Sanity is attractive: Here's how to do it

[Plinco]

Introduction:

I’ve done some really stupid things over the last few years. Learning from my mistakes and taking a deep dive into them has made me uniquely qualified to teach these basic concepts for the newbies, and to give the oldbies something interesting to read. Enjoy.


Part one: Demystifying emotions

Here are the basic categories of emotions and what they mean:

Grief = lost a value

Joy = gained a value


Desire = pursuing a perceived value. If the emotion is validated by reason, means that one should pursue a value. It also means a deficit.

Aversion = avoiding a perceived disvalue


Love = source of value and pleasure

Indifference = source of pain and disvalue


Hope = perceived possibility of success

Despair = perceived as no possibility of success


Anger = some outside force or person has taken a value away from me

Gratitude = someone has helped me


Fear = perceived threat, uncertainty that requires action.

Relief = perceived removal of threat


Frustration = Perceive self as ineffective

Confidence = perceive self as effective


Guilt = perceived misbehavior

Pride = perceived as behaved morally.


Emotions are a higher order version of the pain and pleasure principle. They are the first step of evaluation and indicate a relationship. They are a reaction to what you are convinced of being true (your convictions), are automatic and do not comprehend reality objectively. That’s why I used the word “perceived” in the above list.


Part two: Emotional vitality

Emotions of high vitality:

Joy
Love
Optimism/Hope
Pride
Confidence
Gratitude
Desire

This is where you are difficult to control, attractive to others, indicates effectiveness, strong frame (sense of reality/self), long term self-control, and is a result of rationality.


Emotions of low vitality:

Grief
Fear
Despair
Guilt
Frustration
Anger
Indifference

This is where you are easy to control, unattractive to others, indicates ineffectiveness, weak frame, long term lack of self-control, and is a result of lack of rationality.

*Notice that much of the origins of emotions are related to the effectiveness of your agency. Effective agency = attractive, ineffective agency = unattractive.


Part three: Rationality as a necessity to improve emotional vitality and emotional intelligence

Emotions are not the source of objective knowledge. Knowledge is contextual and only comes from reason. Emotions are automatic reactions to stimuli and are not structured to properly comprehend reality. That is why people do stupid things when they are emotional. It is also why we have a ‘no contact’ thread on this forum.

Ultimately there are two ways to gain emotional intelligence. Recognizing your own emotional states and what causes them, thereby uncovering your values. The other is to recognize patterns in communication (verbal and non-verbal) from other people. Emotional intelligence requires pattern recognition. However those who are emotionally ‘intelligent’ usually make the mistake of not validating these patterns using their rational faculty; unbeknownst to them, they often become whim worshipers and misinterpret reality through their reason evading, evaluative mental process.

Everyone, including women and children, want to be in a more rational state. Whim worshipers become unhappy in the long term because the mind suffers without rationality. This is where the problem of accountability comes into play. The principle of accountability is rationality; action demands knowledge and knowledge requires rationality. Moving into a more rational state is attractive and increases emotional vitality. Being irrational hinders all other virtues, including productiveness, justice, integrity, etc.

Rationality clarifies emotions and raises emotional vitality. Emotional manipulation is rooted in dishonesty. Effective emotional manipulation requires rationality in the manipulator, but it also destroys rationality in the manipulatee. A person who can manipulate someone’s emotions is attractive at first, but then becomes unattractive when the manipulated person discovers the dishonesty or moves into a less rational, disorderly state. Those who thrive from emotional manipulation hate rationality; Hatred of the rational comes from the desire for the unearned.


Part four: Clarity in thought increases emotional intensity

Emotion intensity is a matter of clarity. If a situation is clear, and clearly impacts you, you will feel a more intense emotional response. Mental clarity will help bring about stronger emotions. Alternatively, whim worshipers (guided by emotions) ironically do not have strong emotional responses. Strong emotional response combined with a strong emotional vitality increases the motivation for productivity.


Part five: Suppression versus repression

Suppression is the correct way to deal with emotions when you are required to be rational. First you recognize an emotion, accept it, then suppress it by refocusing on the rational aspects of the situation. In this way you are leading instead of being led.

Thinking about texting your recent ex? Remember:

Observe --→ Accept --→ Refocus

Something that should be added here is that there is a difference between suppression and repression. Emotional repression is evasion. You can retrieve repressed emotions by examining your personal history without evading.


