Psychology Articles

Abstract:

In recent years psychology has tried to uplift the human spirit with lots of popular psychology terms such as, “Positive Psychology” or the numerous books released to tell the masses how to behave to lead a fulfilled successful life from talking about parachutes, ten steps to something, the mired of “how to” titles and much more. Most are nothing but misguided pop psych or a fad of the moment. Can life be as easy as reading the right book and following some basic concepts and everything is going to be OK for you and me? This paper is different, we shall explore the “Dark” side of the human mind – that part that sees disengagement, destruction, vile acts as part of the everyday human psyche that emerges in us all from time to time – that part that finds excitement, glee and pleasure in the dysfunctional part of our existence. How can society reconcile with its dark side? I use the word insane to refer to those in society who oppose the social norm.

Introduction:

First let’s examine how we can identify the “Dark Side” of psychological thought and behaviour. We need a measure, to know, what is normal and what is considered abnormal behaviour. Our first measure is social norms; this means in any society of what is considered normal everyday behaviour given a set of circumstances that confront our perception. For example in Western culture to strike another person violently is considered a criminal act and one that is repulsive to a peaceful society. However we condone violence when the person is given societal permissions such as a soldier in the act of war, a policeman in the act of apprehension of a dangerous criminal, a citizen defending his family from a serious threat from another person. These double standards can be misinterpreted in many ways. The soldier who commits war crimes such as genocide, the policeman who uses violence to intimidate a witness while interviewing them or the citizen who violates another persons rights in order to further their own position in some way.

The second measure is a moral one? How do we as a society decide what is right and wrong, who has the power to decide these rights, do laws follow moral conviction or do they become protection of the weak against the strong or the rich against the poor? Most societies agree that killing another human being is against a moral code – it is simply wrong to kill and should be punished by an act of equal severity, by the society that supports the moral legal stance imposed on the masses by its law-makers. To most societies this has been a religious code of conduct such as the 10 commandments of the Christian faith and other such codes from Buddhism to the Muslim Koran. Faith in divine reward and punishment are reflected in the legal language and laws seen as the bedrock of any civilized nation of people. Having accepted these rules why then do people readily deviate from these morals, laws and religious guidelines that allow us all to live in a peaceful society governed by agreed principals of behaviours that protect the individual from danger, hurt and abuse?

The third area of behaviour is that not set down in law or religious concepts but those everyday sets of behaviour the English would refer to as, “manners” or being “polite”. The conduct or way of acting that conforms to behaviour accepted as that of a superior member of a society who knows how to conduct themselves in the company of others to a set of standards that are seen as the mark of an advanced civilization. These can sometimes be seen in the etiquette of table manners or a man opening a door for a woman and allowing her to pass first, the recognition of man’s duty to protect and defend women. Today in some cultures women’s rights have cast doubt of manners towards woman as sexist and therefore demeaning to a woman’s independence. Never-the-less manners are seen as the mark of being well-bread and in the upper echelons of a society whether they are traditional Englishness or a Japanese tea ceremony.

Having set out societies differing ways of measuring behaviour either through, law, morals or social acceptable norms humans still manage a wide range of dysfunctional behaviour that often impacts on and influences others to the point where the perpetrators of this behaviour see themselves outside the law, moral codes and etiquette of the rest of society. Sometimes through the feeling of guilt we all recognise when we have transgressed those rules that we see as essential to a well ordered civilization. However there are those other people who feel nothing when faced with dealing out violence, destruction and death against others as merely their right to live without those rules and the freedom to live a life that is determined by nothing more than what they wish to own, possess or destroy.

The Dark-Side:

What posses the man who kicks the dog, when he is frustrated by society that pens his existence. What feelings does he release at that moment when the dog screeches and howls in pain and fright? Why does he smile and wish further harm to the dog and enjoy the sight of an animal in pain? On-lookers feel outraged by his behaviour and sympathy for the defenceless dog for which this man has sought to treat cruelly and without remorse. Who is this man? Why he is all of us from time to time. We all lose our sense of psychological calm and rational thoughts as we grapple with life’s unfairness or lack of opportunity. On the other hand – wait – for this man is wealthy, has all his needs fulfilled, yet still feels great delight in kicking and watching the dog suffer at his hands. A sense of power at his ability to inflict pain and the pleasure at feeling superior to other lesser humans whom he sees as incapable of taking what they want and so end up his employees and servants. This superior positional thinking leads to a lack of sympathy or empathy for others as only fools who accept the dominance of his kind as leaders and law-makers.

