Rorschach Doesn't Shrug: The Watchmen's hero as Objectivist saint

I am compelled to weigh in with John here, Steve. I think he is wrong about voluntarily dismissing unwanted and unrealistic emotional responses, but I think you are quite wrong that he doesn't know enough to discuss the issue!! He has emotions, and he has as much chance to force them away as you have, and as much ability to observe the results. Clinical experience isn't necessary, and academic psychology is not unequivocal on the issue. It isn't like you to claim authority on an issue like this.

That said, John, I will argue with Steve that humans cannot, in fact, wish away, or force away unwanted emotions. The evidence for this is extensive, if not without its opponents. Unwanted emotions are a problem for legions of people. Repression itself isn't all that easy or 100% successful, and is high-maintenance over time.

There are other strategies we use to cope with or work with unwanted emotions. But what you describe, thinking about an emotion, deciding it doesn't make sense, and then voluntarily eliminating it, based on that decision, does not seem to be possible. It has always proved impossible for me to do, personally, and it has proved impossible for untold millions of troubled people to do, as documented in literature, biographies, and clinical practice.

Emotions that don't fit with one's beliefs are called "ego-dystonic." You can pretty much generalize that all people suffer from ego-dystonic emotions at some times, many, many people are constantly troubled by them, typically in the form of anxiety and depression that don't fit the sufferer's estimate of their existential circumstances.

It may be that what you are describing is a process of insight that actually alters the beliefs and value-assessments that, under given circumstances, have heretofore caused "you" to feel a certain emotion. It is theoretically and, I will testify, and testify both from the first-person and the third-person, clinical perspective, possible to change a problematic emotional response in this way, in a moment, with a new understanding of the relevant issues. The insight, it is crucial to realize, is not that the emotion is uncalled-for, or unrealistic.

The way this works is completely consistent with the cognitive-evaluative-emotional causal sequence Steve is (I believe) arguing for. What Steve and I hold is that all emotions are automated responses to an event, an observation, or a thought, caused by our understanding of the existential import of that thing, followed by our evaluative estimation of that thing. Emotions can neither be brought into being nor eliminated by will-power, nor by the simple knowledge that that emotion doesn't make sense.

Post 41

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 8:41pm

Apropros of some of the comments in recent posts on this thread:
I believe the first and most important thing to do to be an Objectivist, and to become a "natural Objectivist," is to set and hold one's intellectual standards. What that involves is knowing what you mean by each word you use, and intransigently facing facts.

(Edited by Mindy Newton on 3/18, 8:52pm)

Post 42

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 8:48pm

Around here, after 10pm, if there's subwoofer loudness, call the cops - they shut it off, as there's an ordinance against it, and they enforce it... even during the day, if the vehicle is booming, a cop can order it off or fines, if can be heard beyond 50 feet...

Post 43

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:17pm

Mindy, you said, "I think you are quite wrong that he doesn't know enough to discuss the issue!! He has emotions, and he has as much chance to force them away as you have, and as much ability to observe the results. Mindy, you wouldn't have said that he has a body, so he has as much chance to alter a heart irregularity, or prostate enlargement, as would a doctor.

I appreciate that my argument took a style that is downright unpleasant, and is not like me. But I have a long history of arguments with John that have left me with little patience for his style. There is a kind of built-in justice when someone is foolish enough to argue in an area they know little to nothing about with someone who is knowledgeable, and do so in a very bull-headed, adamant fashion. They look like a fool, and when it is someone I have no fondness for, I'm not going to protect them from looking foolish.

I saw that John was using the word 'repress' as it's commonly used outside of psychology and that he wasn't aware that 'emotional repression' has a specific meaning. It was just good will and the urge to share that prompted me to put a correction out there. It was in NO way an attack - I just said, "I'd say it differently" - post 26. But he didn't take the hint, and chose to disagree. I was very polite in post 28 and gave an expanded explanation. In post 30 John said "I'm skeptical that such a thing as a subconscious even exists. It just sounds like Freudian wankery." He made a number of statements that were in the area of theoretical psychology. In post 31 he continues to choose to use words in ways that don't apply and to assert his beliefs, despite no knowledge, no training, no study in the area. In post 33 I was still polite and trying to find new words to get my points across. He continues to take a position of rationalized ignorance and it is in post 35 (my 5th attempt!!) that I decide that no amount of logic or using different words will have an effect and I remind him that I have decades of experience, training and study. It was pure frustration.