Conclusion

The virtue of rationality and all other derivative virtues produce clarity in thought and therefore emotional health. Rationality is also required for emotional intelligence because effectiveness requires clarity. By improving the rational faculty you will become more attractive, help solve the political problems of today, and help improve the attractiveness of others by holding them accountable to reason.




References:



"What Emotions Are" by Harry Binswanger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b92mnH3n6Kw


“Emotions & Values 101” by Jean Moroney

https://www.thinkingdirections.com/


“Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior” by Dr. David R. Hawkins

https://www.amazon.com/Power-vs-Force-David-Hawkins-ebook/dp/B00EJBABS2

(chart attached below)


“Book of Pook”

https://bookofpook.com/


As well as my personal insights and observations.

 

[Ricky]

Great post. I remember years ago reading about the concept of how emotions can “entangle” and then you start to lose sight of just why you feel a certain way. I honestly forget exactly what the authors suggestion for untangling these emotions were but some form of analysis of them was at the heart of it.

 

[NorwegianDJ]

Appreciate this content in these parts.

I do very much disagree with most things you say about rationality in its relation to emotions. Particularly as placing it as your God-head and above emotionality.

I may come back to you.

 

[Plinco]

Great post. I remember years ago reading about the concept of how emotions can “entangle” and then you start to lose sight of just why you feel a certain way. I honestly forget exactly what the authors suggestion for untangling these emotions were but some form of analysis of them was at the heart of it.

Yes, and that's part of what I'm to do here too. I began with this information for personal reasons, and I thought this would help others to think about this as principle to practice. The "no contact" thread is a good example of this. This topic is about maintaining power and control in a situation.

Appreciate this content in these parts.

I do very much disagree with most things you say about rationality in its relation to emotions. Particularly as placing it as your God-head and above emotionality.

We all have emotions and we are all capable of reasoning, to various degrees of both depending on the person. There's no effort in emoting; you feel an emotion as a reaction. However thinking requires effort. When you are dealing with a situation that requires your attention, no matter how much emotion you are flooded with, you still need to think in order to control the situation.

I may come back to you.

Please do I'll appreciate it.

 

[zekko]

Indifference

This is where you are easy to control, unattractive to others, indicates ineffectiveness, weak frame, long term lack of self-control, and is a result of lack of rationality.

Interesting post. This part jumped out at me though, because it goes against standard pickup theory. PUAs push indifference as being attractive. There was a recent thread where it was maintained that detachment is attractive. There is the saying "Give zero fvcks", and whoever cares least, wins. I guess the idea is that indifference indicates abundance, but I've never quite accepted this concept. If one were truly indifferent, he wouldn't put forth any effort at all, and I don't see how that's attractive.

 

[NorwegianDJ]

Part three: Rationality as a necessity to improve emotional vitality and emotional intelligence

Emotions are not the source of objective knowledge. Knowledge is contextual and only comes from reason. Emotions are automatic reactions to stimuli and are not structured to properly comprehend reality. That is why people do stupid things when they are emotional. It is also why we have a ‘no contact’ thread on this forum.

This is where we primarily disagree. This post does not touch on intuition and bodily knowing at all, which in my experience, is the source of objective knowledge. Emotions are your guiding lights and to be honoured. To say that they are not structured to properly comprehend reality is really just to poorly restate that they are shaped by evolution to respond to perceived reality. To limit emotions to automatic reactions is quite misguided. Emotions =/= reactions. You are always at the seat of self. Should there by an unskilled reaction, that is your prerogative.

Ultimately there are two ways to gain emotional intelligence. Recognizing your own emotional states and what causes them, thereby uncovering your values. The other is to recognize patterns in communication (verbal and non-verbal) from other people. Emotional intelligence requires pattern recognition. However those who are emotionally ‘intelligent’ usually make the mistake of not validating these patterns using their rational faculty; unbeknownst to them, they often become whim worshipers and misinterpret reality through their reason evading, evaluative mental process.

Your first point here touches on the key information, but does not clarify it. The rational lens you're using doesn't capture the magnitude and embodiment of the work required. To recognize your own emotions and their causes is to step out of the mental narrative and return to the body; to fully feel a feeling, and to relax and release. It is the doctrine of acceptance, which is the highest spiritual teaching. Along with this, there is the rational (and creative and bodily) insight of clearly seeing cause and effect.

