Tag: negative emotions

Categories
30. How Psychological Barriers can be Reinforced or Weakened

How Psychological Barriers can be Reinforced or Weakened

In this article, first, I will discuss a way in which psychological barriers can be reinforced, and then, a way in which they can be weakened.

How positive psychology can reinforce barriers

One of the key tenets of positive psychology is that the experience of positive emotions is a part of human wellbeing. The concept of positive psychology was founded by Martin Seligman in 2000 and has since become ubiquitous. Articles on the subject can be found in magazines on most bookstands; it is promoted by websites and university departments; and, many employers encourage it because positive emotions boost job performance. A helpful explanation of this branch of psychology can be found at https://positivepsychology.com/what-is-positive-psychology-definition/.

Strictly, positive psychology does not preclude the experience of negative emotions. Rather, it regards the experience of both positive and negative emotions as part of a balanced life. The emphasis of positive psychology on positive emotions was intended to redress the balance, which in the field of psychology, was thought to have swung too far towards a study of the negative. Negative emotions have evolved for a reason. They motivate us to deal with contra-satisfiers. For example, it is well known that the best way of dealing with anxiety is to identify its cause and tackle that.

However, positive psychology is not presented to the public in this way. Rather, it is presented more in the form of an opiate that will provide happiness, despite all the contra-satisfiers that we inevitably experience. So, it is easy, in the popular imagination, to conflate positive emotions with good, and negative emotions with bad. The effect is, of course, to reinforce psychological barriers. We may, for example, deny the existence of a clearly observable contra-satisfier, such as a toxic employer, to avoid the negative emotions that acknowledgement would cause. Conflating positive psychology with “bad” negative emotions provides a justification for denial. However, it also prevents us from taking action to resolve the problem, such as looking for another job.

It is okay to experience negative emotions. Their purpose is to motivate us to improve our situation by tackling contra-satisfiers. However, to avoid our lives becoming swamped by either positive or negative emotions, we should maintain a balance between the two. We should also recognise that contra-satisfiers can be tackled in either a negative or a positive way. For example, we may be angry about the unreasonable way that a neighbour’s parked car blocks the entrance to our drive. However, the answer is not to slash his car tyres. Rather, it may be to befriend him and express your concerns more subtly.

How neutral events can become positive ones, and so, weaken barriers

Not every event or situation is a satisfier or contra-satisfier. Many are neutral and have no impact on our needs either positively or negatively. However, we do have a choice in the matter. Because we have evolved to avoid anything that causes us harm, we do not choose for neutrals to act as contra-satisfiers. We can, however, choose for them to act as satisfiers. For example, if we are fortunate enough to be able to spend time on our growth needs, then we can turn a neutral into a satisfier by making a skill of it or by trying to understand it.

In this way the skill or understanding becomes a satisfier, contributes to the benefits of acting, and thus, weakens any barrier against action. If, for example, the poor performance of an organisation has a negative impact on our lives, we may feel inclined to let it pass. However, if we have an interest in why that poor performance is occurring, and wish to learn from this, then we are more likely to act.

As mentioned in a previous article, the current poly-crisis, i.e., global warming, biodiversity loss, wars, migration from the South to the North, and so on all have obvious social causes. However, the open recognition of these causes would result in much stress and anxiety. They are, therefore, the subject of cultural denial. That is, as a culture, we discourage one another from openly discussing the topic, to avoid the anxiety it generates. However, as clearly demonstrated by the hilariously entertaining movie, “Chicken Run – Rise of the Nugget”, some of these social truths can be presented in a way that entertains, whilst at the same time making us think about the problem. In this way cultural denial can be overcome. So, if you recognise the problems outlined in my article https://rational-understanding.com/2023/09/05/cultural-denial-or-conspiracy-of-silence/, then please work on creative ways to communicate it to others in a way that makes it easier for them to accept.

Categories
07. The Evaluation of Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

The Evaluation of Satisfiers and Contra-satisfiers

Positive emotions attach to satisfiers and, thus, to our needs. We wish to satisfy our needs and so make decisions intended to increase our positive emotional state. Negative emotions, on the other hand, attach to contra-satisfiers which in turn attach to our contra-needs. We wish to avoid the latter, and so, make decisions intended to decrease our negative emotional state.

Before we act, we make decisions about behaviour based on a form of risk/benefit/cost assessment. In this article I will describe the benefit part of this assessment in more detail. The terminology used is explained in the images below.

Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers are evaluated based on the changes that they make to our emotional state. In every situation, our emotional state depends on the extent to which our needs and those of others are satisfied. It also depends on the extent to which our contra-needs and those of others are avoided. This emotional state comprises the sum of the values associated with each existing satisfier and contra-satisfier. Both our behaviour and changes in our situation alter the status of these satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. This, in turn, results in changes to our emotional state. We regard such changes as benefits if our emotional state is improved, or dis-benefits if it is worsened.

MaxNeef recognised that satisfiers can be “synergic”*, and satisfy several needs, or singular, and satisfy just one. Furthermore, what can act as a satisfier for one person or need may, at the same time, act as a contra-satisfier for another. Thus, the emotional value of a satisfier or contra-satisfier may depend on several needs or contra-needs and those of several people. When the impact of a possible action is assessed, its impact on all needs and contra-needs is, therefore, considered. (*Note that this term is given as a quote because, if taken literally, it would mean several satisfiers working together to satisfy a need, rather than the definition given.)

