Emotional Intelligence
It might sound presumptuous to say this; but, are people becoming less emotionally intelligent?
I mean, when you start reading online responses like, LOL, ROFL, or OMG, then is that indicative of a low EQ?
I hesitate to say this; but, it seems to me that having a developed EQ is becoming harder and harder nowadays in real life.
What are your thoughts before I start blabbering on about perceived issues.
I mean, when you start reading online responses like, LOL, ROFL, or OMG, then is that indicative of a low EQ?
I hesitate to say this; but, it seems to me that having a developed EQ is becoming harder and harder nowadays in real life.
What are your thoughts before I start blabbering on about perceived issues.
Comments (110)
Internet however makes people talk more so it likely contributes to overall EQ of the population.
There is saying that smart phones make people "stupid", and that likely also applies to conversations on the internet because again from my understanding it affects IQ not EQ.
So my opinion when people use LOL, ROFL or OMG that only reveals their low intellect, but are otherwise emotionally intelligent.
There is, quite possibly, too much attention being paid to children's emotions, their every quirk. That's not good either. It is, actually, OK to be a misfit--as long as one understands that one is, what that means, and can find authenticity in that role.
On the other hand, one sees a lot of emotionally immature, emotionally retarded adults as well -- some of them running the country/your state/your city/your job/your store/your church/your bowling alley/your bar/etc. Possibly one of them is in your kitchen right now, sulking, throwing a tantrum, screaming at you for putting the peanut butter in the refrigerator, or something. .
I suppose this is mostly about men(?) rather than women?
I mean, I get your point with issues like impulsivity due to instant gratification online or on TV or through your smartphone... But, then you witness what's going on with children, soaked up in red bull or monster drinks playing online games and LOL'ing away, or some kind of disturbing amount of 'meme's' encapsulating emotions...
What's going on?
Why are lol, rofl etc, indicative of low EQ?
I hate emojis. What are they indicative of?
I imagine you've done extensive research on semiotics, and are going to reference Jung or Nabakov. Perhaps throw in some Sassure. This should be interesting.
I haven't actually, last time I read a book in full, was quite a while.
I was hoping you could possibly reference something about those authors?
Then, yes. It was presumptuous!
lol.
Well, what do you think about emotional intelligence and empathy?
Quoting Shawn
You must be quite angry and yet have contained yourself. I think it's okay to tell an asshole like me to go fuck myself. Why didn't you?
I don't like being angry. Do you?
Isn't anger like one of the most self-satisfying emotions?
Then why don't you like being angry? Do you not deserve to be satisfied?
I just wallow. :blush:
But, I do post a lot of threads about anger, stoicism, and emotions in general.
Isn't being angry is indicative of nervousness more than low EQ?
Shawn had every reason to be angry with my post, yet chose not to express it. I wonder whether he thinks that is emotionally intelligent or not.
Quoting SpaceDweller
I don't know. Do you think it is?
Not really. I think impulsiveness is though...
Fine, I wasn't even angry. Yet, I do consider myself a stoic-wannabe. Stoics are emotionally developed no, CP?
I know it is because I'm nervous person. I get angry often but I don't want it.
More agitation, yes?
You weren't angry? It took you 14 minuets to respond to a post that required no response. You were plenty angry. So, again, do you think that expressing anger is indicative of low EQ?
Do you mean in social situations, you're nervous. Or just nervous generally?
And what about that makes you angry? Are you angry at yourself?
Maybe I am angry. I more wallowsome as of recent.
I just started a better thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11023/do-emotions-contain-their-own-set-of-logic
Well, I have been in an lot of situations where people were relying upon their EQ to trump the group running on their IQ.
Both skills need preparation and experience to become a part of what is happening. I am not sure if balance between these sorts of things was more natural in the past.
I always counted it as something we continue to fail at.
Almost always In social interactions and almost always toward another person.
The reason for getting angry when the other person is:
1. lazy
2. not thinking logically
3. not taking care of priorities
4. not giving practical or better suggestions
5. lack of interest in finishing the job
These are the things that make me really angry.
Btw. I consider my self emotionally not intelligent because I don't know how to handle these things.
Any suggestions?
How so? You mean a poor EQ rather than a IQ?