Post 44

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:25pm

Mindy, you said, "What that involves is knowing what you mean by each word you use, and intransigently facing facts. " I really like that... and the concept of a "natural Objectivist" - I've never heard that phrase before. I suspect that this is related to what you spoke of on the other thread where you related "part of speech" awareness to introspection.

Post 45

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:25pm

I do sympathize with the slings of pig-headed disputants, Steve, but I can't concur that John's ability to introspect is on a par with a layman's ability to treat a physiological disease!

Post 46

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:38pm

Actually, Steve, I hadn't thought of that.
I meant basically that the efforts I was suggesting, an intense commitment to careful scrutiny of one's thought and "honesty" becomes second nature (first nature, in the Aristotelian sense of prior vs. better) and that it is the source of that most desirable integration of thought and emotion that marks a mature mind.

Objectivists have a lot to look forward to, psychologically. No other system will bring them to a state of inexhaustable personal ability, romantic passion, and consummate self-confidence. No other system, logically, could.

Post 47

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 9:55pm

Mindy, my love of psychology is for its importance in human potential, history, and our culture. Too often there is a Utopian view of political theories or systems that are spoken of as if they, by themselves, would solve all problems even if people are still burdened with low self-esteem and poor reasoning skills.

When you said, "Objectivists have a lot to look forward to, psychologically. No other system will bring them to a state of inexhaustable personal ability, romantic passion, and consummate self-confidence. No other system, logically, could," I just wanted to cheer out loud. YES!!!

That is the connection. The right philosophy and the right psychology - both necessary, both give great advantage to the other! People with strong reasoning skills and little defensiveness will find Objectivism's embrace of personal responsibility and individualism refreshing - it will FEEL right.

Post 48

Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - 10:55pm

Steve, is this why I found myself cheering the first time I read and imagined Ragnar's pistol shot that saves Hank Rearden?

Post 49

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 4:27am

Phil, the movie " Falling down" is close to what you're talking about I think.
Steve and Mindy, Have been following the convo from the layman's perspective. I appreciate the knowledge. I find I particularly agree with Mindy's comments regarding the fruits of Objectivism, very well put.

Post 50

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 4:36am

I want to know how much of this 'repress-at-your-own-risk' debate was directed at a mutual understanding; and how much of it was written not for mutual understanding at all -- but either for the 3rd-party viewer's understanding, or just flatly without a goal of understanding at all (mere emotional ejaculation). I want to psychologize Steve and John here.

Ed

p.s. John's understanding of this issue is appealing. It is close to, if not identical to, Ayn Rand's understanding of the issue -- though unimportant faults may be found in his precision (as Steve has pointed out).

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/19, 4:44am)

Post 51

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 12:45pm

Mindy:

That said, John, I will argue with Steve that humans cannot, in fact, wish away, or force away unwanted emotions. The evidence for this is extensive, if not without its opponents. Unwanted emotions are a problem for legions of people. Repression itself isn't all that easy or 100% successful, and is high-maintenance over time.

Thanks Mindy for your comments. I don't mean to say that introspecting and attempting to rid oneself of irrational feelings is an easy accomplishment. The difficulty of doing such a thing was not the issue I was making, only that it is never something that is beyond someone's capacity (so long as we are speaking of someone with no physical brain damage), and if one wants to have a happy life, it is incumbent upon them to rid themselves of these irrational feelings. In order to do so of course as I said requires introspection to understand why they originally have these emotions in order to discover the underlying values that are responsible for them.

Steve was just interested in twisting my words in a way that I never meant to mean them. As usual he resorts to his condescending attitude with me whenever I continue to challenge his arguments. And here he is, continuing his insults by calling me a "fool". I'm not surprised as this has all happened before.

To make matters worse, he even acknowledges his style was "unpleasant" (a more accurate word would be insulting) yet continues to justify his style of argument by intimidation rather than own up and apologize for the way he carries himself.
(Edited by John Armaos on 3/19, 2:45pm)

Post 52

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 1:09pm

Ed, you'll have to judge the participant's motivations on your own. I started out with no intention other than to share some knowledge from an area where I have expertise. Clearly, I became angry in what was the 5th attempt to explain that emotional repression is harmful, that it is not the same as controlling one's behavior, and that it's not the way to rid one's self of undesirable emotions.

There is nothing that I've said in this area that conflicts with Rand's positions. Emotional repression is a form of automated "blanking out" and Rand would have been as opposed to that as she would have been to acting on one's emotions instead of reason.

