chocolate may reliably make her unrestrainable, or be oddly unappealing to her. God bless the dog that feels that way about carrots. God bless the person that cages the dog that loves carrots.
In all of this see your dog, the lovably unpredictable yet domestic companion, as the emotional interaction with your life experiences. Your dog is your sentimental reaction to any environment, circumstance, person, experience, new or old. Rules about Emotion-dog keeping: Inadvisable to toss her out, important to recognize her basic needs (and her wants, within moderation), and unreasonable to judge them at face value. Now that we have a sense of the obvious about dog care and our emotional range, let’s hang out with Jake and Laura for a moment.
Jake just landed the job he has needed and wanted since before he declared his major, but come 8 PM sitting on his couch with dinner almost every weeknight now, he’s not sure. Meet Laura: Despite being a confident, independent woman for years now, she has unavoidably fallen for Jake, and against her will finds herself pushing the relationship faster than sensible. Jake sees what’s right about Laura, yet every morning he gets the ghastly pang in his chest saying, “Get the hell out of here.” As Laura sorts out all the things that are important in her life, suddenly her Ex begins popping into every internal conversation.
Each of these junctures are complicated for both involved, and even more complex when we consider the feelings and circumstances of others involved in our lives. What does it mean that Jake or Laura’s current feelings seem to contradict what they know has kept them excited to live for so long? More importantly, how should each weigh their emotions into their future actions? Toss ‘em, trust ‘em, or worse, something in between?
What I don’t have to write a post about, is how close we are to our inner dogs (feelings). I’m trying to write a post about how we can distance ourselves from feelings in order to analyze their likely meaning, and use them to inform the future outcomes we rationally prefer. Most importantly, about how we can do this without invalidating the disagreeing dog within. Good pet owners wouldn’t resent a dog simply for wanting, or being bored, nor think her dumb for her honest and direct sentiments.
There are natural reasons, often biological, why we would lay in bed with an anxious stomach despite good news, or feel oddly excited about the perfectly wrong person. Many psychologists feel the core of our emotions are centered on a basic value appraisal of a situation: stay, fight, or flight. The indisputable analytic power of humans is hard to connect with these emotions. Sometimes our rational selves are directly connected with our emotional selves, and sometimes not. Sometimes the rational is unrealistic, and sometimes the emotional is impractical.
One of the biggest dangers I’m trying to address is mistreating a feeling: overestimating it and breaking up with someone because of a momentary gut reaction, seeing someone else cry and thinking it means they can’t handle your words, wondering if today’s ambivalence means you’re lying to yourself about wanting commitment. Put it this way: you would trust your dog to assess the danger based on past experience, but would you expect her to make a two month assessment, or weigh alternative options? It is not insulting or compromising to our emotional being to step aside and analyze rationally.
If you don’t see the world as black and white, then you’re not one to be completely governed by your heart. Unfortunately, no one wants to be the opposite, an overly rational Scrooge. The dog analogy allows you to put some space between your emotions without abandoning them. It should help you see the situation, your reaction, and your needs as separate, but all relevant components to a way forward. More importantly, it allows you to fight just a little longer, without giving into to the dangerous catch-all: “It’s too complicated.” Here’s the mind-boggling part: if your rational self is right, and you stick to it, odds are your dog will follow (read: you’ll love it).