Okay then. I have enough to form a hypothesis. Given that your OP is not based in research, but is your own opinion, and taking into account your responses, I think you define emotional intelligence in a positive sense as not having emotions at all - and I get the impression you consider any expression of emotion a loss of control, and a vulnerability. Assuming so, your question is actually about yourself:
Quoting Shawn
What you're saying here, is why would someone tell me they're laughing, or astonished, as communicating emotion signals weakness? You are fearful of evoking emotion in others - as indicated by three self qualifications in the OP:
Quoting Shawn
Quoting Shawn
Quoting Shawn
And would injure yourself, lest others do so, and cause you to feel. I may be overstating the case. Take from this what you will, but I'm not at all sure wearing so much emotional armour is psychologically healthy.
Not mutually exclusive categories.
Well, you must have researched me. But, I kind of developed new emotions. I used to live with severe depression, and would hardly feel much of any emotions apart from some happy states of mind and a lot of anxiety.
So, no, I'm not naked. :monkey:
Developing new emotions because of mental issues is an indicator of good IQ but can potentionaly lead to new problems hard to get rid of later, like instead of expressing or sharing personal issues, pushing them or expressing trough emotions.
Medicinal herbs like Lavender or mixtures of herbs can help more than anything else.
I imagine you've been advised to adopt a sleep routine, eat healthily, exercise and drink water to combat the depression. Hey, I bet you didn't think this was how your thread was going to go? Are you pleased it took this turn?
I didn't expect it to be about me. How about you?
:party:
So you're surprised? Is it a good surprise?
Well, what about you? Do you struggle with depression or other malady of the mind, emotional or otherwise?
I'm just wallowsome, as I've said.
No, I'm fine. What does wallowsome mean?
Had you said "I just swallow," it'd have been much funnier.
I know more about men (being a man) than I do about women. There seem to be plenty of women around whose EQ is about the same as men -- just flavored differently.
BTW, I don't think it is the 'equipment' that is the problem -- the cell phones, pads, laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, television. On this score I differ from McLuhan: the message is the message and people are immersed in A LOT of messages which have nothing to add to any kind of intelligence, social / intellectual / emotional.
People are "schooled" to be unreflective consumers by all the various sellers out there -- everyone from Apple to Zumiez.
Quoting counterpunch
Come now, Of course it's not researched. His OP is a seat-of-his-pants impression. Useful conversation, even in intellectual settings, would come to a screeching halt if we had to stick to even faintly researched phenomenon.
According to my research I am unanimous in this opinion.
If EQ is quantifiable like IQ, the question is an empirical one. You just compare today's numbers to yesterday's. If EQ is a nebulous concept dressed as a scientific one, then that's the bigger problem with EQ.
But, we don't extract precious minerals from sea-water. We don't have geothermal utilized as much as it should be given its LCOE, and we definitely don't have enough nuclear power plants from cheap Ur232 from seawater extracted. We haven't made efforts to extract tritium from sea-water or Lithium-7 and Lithium-6 from seawater for fusion. Why is this all happening, when these are very rational and cheap things for the economy.
Doesn't this make you angry or at least frustrated?
Quoting counterpunch
It just means that one sort of wallows around, a comfort behavior whenever needed. Eat, sleep, do what you want.
Yes, I'm absolutely furious about it. That's what makes me fine. You, I'm worried about. What makes you angry?
Then where does the problem begin with? Instead of it being a manifestation only apparent with the 'equipment'?
Yeah, that's how!
I see, or think I see the problem. So, it's made up or something?
Don't worry. Be happy. I already read Silent Spring.
Quoting Shawn
Are you calling me a pest? Then tell me so, you coward.
Nuu, none of that. I'm just wallowsome. Sorry!
Take care.
:eyes:
It's a safe-safe. I hope everyone is comfortable.
I think they are.
Quoting Shawn
In what sense? Do you mean such responses are rude to others - and so unempathetic? Or is it that they express the emotional state of those who use them, and that's indicative of low EQ?
Quoting Shawn
What do you put this down to? Too much screen time not enough social interaction maybe?
What makes you say so?
Quoting counterpunch
I think it was a poor example, yet I also think it expresses as much as the word "dam", "fuck", or "this sucks", does. Does that mean anything? Perhaps, or perhaps not.
Quoting counterpunch
I don't really know. I sometimes grow tired of English language, or perhaps something else. But, in general I think it has to do with some kind of phenomenon of the current times.
extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/rational)
openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)
neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)
Agreeableness and conscientiousness would probably explain what some people describe as emotionally intelligent. People low on agreeableness are often described as unable or unwilling to read the room.