Post 53

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 1:42pm

Steve:

Clearly, I became angry in what was the 5th attempt to explain that emotional repression is harmful, that it is not the same as controlling one's behavior, and that it's not the way to rid one's self of undesirable emotions.

You see this is what confuses me. Your last sentence is exactly what I said before, yet you said in post 35 to me

"You can't expunge yourself of a feeling".

Yet here you are, seemingly advocating that one should rid themselves of undesirable emotions, the very thing I've been saying for dozens of posts now. The word "to rid" is the same as "to expunge". And you show frustration to my style of arguing? Perhaps understanding this word would alleviate some of your uncalled for frustrations.
(Edited by John Armaos on 3/19, 2:44pm)

Post 54

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 2:04pm

Sorry Mindy I just have one bone to pick here:

There are other strategies we use to cope with or work with unwanted emotions. But what you describe, thinking about an emotion, deciding it doesn't make sense, and then voluntarily eliminating it, based on that decision, does not seem to be possible. It has always proved impossible for me to do, personally, and it has proved impossible for untold millions of troubled people to do, as documented in literature, biographies, and clinical practice.

I couldn't disagree more. Before one can eliminate harmful emotions one must have an understanding of what are proper values/disvalues for living a happy life. Once one recognizes those values that are consonant with a happy, flourishing life, they can successfully eliminate harmful emotions because you would no longer have improper values/disvalues for them to manifest into these harmful feelings. Again I don't mean to say this is easy, but it is by no means impossible. By saying it is impossible, it excuses irrationality as something that a person can't help to feel. Basically it implies man is not capable of ridding himself of irrationality and therefore he has no choice but to let his emotions control him, rather than he control his own emotions. So man is inherently irrational according to this view.

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/19, 2:07pm)

Post 55

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 2:21pm

Yes, Steve, I agree. The right philosophy is psychologically healthy to follow. From the other direction, it isn't as simple. You can't teach Objectivism as psychotherapy. So the dynamics of mental functioning that are in fact characteristic of a person with an Objectivist point of view and sense of life are what we abstract out as the parameters of mental health.

Those abstractions have to be translated and elaborated, through many, many levels, into the whole spectrum of behavior, emotion, personality, psychodynamics, and symptomatology that academic and clinical psychology address (and, for clinical psychology, attempts to redress.)

We should take this over to the psychology forum, Steve.

Post 56

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 3:31pm

I don't think, John, we actually do disagree.
I agree that a different understanding of life, oneself, a given situation or person or problem in one's life, etc., can change one's automatic emotional responses to the relevant thing. So if a person who is, let's say, angry beyond reason at people who disagree with him thinks about it, and this would have to be long and hard beyond any usual problem-solving efforts, and realizes that his anger results from an underlying feeling of vulnerability he feels, but doesn't acknowledge, when he meets with dispute, and then he goes on to realize that it is his own estimate of his knowledge and communication skills that underlie those feelings of vulnerability, this just might constitute an epiphany for him, and result, assuming he keeps it in mind and also does something about the situation, in a significant reduction in either the instances in which he feels that anger, or in the degree of anger.

Is that not the sort of remedy you are talking about? What Steve and I are reading from what you've said is that one can merely realize that their emotion is unwarranted, or just doesn't make sense, and, based on that, or motivated by that, somehow eliminate that emotion.

When you say here that once a person understands what are the proper values/disvalues, their own beliefs and priorities will fall in line, and their past errors of evaluation leading to pathological emotions will simply not occur, you are painting a simplistic picture of the human mind. It is true that if you are right in all your thinking, you will be healthy in your emotional life, but once you have ego-dystonic emotions, and that is in fact the context of this discussion, right?, you have automatic evaluations that don't fit with your acknowledged beliefs. Straightening that out is hard work, harder than becoming convinced, for example, that egoism is the correct ethical theory. One can become convinced of that without their emotional responses falling entirely in line as a result.

We are not at odds about whether irrational emotions, motivations, and actions are beyond remedy. They are not beyond remedy. (For one thing, it is only emotions that are automated. Plans and actions fall into a different category.) It isn't easy, but possible to change irrational elements of one's psychology. It requires the right method, though. I think that is the only thing we may disagree about.

Post 57

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 3:47pm

Mindy, I opened a thread at the psychology forum in reply.

Post 58

Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 4:43pm