I saw this on a forum talking about estranged parents and how many neglect to see their roles in an estrangement and I think it sheds light on this situation and has helped me to understand the possible psychology behind my friend's reaction to a difference in opinion.
" The difference isn't a matter of style, it's a split between two way…
I saw this on a forum talking about estranged parents and how many neglect to see their roles in an estrangement and I think it sheds light on this situation and has helped me to understand the possible psychology behind my friend's reaction to a difference in opinion.
" The difference isn't a matter of style, it's a split between two ways of perceiving the world.
In one worldview, emotion is king. Details exist to support emotion. If a member gives one set of details to describe how angry she is about a past event, and a few days later gives a contradictory set of details to describe how sad she is about the same event, both versions are legitimate because both emotions are legitimate. Context is malleable because the full picture may not support the member's emotion. If a member adds details that undermine her emotion, the other members considerately ignore them. Emotion creates reality.
In the second worldview, reality creates emotion. Members want the full picture so they can decide whether the poster's emotions are justified. .. Small details can change the entire tenor of a forum's response; members see a distinction between "She said I'm worthless" and "She said something that made me feel worthless." Members recognize that unjustified emotions (like supersensitivity due to trauma, or irritation with another person that colors the view of everything the person does) are real and deserve respect, but they also believe that unjustified emotions shouldn't be acted on. They show posters different ways to view the situation and give advice on how to handle the emotions. In short, they believe that external events create emotional responses, that only some responses are justified, that people's initial perceptions of events are often flawed, and that understanding external events can help people understand and manage emotions.
The first viewpoint, "emotion creates reality," is truth for a great many people. Not a healthy truth, not a truth that promotes good relationships, but a deep, lived truth nonetheless. It's seductive. It means that whatever you're feeling is just and right, that you're never in the wrong unless you feel you're in the wrong. For people whose self-image is so battered and fragile that they can't bear anything but validation, often it feels like the only way they can face the world."
I do think emotion is the key difference; nothing gets in the way of emotion for many.
My single mother raising two boys in the 70s told us the 19th amendment should be repealed purely for that reason. She was the toughest person I have ever known and I served with many wonderful women, and my lovely of 30 years is badass so I kind of disagree wither Mom :-D. Our two daughters understand things nicely so...
"Emotion is king. Details exist to support emotion."
I've run into people with this worldview as well. I might phrase it slightly differently though:
"Emotion is the main point, it's what we're really talking about. Anything that detracts from that is a distraction."
And I actually do agree with them that not staying on point in a discussion is very annoying and a huge distraction. That certainly is something that can be validated and agreed with.
But emotion is just a state, it's not a position. It's something you fall in and out of. You can't stay angry all the time, or happy all the time. To have a conversation with people who have this worldview, you first have to see if they're willing to move to a calm emotional state. In that state, using reason, evidence, and truth isn't a distraction, but just the opposite, it feeds the feeling of being calm and in control.
I saw this on a forum talking about estranged parents and how many neglect to see their roles in an estrangement and I think it sheds light on this situation and has helped me to understand the possible psychology behind my friend's reaction to a difference in opinion.
" The difference isn't a matter of style, it's a split between two ways of perceiving the world.
In one worldview, emotion is king. Details exist to support emotion. If a member gives one set of details to describe how angry she is about a past event, and a few days later gives a contradictory set of details to describe how sad she is about the same event, both versions are legitimate because both emotions are legitimate. Context is malleable because the full picture may not support the member's emotion. If a member adds details that undermine her emotion, the other members considerately ignore them. Emotion creates reality.
In the second worldview, reality creates emotion. Members want the full picture so they can decide whether the poster's emotions are justified. .. Small details can change the entire tenor of a forum's response; members see a distinction between "She said I'm worthless" and "She said something that made me feel worthless." Members recognize that unjustified emotions (like supersensitivity due to trauma, or irritation with another person that colors the view of everything the person does) are real and deserve respect, but they also believe that unjustified emotions shouldn't be acted on. They show posters different ways to view the situation and give advice on how to handle the emotions. In short, they believe that external events create emotional responses, that only some responses are justified, that people's initial perceptions of events are often flawed, and that understanding external events can help people understand and manage emotions.
The first viewpoint, "emotion creates reality," is truth for a great many people. Not a healthy truth, not a truth that promotes good relationships, but a deep, lived truth nonetheless. It's seductive. It means that whatever you're feeling is just and right, that you're never in the wrong unless you feel you're in the wrong. For people whose self-image is so battered and fragile that they can't bear anything but validation, often it feels like the only way they can face the world."
I do think emotion is the key difference; nothing gets in the way of emotion for many.
My single mother raising two boys in the 70s told us the 19th amendment should be repealed purely for that reason. She was the toughest person I have ever known and I served with many wonderful women, and my lovely of 30 years is badass so I kind of disagree wither Mom :-D. Our two daughters understand things nicely so...
You are spot on imho, rock on.
"Emotion is king. Details exist to support emotion."
I've run into people with this worldview as well. I might phrase it slightly differently though:
"Emotion is the main point, it's what we're really talking about. Anything that detracts from that is a distraction."
And I actually do agree with them that not staying on point in a discussion is very annoying and a huge distraction. That certainly is something that can be validated and agreed with.
But emotion is just a state, it's not a position. It's something you fall in and out of. You can't stay angry all the time, or happy all the time. To have a conversation with people who have this worldview, you first have to see if they're willing to move to a calm emotional state. In that state, using reason, evidence, and truth isn't a distraction, but just the opposite, it feeds the feeling of being calm and in control.