People on the Autism spectrum may be experienced as not reading other's queues and perhaps not having a theory of mind which impacts on what people are calling EI. Sociopaths don't care about other's emotions. And many people work in cultures where having empathy and being able to understand others is not valued.
Are people generally less able to pick up on other's needs today than they were, say, 30 years ago? In my experience (which is limited and anecdotal), I have no reason to think it is any worse.
I'm not sure if personality traits are related very much, but I could be wrong.
Here's what a psych-today article reads:
Quoting Emotional Intelligence
I don't think that you're correct about this, but it doesn't have anything to do with innate femininity. Women have more of a need to analyze social relationships than men, and, so, do tend to be more emotionally intelligent by that account. The paradox to this, however, is that it can make you hypersensitive.
Quoting Emotional Intelligence
I think that that sums it up fairly well, but also think that it depends upon the situational context. When people will let you express emotions in certain ways, you can do so better. It otherwise is contingent upon circumstance or relies upon manipulation.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about what waitresses think about as a dishwasher. Managers often don't like what I did to feel welcome among the staff which was to generate a rhythm from the dishwasher so that everyone could work with certain degree of peace of mind and well. It was actually productive, but it convinces managers that they have to compete with you for control over the staff, and, so, they would often produce a situation wherein being friendly with me would put anyone else in a bad sort of way with them. A waitress wants to present herself in such a manner to where they are physically attractive enough to be quote unquote naturally liked without calling too much attention to herself. They also want to offer only the pretense of expressive individuality without having put nearly any thought into doing so whatsoever. You can call their chosen aesthetic something like "slacker punk". Waitresses have to think about things like this, and, so, tend to know more about them than other people do. If you apply such reasoning to other social situations, you can discover how women do know more than us. Anyone who is marginalized, in some ways, does, but there exists situations that require that women find certain things out, which do not arise quite so commonly for men, and, so, they do.
Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson (whatever you make think of Lobster Man) says EQ is a myth and maintains that the kinds of behaviour reported above can be explained by where people sit on neuroticism and extraversion. Presumably those high in these two traits are unable to 'read' others and reflect upon the role emotion plays in their own and other's behaviour.
I think this kind of thing requires a fair bit of knowledge and scrupulous respect for the research to properly understand. But pop-psychology is spectacularly attractive to most of us.
I work with two clinical psychologists who also think EQ is dodgy.
See here for some criticism of the EI concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence#Criticisms
Reading Goleman's original book, my own impression is that EI is primarily about having a secular, (upper) middle class mentality and behavior. Esp. in popular use of the term, EQ measures a person's conformity to that particular standard.
I do. The spread of democracy and the rule of law (which amounts to "power to the most powerful/rich") result in a decline of informal, silent understandings of what is "proper behavior". Where in the past, people would show consideration for others and expect it in return, they can now say "If you don't like something about me, sue me, see if you can do it / if it's worth it to you".
When lawsuits and calling the police were generally not realistic options, people would make an effort to get along with others. Now, with democracy and the rule of law, they don't have to.
What about mindfulness or CBT? Seemingly, if there is an emotional quotient, then CBT seems to score very high on coefficients related to its measure... Ya?
Sorry don't see how this is related to EQ.
Though the cause of its measure is seemingly related to experience and emotional disorders (in my case) that had to be dealt with rather than simply 'putting up with them'.
As said, I believe that if EQ is related to measures of emotional tranquility or learned behaviors, then it would be harder to measure than something like a general coefficient like the 'g' factor.
Some people don't listen to well reasoned conversation, aside from that, while lawfare does pose a certain predicament, punitive criminal justice is not necessarily integral to the concept of democracy.
If I get into a fix with the Italian National Vanguard, I can't just go talk to them so as to resolve our dispute. I have to prove to them that my political assassination will result in a set of legal operations undertaken against them. Your average Neo-Fascist conscript at this or that Metal show can just be talked out of a dangerous pathology. There are other people and forces at play, however.
I also agree with @Shawn in that this just doesn't have anything to do with Emotional intelligence.
Yessssss!
How do you see the issue from your perspective?
Against what you say and all forms of clandestine wisdom, producing a potential legal, political, and press-related spectacle for your nefarious adversaries is how to adequately deal with them.