Everyone, including women and children, want to be in a more rational state. Whim worshipers become unhappy in the long term because the mind suffers without rationality. This is where the problem of accountability comes into play. The principle of accountability is rationality; action demands knowledge and knowledge requires rationality. Moving into a more rational state is attractive and increases emotional vitality. Being irrational hinders all other virtues, including productiveness, justice, integrity, etc.

I disagree with most of this.
We already worship the intellect in the West. Do you really want to be more heady? More detached and isolated? Less feeling and wholeness? More hedonism and sensory lust, and less fulfilment? More manipulation and less love? Less contentment and more chasing rainbows? There are other layers of communication and existence beyond the mental layer.
Action does not demand knowledge. Rather action may breed wisdom and in turn wisdom breeds action. Knowledge is but a poor reflection of reality and by praising it, your argument falls apart.

Rationality clarifies emotions and raises emotional vitality. Emotional manipulation is rooted in dishonesty. Effective emotional manipulation requires rationality in the manipulator, but it also destroys rationality in the manipulatee. A person who can manipulate someone’s emotions is attractive at first, but then becomes unattractive when the manipulated person discovers the dishonesty or moves into a less rational, disorderly state. Those who thrive from emotional manipulation hate rationality; Hatred of the rational comes from the desire for the unearned.

I really think this is just a matter of how you define rationality, because you're clearly putting a lot of meaning into this word.

In bold.

 

[mikedee]

Interesting post. This part jumped out at me though, because it goes against standard pickup theory. PUAs push indifference as being attractive. There was a recent thread where it was maintained that detachment is attractive. There is the saying "Give zero fvcks", and whoever cares least, wins. I guess the idea is that indifference indicates abundance, but I've never quite accepted this concept. If one were truly indifferent, he wouldn't put forth any effort at all, and I don't see how that's attractive.

Indifference/not giving a fvck doesnt work. You gotta show interest, but not too much.

 

[Plinco]

Interesting post. This part jumped out at me though, because it goes against standard pickup theory. PUAs push indifference as being attractive. There was a recent thread where it was maintained that detachment is attractive. There is the saying "Give zero fvcks", and whoever cares least, wins. I guess the idea is that indifference indicates abundance, but I've never quite accepted this concept. If one were truly indifferent, he wouldn't put forth any effort at all, and I don't see how that's attractive.

Indifference/not giving a fvck doesnt work. You gotta show interest, but not too much.

"Indifference" is defined differently here. The DGAF mindset is indifferent in the sense of others not being a higher value that the self (i.e. this person isn't valuable enough for too much of my time and attention). In this way, you're in the mindset of others earning your time and attention. I'm defining "indifference" here to mean the anti-thesis to love; "Hatred" would be a more familiar term.

 

[Plinco]

In bold.

Human beings do not have an automatic means of survival. We survive by thinking and therefore transforming our environment to meet our needs.

What exactly is "intuition and bodily knowing" anyway?

Once you know something, like how to drive a car, then you can automatize driving. When you're learning how to drive, you have to think; you cannot be emotional when you're learning something.

Being heady, detached, isolated, lack of wholeness, hedonism, lack of fulfillment and chasing rainbows is the result of whim worshiping.

Wisdom is knowledge.


I'm assuming you're from Norway and that english is not your first language, which is fine. It would help to look up the definitions of the words you are using for clarity.

 

[NorwegianDJ]

Human beings do not have an automatic means of survival. We survive by thinking and therefore transforming our environment to meet our needs.

What exactly is "intuition and bodily knowing" anyway?

Once you know something, like how to drive a car, then you can automatize driving. When you're learning how to drive, you have to think; you cannot be emotional when you're learning something.

Being heady, detached, isolated, lack of wholeness, hedonism, lack of fulfillment and chasing rainbows is the result of whim worshiping.

Wisdom is knowledge.


I'm assuming you're from Norway and that english is not your first language, which is fine. It would help to look up the definitions of the words you are using for clarity.

Sorry, but engaging with you is not for me.

 

[BeExcellent]

Advice from the old lady:

To me the writing is not terribly well organized for an essay, but I understand the points made and references given. I’m not going to redline it as an English composition teacher would, even though his message is weakened by the poor organization.