When making decisions about behaviour we also consult our group ethical schema, i.e., our understanding of acceptable social behaviour, to determine whether we will receive positive or negative regard from others. Regard is, of course, a satisfier for a relatedness need. Ways of enhancing the positive regard or mitigating negative regard are identified, and the overall benefit or dis-benefit considered.

We also consult our personal ethical schema for psychological acceptability, i.e., the psychological satisfaction or pain we will experience because of the proposed behaviour. Again, ways of enhancing the former or mitigating the latter are identified and the overall benefit or dis-benefit considered.

The emotional value of each satisfier or contra-satisfier depends on its status, i.e., whether it is absent, latent (capable of manifesting), precarious (present but insecure), or entrenched (present, solidly established, and unchangeable).

It also depends on our beliefs. There are several ways in which we come to believe that a satisfier or contra-satisfier will influence our needs or contra-needs. Examples include: experience; learning from parents and other members of our community; observation of role models; advertising; and so on. These beliefs may be correct, or they may not. Nevertheless, they are what influences our decision making.

Finally, the emotional value of a satisfier or contra-satisfier depends on various factors associated with the needs and contra-needs that it affects. Among the latter are:

  1. Relative Priority, i.e., the importance to the individual of a need or contra-need in comparison with all others. The greater its relative priority the greater the emotional value of its satisfier or contra-satisfier. For example, if we are hungry and, also, wish to socialise, then we may regard sustenance as having a higher value than a visit to friends.
  2. Extent. Some satisfiers only partially satisfy a need. The less satisfied a need, the greater the value we will place on an additional satisfier. For example, if we are very hungry but only have one sandwich, then we will place a greater value on more food than if we have two. Conversely, some contra-satisfiers only partially impact on a contra-need. The lower this impact the greater the negative value we place on other contra-satisfiers.
  3. Relatedness. People care not only about their own needs and contra-needs, but also about those of others. The extent to which we value satisfiers and contra-satisfiers for others, depends on how closely related they are to us. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The Selfish Gene”, postulates that we value them according to the percentage of the variable human genome we believe those others to share with us. However, our support depends not only on genetic relatedness, but also on shared culture. This is because we rely on the support of other members of our culture for the satisfaction of our own needs. In general, relatedness decreases in the following order: ourselves, a member of our nuclear family, a member of our extended family, a friend, colleague or other ingroup member, a member of our society, a more distant person, an animal. This can, however, vary from individual to individual.
  4. Levels of Altruism and Co-operation. In general, the needs and contra-needs of others are less significant for us than our own. However, the difference depends on our personal levels of altruism or co-operation. If we have high levels, the difference will be less than if we have relatively low levels.

These factors introduce considerable complexity. It may be that the benefits and dis-benefits of satisfiers and contra-satisfiers could be modelled mathematically, to a certain extent, but this is clearly not something we can do in our heads. Thus, we rely on emotion.

Categories
06. Emotions and Decision Making

Emotions and Decision Making

For the following discussion, I will define a “positive situation” as one in which a need is addressed by a latent, precarious, or entrenched satisfier, and contra-satisfiers are absent. A “negative situation”, on the other hand, is one in which a need is not addressed by a satisfier or there is a latent, precarious, or entrenched contra-satisfier.

If a need is important to us, then negative situations cause negative feelings, for example, dis-satisfaction, frustration, anxiety, and fear. Conversely, positive situations cause positive emotions, for example, satisfaction, pleasure, and exhilaration. However, the latter are only felt when positive situations are first attained, and they last for a limited time. To motivate our behaviour, we must have satisfiers to seek and contra-satisfiers to avoid. Without these we would be inactive. The short duration of positive emotions ensures, therefore, that we attend to other needs once more pressing ones have been satisfied and secured. We can, therefore, only feel fully satisfied for a relatively short time.

Positive emotions do however reinforce our desire to behave or act in a way that generates that emotion. Conversely, negative emotions make us less likely to do so.

Knowledge has a part to play in our emotional state. What we perceive to be positive or negative situations are based on unconscious attitudes and beliefs. Many of these attitudes and beliefs are gained from our society, peers, advertising, etc., and we may not be consciously aware of them.

The feedback loop which causes us to be conscious has a part to play in our decisions and behaviour. For example, our unconscious mind may conclude that saying something potentially hurtful to another person will satisfy our needs. If so, then before acting we may consciously attempt to predict that person’s reaction via empathy or our knowledge of them. This may have an emotional effect on us which might cause us to reject or modify our unconscious mind’s conclusion.

What we perceive as satisfiers or contra-satisfiers, and thus, what we perceive as positive or negative situations, has a bearing on our level of stress. Stress has an emotional component, which can be positive or negative, and a biological component. The emotional component is negative when we experience feelings of frustration, anxiety, or fear, in a negative situation. It is positive when, for example, we experience exhilaration on first acquiring a satisfier. The biological component of stress is arousal, or a heightening of the physical ability to seize opportunities and avoid threats. It will occur when a situation is significant.

What we perceive as satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, and the value that we place on them, are important in valuing social institutions. Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers have a value to the individual, and the value that society places on its institutions is the aggregate of the value that each individual places on them. For example, the UK’s National Health Service has a very high social value because it is a satisfier of the existence and procreation needs of so many. This will be explored further when I discuss politics.

The value that we place on satisfiers and contra-satisfiers also has a bearing on what we hold to be good or bad, our morals, and ethics. For example, the aggregate impact of our behaviour on others, in terms of the satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that it invokes, forms the basis of utilitarianism. This will be explored further when I discuss ethics.

In the next article, I will describe how place a value on satisfiers and contra-satisfiers and in the following article how we use this to make our decisions.