This is why the arts community tends to be extraordinarily flamboyant. It's kind of a beat way of life that only some people have to learn. Emotional intelligence is like that as well. You only learn to read into certain social when you somehow have to. It's a gift and a curse. You can begin to perceive yourself as a telepath or become acutely neurotic. There's only so much to see in the way a person sits or how they are dressed. There are things to see in it, however. It's just what you do when you can't find the information that you somehow have to. Some people call it intuition. It's really just an odd kind of common sense, but you can only believe in it so directly.
No one is saying people don't have emotional experiences, Shawn. The question is how best to describe this and how best to map people's responses (for those who appreciate such schemata). CBT certainly works to help people develop tools and strategies for managing their emotional regulation - a not inconsiderable concern for people dealing with trauma and addiction, an area I have worked in for 30 plus years.
I'm still unsure. I know people who practice meditation or mindfulness seemingly would score higher on the EQ scale, if there was one. I know logotherapy that influenced my life, with or without reading Frankel, really seems to regulate emotions much better than anything I've ever taken in terms of medication.
I'm a huge proponent of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and think it influences how we think and feel to a significant amount.
There are stoics who will make their daily ritual about overcoming what isn't under ones control by not paying attention to it. It's a fun thing to talk about, no?
What do you mean by that? It's rather (in depression) a lack of goals or even motivation.
It's in reply to:
Quoting Tom Storm
The matter is already thoroughly addressed in the concept of executive functions.
What issue are you responding too here.
Provided one has the money and the political power to do so.
Quoting thewonder
In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law, emotional intelligence is becoming redundant or counterproductive. I already sketched out why.
Self-awareness, self-regulation, achieving goals, seeing these things as a matter of skill.
From:
Quoting Tom Storm
Maybe where you are. If emotional intelligence is said to mean a person's awareness of other people's emotional reactions and needs and their own emotions, then the people I see are more often overly polite and mindful of not offending anyone or being seen as rude. More mindful of others than they were in the 1970's 1980's.
How we would find evidence to establish a definitive case worldwide?
Quoting baker
You seem preoccupied by status and the abuse of power. Is this personality, experience or what you are reading?
You're not my therapist, nor anyone else's here.
No need to, as the situation talked about was clearly enough specified: In modern times, under democracy and the rule of law.
Democracy and the rule of law are not universal, last I checked.
Quoting baker
Thank goodness for that.
It's a matter of logical consequences, not empirical evidence. Can't you see that?
This is what you see? Bleak, huh?
Just realistic.
Baker, having been inspired by what she doesn't realize is Post-Left Anarchism, is putting forth the rather spurious claim that potential victims of assault are to blame for the failure of the democratic project through an appeal to an odd kind of beat pathology. She takes precarity for a sign of weakness and assumes that being fairly keen on navigating social networks is indicative of an incapacity for self-actualization. She's no different from more or less anyone else. Dangerous people take a disliking to those who are otherwise, purely by virtue of that they are, but their others tend to take the blame for any and/or all situations that arise. The predicament isn't taken for that a person's place in the world ought not to be considered as a contest of wills; it is just generally assumed that people just shouldn't meddle in other people's affairs.
What you may think is what I did, which is that you should listen to Yeasayer and stick up for yourself. Having done this, what I found is that people became all too willing to just sort of abandon me, thereby offering other nefarious parties the chance to ask, "you and what army?", at which point, I came to a certain realization as to why Anarchist tend to be such open minor criminals. It's just because of urban decay.
Anyways, of emotional intelligence, I would say that there are two ways that it develops. It can arise out of the development of good relationships, and is often quite valuable by that account, or just simply because it is the sort of skill that a person has to hone, one that is useful to them, but hazards a certain neurosis.
It's an oft-overlooked facet of the human psyche that can occasionally result in an obsession with social relations that people take for self-loathing narcissism.
Even though I do plan on leaving, I feel like this is a good thread and that could generate an interesting conversation.
It will depend on what you mean by emotional intelligence. If you mean things like empathy etc., humans were never very emotionally intelligent and it's getting worse. It seems to be emotionally mature one has to be free from a persistent self interest and the thought of being a separate individual.
I don't know how else to call it, though. Emotional experience?
As one grows older, it seems to me that they accumulate an attitude of, 'don't bother me, I'm old'.
Where one can look into Buddhism and see that it takes a surreal amount of awareness about one's emotions, desires, and the source of dukkha to overcome suffering by negating or professing a detachment from emotions. @Tom Storm, would you agree?
Care to elaborate?
Quoting Shawn
Sorry there was a typo. Please read it as :
"It seems, to be emotionally mature one has to be free from a persistent self interest and the thought of being a separate individual".