I digress as I do on occasion.

As to indifference it IS unattractive in the sense that it is a not caring about someone or something, one is indifferent if the subject matter is not important enough to warrant investment of one’s time, effort, resources etc. Think of someone you love (a family member or parent for example) treating you with indifference (no emotional engagement, utter lack of concern for you). That is a negatively impactful state. If one is indifferent about one’s employment and the requirements of one’s employer that employer is unlikely to keep you on staff for long because you exhibit indifference and don’t care about work.

In pick up indifference is promoted not as a not caring but as a detached state. In order to keep from vastly over investing in a prospective sexual partner or relationship possibility, pick up theories promote indifference as detachment because most men are prone to care way to much and invest way to much. We observe that around here constantly.

You cannot love someone and be indifferent to that person for indifference is the absence of love.

We all as humans develop attachments to the things in which we actively invest (emotional energy, time, effort, resources etc.) Our attachments follow our investments, and love (an action verb) is the natural emotional response/result.

Hatred is not the opposite of love, rather it is the opposite side of the same coin. Hatred arises BECAUSE of the level of investment in a person, in an idea, etc., and when that investment is exposed to be misplaced or a dearly held idea is challenged or disagreed with? That is where hatred comes. It is resultant from investment just as love is. It manifests differently because love is the positive emotional response to investment, hatred is the negative emotional response to investment.

I do not agree with some of the definitions assigned to the various emotive states either, but insofar as discourse is concerned the definitions provided are sufficient to facilitate discussion.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Plinco]

Advice from the old lady:

To me the writing is not terribly well organized for an essay, but I understand the points made and references given. I’m not going to redline it as an English composition teacher would, even though his message is weakened by the poor organization.

I digress as I do on occasion.

As to indifference it IS unattractive in the sense that it is a not caring about someone or something, one is indifferent if the subject matter is not important enough to warrant investment of one’s time, effort, resources etc. Think of someone you love (a family member or parent for example) treating you with indifference (no emotional engagement, utter lack of concern for you). That is a negatively impactful state. If one is indifferent about one’s employment and the requirements of one’s employer that employer is unlikely to keep you on staff for long because you exhibit indifference and don’t care about work.

In pick up indifference is promoted not as a not caring but as a detached state. In order to keep from vastly over investing in a prospective sexual partner or relationship possibility, pick up theories promote indifference as detachment because most men are prone to care way to much and invest way to much. We observe that around here constantly.

You cannot love someone and be indifferent to that person for indifference is the absence of love.

We all as humans develop attachments to the things in which we actively invest (emotional energy, time, effort, resources etc.) Our attachments follow our investments, and love (an action verb) is the natural emotional response/result.

Hatred is not the opposite of love, rather it is the opposite side of the same coin. Hatred arises BECAUSE of the level of investment in a person, in an idea, etc., and when that investment is exposed to be misplaced or a dearly held idea is challenged or disagreed with? That is where hatred comes. It is resultant from investment just as love is. It manifests differently because love is the positive emotional response to investment, hatred is the negative emotional response to investment.

I do not agree with some of the definitions assigned to the various emotive states either, but insofar as discourse is concerned the definitions provided are sufficient to facilitate discussion.

Just some thoughts.

I appreciate your input.

After seeing emotion definitions online and charts like this one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Plutchik-wheel.svg

I thought the definitions were right. The whole purpose of this was clarification.

A man should not be thinking this much on how to deal with women.
Zero fcks given has been wrote about since mystery.
Yall trying to reinvent the wheel.
Emotions need to be in check for a man.
Dont fall for her. "You never talk about your feelings to me"

Its a gd trap. Subconsciously

I wrote this to make it easier

 

[Plinco]

Sorry, but engaging with you is not for me.

If you change your mind and want to clarify yourself, please do but I think the source of the disagreement is that you misunderstand these concepts.

 

[BeExcellent]

1. “Love” – Anthology - Carl Jung Depth Psychology

Because I also want my being other, I must become a Christ. I am made into Christ, I must suffer it. Thus the redeeming blood flows. Through the

carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog

Just in case you want to go really really deep…..

When Carl Jung struggles to arrive at a definition, that is food for thought to be sure.

 

[Plinco]

you cannot be emotional when you're learning something.

Correction: You cannot learn something without reasoning.