Emotional experts

[Matt Gregory]

David Quinn once wrote:

Women live and breathe in the topsy-turvy world of the emotions, and become experts therein.

What does it really mean for someone to be an expert of emotions?

[Shahrazad]

There are many ways to be an emotional expert. It pretty much depends on your goals.

There are basically 4 categories for emotional skills:

(1) Understanding your own emotions (even as they unfold)

(2) Understanding and reading the emotions of others

(3) Controlling your own emotions

(4) Influencing the emotions of others

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Shah,

(1) Understanding your own emotions (even as they unfold)

I've never understood what is meant by this sort of thing. How would one go about understanding their emotions?

[Shahrazad]

Start by analyzing what you're feeling. It is not always that obvious to all people.

[MindExpansion]

I think one of the best examples of that, are actors. People who can control their emotions and manipulate them to any particular circumstance...

I know a few women in my life that get what they want by controling their moods...It's a gift!

[Gretchen]

David Quinn once wrote:

Women live and breathe in the topsy-turvy world of the emotions, and become experts therein.

What does it really mean for someone to be an expert of emotions?

What does it mean to be devoid of them altogether? Are they the same definition?

When I think of being devoid of all emotion I think of being very detached, almost liberated from everything...but it is just a thought. Not being emotionless, I'm not quite sure if it is desirous or not. However, they cannot be the same because emotions are not liberating and detached but enslaving and attached to an object whether its person, someone, or some thing.

In some situations, it would seem being devoid of emotion to be paramount but in others cold. So, too, would being an expert of emotions.

Being devoid of all emotion would seem to create a person who was a fair and impartial observer. Whereas, one who was an expert in emotion would seem to be in control and possibly, but not always, manipulative and calculating, with all BUT those who are devoid of all emotion. Those that are devoid of all emotion would not seem to be affected one way or the other. Given that it would not affect them one way or the other, they would not seem to be in control but actually would be in control.

But is this a desirable trait...not to feel anything?

[Sapius]

David Quinn once wrote:

Women live and breathe in the topsy-turvy world of the emotions, and become experts therein.

What does it really mean for someone to be an expert of emotions?

In my opinion, all that that means is that women, who generally operate through emotions, are well aware of how to manipulate them as the situation demands, and since they are aware what such manipulations can achieve, hence are masters of emotional blackmail, to which femininity can fall pray to; Irrelevant of the opponent being a male or a female, physically speaking.

Does that make sense?

[Shardrol]

Dang.

Call me Pollyanna but I just thought David was saying that since women live in the world of emotions, that's what they know about. Not necessarily manipulation or blackmail, but just insight into their own & others' feelings.

Not every sentence with the word 'women' in it has to be saying something negative. Though of course I may have misunderstood David's intention, in spite of my alleged female insight. :)
.

[Sapius]

Dang.

Call me Pollyanna but I just thought David was saying that since women live in the world of emotions, that's what they know about. Not necessarily manipulation or blackmail, but just insight into their own & others' feelings.

Not every sentence with the word 'women' in it has to be saying something negative. Though of course I may have misunderstood David's intention, in spite of my alleged female insight. :)
.

That generally applies to men too, in fact, as males, they are sometimes much better at emotional blackmailing. It is actually an art; nothing inherently negative about it.

I simply interpreted what I thought it could also mean. Only David can explain actually.

[Faust]

David Quinn once wrote:

Women live and breathe in the topsy-turvy world of the emotions, and become experts therein.

What does it really mean for someone to be an expert of emotions?

What does it mean to be devoid of them altogether? Are they the same definition?

When I think of being devoid of all emotion I think of being very detached, almost liberated from everything...but it is just a thought. Not being emotionless, I'm not quite sure if it is desirous or not. However, they cannot be the same because emotions are not liberating and detached but enslaving and attached to an object whether its person, someone, or some thing.

In some situations, it would seem being devoid of emotion to be paramount but in others cold. So, too, would being an expert of emotions.

Being devoid of all emotion would seem to create a person who was a fair and impartial observer. Whereas, one who was an expert in emotion would seem to be in control and possibly, but not always, manipulative and calculating, with all BUT those who are devoid of all emotion. Those that are devoid of all emotion would not seem to be affected one way or the other. Given that it would not affect them one way or the other, they would not seem to be in control but actually would be in control.

But is this a desirable trait...not to feel anything?

humans are not vulcans, there's no SUCH thing as being totally emotionless. It's absolutely impossible. When one has lowered their emotions to a minimum there exists now a state of EMOTIONAL STABILITY, ie being calm and desiring HAPPINESS, and also the ever-existing ego, as long as ego exists emotion exists, and ego will always exist.

[Faust]

[quote="Sapius"][quote="Shardrol"]Dang.

Call me Pollyanna but I just thought David was saying that since women live in the world of emotions, that's what they know about. Not necessarily manipulation or blackmail, but just insight into their own & others' feelings.

Not every sentence with the word 'women' in it has to be saying something negative. Though of course I may have misunderstood David's intention, in spite of my alleged female insight. :)
.[/quote]

That generally applies to men too, in fact, as males, they are sometimes much better at emotional blackmailing. It is actually an art; nothing inherently negative about it.

I simply interpreted what I thought it could also mean. Only David can explain actually.[/quote]

how is manipulation not negative? just because it's an "art" doesn't make it good. The problem is that it's harder for women to become saints, like there could very well be a female version of Kierkegaard or St. Francis, but I think it's much harder due to the strength it requires, or maybe i haven't seen any yet..

[Sapius]

F-13,

humans are not vulcans, there's no SUCH thing as being totally emotionless. It's absolutely impossible. When one has lowered their emotions to a minimum there exists now a state of EMOTIONAL STABILITY, ie being calm and desiring HAPPINESS, and also the ever-existing ego, as long as ego exists emotion exists, and ego will always exist.

Yep! Nothing inherently wrong with emotions either.

how is manipulation not negative? just because it's an "art" doesn't make it good.

See it through the point of view of THAT ego. You are judging it from yours.

[vicdan]

All communication is manipulation of some sort or another -- it's all an attempt to elicit some sort of desired response from other people. The question is, what sort of response; more specifically, how is the goal of manipulation aligned with the other person's goals. The difference between exploiting one for purely selfish goals (e.g. defrauding someone) or for their own benefit (making someone laugh) is the key distinction to make.

[Unidian]

Yes, as long as we acknowledge that neither we or the person(s) in question are always accurately aware of what is "for their own good." But I'd imagine most would acknowledge that fairly automatically, since it's a pretty basic point.

[Gretchen]

The problem is that it's harder for women to become saints, like there could very well be a female version of Kierkegaard or St. Francis, but I think it's much harder due to the strength it requires, or maybe i haven't seen any yet..

You haven't looked very hard. Let's try Theresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, Therese of Lisieux, Bernadette of Lourdes and many more. Visit newadvent.com to read about them and many others. Further, it is amazing that even these people had any recognition based on the male domination of the Catholic Church...clearly these women must have been overachievers.