There is not much to elaborate other than the obvious. How can one be empathetic if they are constantly looking out for themselves and their self-interest?
How is relationship ( to relate) possible if we do not see the shared commonalities between the species?
Can't talk to Buddhism, I only have a basic knowledge of it and can't claim to have taken enough interest in it.
Outside of spiritual systems, I think if people have to work hard at detachment, it isn't detachment. I think it might be better to recognize emotions and name them. Awareness of how things impact upon us is a really important skill. Then it's how much power you give these emotions in influencing behavior and actions that is the key issue.
Maybe i can use an example to do an addendum to the previous response.
If there isn't any disease or mutation then all of us share the same biological/physical components, perhaps the same DNA and gene blueprints, right? Then why is it hard to see that we also share the blueprint for same primary emotions, the blueprint for the same mind, the same consciousness? Are we really separate individuals or the fact is, it isn't your mind or my mind, it isn't your sorrow or my sorrow, but is a human/global sorrow? I don't know if this makes sense.
Not sure.
It makes sense for me to say that emotional awareness or intelligence is required to make these sort of realizations through empathy or sympathy for other people around the world. One's sphere of interest where they reside in is important towards this goal, surely.
So, what matters most is the fact that we can identify emotions and them reflexively promote some kind of 'care' or interest in what's worthwhile to promote for the benefit of those who suffer.
At the very least some kind of concern is necessary, in any regards.
As i see it, the above will then become a mechanical practice, some form of relative empathy, which is directed at certain goals. It will lack the certitude of genuine insight and will suffer from the defects of relativity, which is just like everything else we are used to. a convenient trade off.
What's that?
I mentioned earlier about a "a convenient trade off". A relative empathy would also be considered as a conditional empathy. It will demand certain conditions to be met. It isn't given freely. It's like when you were saying earlier:
Quoting Shawn . This is like setting a condition.
But if we see that everyone suffers, including myself, then out of that com-passion ( etymology: getting together in sorrow) an unconditional empathy may take birth.
Which takes us back to my original example, we will have to see how we share our emotions, our mind, our consciousness, which is common to entire humanity.
When it comes to ‘emotional maturity’ a lot of this is likely due to life experience. A lot is to do with how ‘maturity’ tends to lend itself toward the ability to plan long-term rather than being limited to short-term goals. Both combined, measured and understood would be wisdom.
Im todays world there is undoubtedly a large shift towards the ‘immediate’ because technologies have made our lives dramatically easier in many regards and therefore it seems reasonable to me to attribute a certain lack of ‘long-term planning’ to exhibit itself in apparent ‘immaturity’.
I don’t see the ‘emotional’ side having much more to do with this other than all humans generally being able to better deal with difference circumstances through lived experience. Stuck in a short-term planning loop would necessarily cut of access to certain life experiences. If you don’t plan anything long-term then you don’t have experience of this (obviously). It is seemingly less necessary to plan long-term.
For small things ... simple communication is now so SIMPLE across the globe. Whereas a few generations ago one didn’t carry a phone around in your pocket or have the ability to look up anything you wished online ... no, you’d have to visit the library and select a number of books you wished to read and ONLy take so many out for a set period of time. Now you don’t even ‘have to’ read ... just listen to podcast and/or watch a youtube video whenever and where ever you like.
People don’t really need to plan anymore, they just do. This may explain a shift in what you’re referring to when you suggest people are ‘less emotionally mature’.
Well, yes. Life experience is important. Yet, it seems to me that when talking about emotional intelligence, I think, there's some kind of truth to saying that the drug epidemic or need for immediate gratification is quite an indicator to show that there's some kind of issue with emotions for certain people.
I've been thinking that those with less to do with distractions and being focused on "goals" (as mentioned previously by @Tom Storm) and most importantly, sticking to them, could also be an indicator.
Yet, there are undoubtedly other indicators for discerning emotional intelligence, such as being in poverty or such.
Thanks.
Evidence?
Intelligence (the g factor) does help discern an individuals economic standing, but it is one factor of many. There is no hard evidence - to my knowledge - that has a hard connection to ‘emotional intelligence’ because, as I said, the term isn’t even very widely accepted by researchers. There are ‘hints’ that something is there, but it could just be what I said (g factor + experience).
Can you link me something on the matter? A Buddhist or Stoic would object mostly, no?
https://www.ihhp.com/meaning-of-emotional-intelligence/
You can look into studies if you wish to. Basically there are a few empirical measurements of human traits. There are the Big Five and the g-factor.
