NationStates Jolt Archive

I know it's probably "bindun," as they say on b3ta.com, but bear with me please?
*/me bats eyelashes endearingly*
How do you define the person you are? Is it through your thoughts, your feelings, or your behaviour? I realise that this might seem very simplistic, so I'll elaborate.
I suppose speech is a behavior, so I'll define it as one. It can manifest a feeling, or a thought, or it can be used in a behavioural way, through tone and intonation. I'm an individual who is rather emotionally impaired. I can have inappropriately intense emotional responses to some things, and be completely numb to others. This doesn't mean that I act on these emotional reactions. I can behave in appropriate ways. I can empathise with others, and I'm sincere, so it's not like I "go through the motions" when I interact with others. It's just that my emotions don't necessarily match the moment, or they lack the intensity they should have. Because of this, I find that I react to things more intellectually than emotionally, and it's those thoughts that underly my behaviour.

Are other people as emotionally undercooked as I am?

While somtimes I'm eerily detached, especially to things that should really concern me, frequently I'm a little too emotional. I seem to get more upset about slights to other people than to myself.
I see-saw back and forth between being totally unflappable and being a powder-keg. People always just thought I was really moody. Ha! the jokes on them. Turn out I'm bipolar.

I tend to act on my emotions. Emotions are honest.
Any thought or idea can be argued and countered. I'd rather just deal with my 20/20 hindsight than overthink everything and sit on my ass all my life.

Your post is a case in point. I'm not sure I understood it, but regardless, I figured you needed an example of someone who act's.

Thoughts are invisible.

Feelings are apocryphal at worst and only unmistakable when they boil over.

Actions, however, are most often the direct result of the first two. We've all had feelings we desperately wanted or even needed to act upon, and for reasons ranging from fear of jail time to fear of embarrassment, we rein them in, not acting on them.

If every thought was acted upon, there'd be a hell of a lot more murder than already exists in this world.

So it seems to me that sctions are the most important indicator of a person's mindset. As a teacher, I've heard all kinds of thoughts and feelings about students wanting to improve their grades or abilities. When I recommend a course of action, I know who is sincere by recording which of them follows what I've presented. It's easy to talk imporvement and desire for advancement, but it's another beast to actually do what needs to be done when it's time consuming and the results aren't immediate.

If practical experience isn't good enough, I can go Biblical: "Ye shall know them by their actions (works)." Anything else is elaborate hearsay. God knows I've had plenty of thoughts and feelings that I'd wished I'd either acted on or left alone. Still do. It's a lifelong process, determining when to jump.

NdL

I tend to act on my emotions. Emotions are honest.
Any thought or idea can be argued and countered.

I hate to burst your bubble, but emotions are based on ideas. You can't have an emotion about something without something to have an emotion about, if that follows at all. Forsaking thought for emotion is... unspeakably er... 'questionable,' since its our capacity for rational thought that separates us from the animals.

I'd rather just deal with my 20/20 hindsight than overthink everything and sit on my ass all my life.
You don't have to 'overthink' to come to a valid conclusion about something.

My thoughts, feelings and actions are not separate.

My thoughts, feelings and actions are not separate.

Mine certainly are. If I acted on all my thoughts they'd have locked me up years ago.
And my feelings often say "Kill the motherfuckers." But my thoughts go "yes, they may be total morons, but they have a right to their wrong opinions."

I hate to burst your bubble, but emotions are based on ideas.
I disagree with that. I have emotional reactions with no conscious thought underlying them until I try to identify why I'm having the reaction. Neurological evidence also suggests that the emotional centre of the brain (the papez circuit and limbic lobe) are sufficiently separate from the higher cortical areas that comprehension of an emotionally charged event isn't necessary for you to have an emotional reaction to it. Hence why the anger/fear response can manifest physiologically before you realise what it is you're afraid of.

Mine certainly are. If I acted on all my thoughts they'd have locked me up years ago.
And my feelings often say "Kill the motherfuckers." But my thoughts go "yes, they may be total morons, but they have a right to their wrong opinions."

Saying they're not separate doesn't mean they agree, it means there's a high level of interaction between them.

I disagree with that. I have emotional reactions with no conscious thought underlying them until I try to identify why I'm having the reaction. Neurological evidence also suggests that the emotional centre of the brain (the papez circuit and limbic lobe) are sufficiently separate from the higher cortical areas that comprehension of an emotionally charged event isn't necessary for you to have an emotional reaction to it. Hence why the anger/fear response can manifest physiologically before you realise what it is you're afraid of.
Disagree with it all you like, it makes little difference to me. Regardless of where the emotional centre of the brain is, it still reacts in accordance with data perceived and processed by the rest of the mind. You can't have an 'emotionally charged reaction' to something without perceiving and understanding that something in the first place.

Also, these ideas or percepts don't even have to be conscious; they're just there in some manifestation, either to remain latent or be discovered later on by 'soul searching.' This is why the field of psychology exists.

Disagree with it all you like, it makes little difference to me. Regardless of where the emotional centre of the brain is, it still reacts in accordance with data perceived and processed by the rest of the mind. You can't have an 'emotionally charged reaction' to something without perceiving and understanding that something in the first place.

Also, these ideas or percepts don't even have to be conscious; they're just there in some manifestation, either to remain latent or be discovered later on by 'soul searching.' This is why the field of psychology exists.

err, what about depression and bipolar disorders? People commonly have emotions with no idea attached, this is the basis of clinical psychology, essentially. The very idea of clinical depression is that you feel bad with for no reason.

Emotions can be related to chemical imbalances, and thus are not necessarily related to 'ideas' as such.

A really, really good example would be the ability of various chemical substance to change our emotions without any attached information: for example, MDMA makes us feel euphoric. It's obvious that some people have emotional experiences without any attached 'ideas'.

Equal parts audacity, intelligence and silliness.

That is how I define me. :)