These can are known through a set of standard tests that have been given to many people over many decades from many walks of life. They are not completely accurate though.
There are other ‘ideas’ thrown around by other psychologists too such as ‘Grit’ ... generally these really boil down to a combination or one or more of the Big Five and sometimes combined with ‘g’.
My point being, what I mentioned above are the most non-reducible items of psychological research. Maybe some ‘emotional’ attribute exists too that is more distinct from these ... I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence for it though - I’ve looked a little and here and there. Some things look interesting, but most often it is someone trying to make a name for themselves and/or getting tunnel vision.
With what I was outlining before we’d expect people with good communication skills and experience to have a good degree of Openness and to be Agreeable probably. To use this efficiently I’d factor in the g-factor (as it is the best indicator of health and general longterm ‘success’ - as in good job and promotions.
To be clear, when I say ‘best indicator’ it is not a particularly good indicator alone. Once other things are factored in it can help get a better idea of someone, but individuals are pretty much individuals. We can discern a fair amount about groups of humans, but individual humans are a completely different and much more complex system to predict.
I don’t believe buddhists or stoics are somehow in a better position than psychologists to dismiss or back such an idea because I think they’re more concerned with ‘how to live life’ than empirical scientific research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
Just dropped in for a minute and thought I'd click on your link.
Quoting Shawn
Stopped right in my tracks at this:
'It’s a scientific fact that emotions precede thought'
With nothing to support that claim.
I tend to agree with @Tom Storm
Quoting Tom Storm
From my own experience - no science to support this - the emotion/thought process is a bit of a cycle with no clear defining moment as to which comes first.
I guess it depends on the person and situation; the context.
I think what matters is the formation of a helpful attitude and behaviour towards self and others.
Behaviour produced as a combination of thoughts and emotion has consequences.
Others react to our behaviour and v.v.
This can be done with or without taking time to attend or care.
A good or a bad life experience has its effects on wellbeing.
Sometimes it is necessary to change the way we think or feel.
How do we do this usefully - can it simply be willed ? Can we do this alone ?
Well, I think self-regulation takes practice and the ability to stop and reflect on the emotion and why it arises...
Quoting Shawn
Yes. I think so...
Yes. The general idea is we develop emotional habits that are informed by thoughts. An initial impulse may well be a lighting quick, unreflective reaction. But the person who weeps openly whenever the word 'father' is mentioned, or who thinks of self-harm or suicide when they are criticised by a spouse definitely has thoughts informing their emotions. Significant unhappiness and unwelcome emotion in people is also produced by rumination and 'festering'.
Don't think that's true for good psychology. Eliminating emotions or reigning them in isn't the idea - it is developing an awareness of why overwhelming emotional reactions are happening and being better able to understand yourself and those reactions. Insight. Not all that different from the goal of philosophy.
I also think that psychological interventions that prevent violence, suicide and misery are greatly beneficial and no trivial achievement.
Yes. Dwelling too much in the past, especially after loss and dealing with grief.
Regrets or anger of previous behaviour/actions by self/others.
What a killer of present possibilities...of happiness...moments of joy...appreciation...
Quoting Tom Storm
This type of work must be so challenging and fulfilling when you see positive results.
With regards to addiction - I expect this kind of self-management requires a daily commitment...after being shown how to use tools and strategies...
Fascinating and most worthwhile practice.
Opinion seems divided: Appeal To Emotion but, in my defense, being perfectly rational (that's our aim, right?) requires controlling our emotions. Perhaps it's a myth that emotions hamper rationality but I'd like to see someone figure out, and I quote, "...why overwhelming reactions are happening..." and also be "...better able to understand yourself and those reactions..." while in a highly emotional state (angry, in love, etc.).
Nevertheless, I still feel there's something to learn if we let loose our feelings.
Are you sure you're distinguishing between
1. the respect that people generally have for high(er) socio-economic status,
and
2. the respect that a particular person has for another person, regardless of the other person's socio-economic status?
Only a Buddhist dilettante would try to negate or profess detachment from emotions.
The actual Buddhist practices are about understanding how thoughts and emotions arise, what is the nature of perception, practicing a measure of austerity in terms of food, clothes, entertainment, etc.
Here are three sample suttas for how to deal with hatred:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.161.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.162.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.080.than.html
There is no denial there and no professing of detachment.