The above example is too give an insight into a behaviour that breaks our three measures of social norms, law (hurting a defenceless animal) moral (the taboo on senseless behaviour seen as wrong doing) socially acceptable behaviour, (while everyone might lose their temper and kick their dog, most will feel pangs of guilt and remorse). Here however we meet people who feel no guilt, no remorse and see themselves as exempt from laws they do not agree with. In England fox-hunting was a cruel sport mostly carried out by intelligent, professional, wealthy men and women? Yet these same people claimed a right to hunt and destroy a defenceless animal for nothing more than a good time as seeing their hounds rip apart and devour a fox. Even though the majority of English people voted on numerous occasions to ban this sport it took several years of campaigning to get this put into law. Now fox-hunting is an illegal activity however these same people continue to flout the law and hunt under local by-laws that have yet to catch up with national lawmaking. These people know what they are doing is illegal, immoral and against social norms as defined by majority opinion. Yet they claim they are superior parts of society and therefore above the day to day moral concerns of the ordinary masses. The surprising thing is in England these people are members of parliament, police, judges and others who control aspects of society in England such as estate owners (land given often by Royal consent in the past by robbing the rightful land of the poor). In others words the very people who should set an example to society are the same ones flaunting the law and socially acceptable behaviour.

In another example we have to look at the criminal. Criminals are often seen as the rejects of society as they have come from flawed backgrounds, disadvantaged families and poor parental upbringing. Yet in society the largest harm done to the public is often from corporate crime such as pension fund embezzlement, stocks and shares insider trading and theft of assets and wealth by CEO’s and government officials. This so-called white-collar crime is often undetected and the hardest to bring to justice. Everyday criminals are more visual to the public as their crimes cause localised distress and make the media cry for police action and civil authority action. Therefore most laws are about visual crime that is easy to understand and comprehend. Punishment of visual crime is also straight forward and dealt with everyday in our courts and media. How do we distinguish between the two types of criminal – the so-called victimless crime of white collar criminals who see no direct victim or the murderer who during an armed robbery kills and maims those who oppose his will to steal what he wants from society and the distress they leave behind?

So what does psychology have to say about the deviants who do not see their actions as a problem to themselves and feel others who do not take control of their lives as weak and therefore deserve to be victims of those who are smarter, stronger or more powerful? The media often cries about the passive masses that accept the status quo and in the same paper would condemn the local person who took the law into their own hands perhaps to avenge some wrong-doing against them or their families? The first area that psychology expounds the reasons behind this dark behaviour of others is “developmental” that upbringing is at the route of this behaviour, that the dog kicker was not loved or cared for in the correct manner. That during their formative years they were subject to cruelty, sexual abuse or lack of social education. That the same transgressors were victims of bullying at school and therefore need to act-out their own frustration on those in society that are weaker than themselves. The question we have to pose here is why some victims, in fact most, go onto being law-abiding citizens and it is only the few that turn into the monsters who kill and maim for reasons of developmental mistakes? At this point many scientists like to point to a genetic factor in behaviour. This old chestnut has been around for some time now. There is evidence amongst violent criminals that they often possess an extra Y chromosome (men) that gives them a high amount of testosterone leading to violent outbursts towards frustrating situations in which they use terror and fear as the key to getting what they need. However as a percentage of violent criminals this is statistically minute even though in the general prison population this may be higher. All genetic research so far has lead to speculation about genetic factors but with no firm evidence to back up the claims. The most often sited evidence is that from twin studies where twins separated at birth have high incidences of similar behaviour and outcomes. Again as a percentage of twins born and studied this evidence is weak for genetic determinism and high for developmental environments being similar and twins experiencing environments that are so accord that it is more likely to be a surprise if they did turn out differently from each other. So if we remove developmental outcomes, genetic predispositions then what makes some people flaunt socially acceptable behaviour and some who comply to everything society demands of them? This then is the propositional position that makes psychology hard to always see as a positive view or a deterministic way of the world and that in fact maybe it is in fact that normal behaviour amongst humans is to be cruel, deceitful, violent and tendency towards criminal behaviour under a variety of circumstances. Those morals are a luxury of a settled society where everyone is equal both economically and in caste or class.

The Psychology of the Survivalist:

There are those particularly in the USA that see the end of society as a real possibility whether they advocate nuclear annihilation (today more likely bio-warfare) or the breakdown of capitalism leading to social chaos and civil strife. These people are often referred to as survivalists. They store weapons against the uncontrollable hordes that would roam the country in the event of civil breakdown and food for the possibility of shortages caused by economic meltdown. (Looking at 2009 in the USA many survivalists would argue they in fact have a good case). The survivalists believe the have a basic right to defend themselves and their families in the case of societal breakdown and lack of protective laws. On occasions these groups come into conflict with existing legal statutes that become enforced by federal authorities such as the FBI. Therefore the survivalist’s mentality is while on the one hand in conflict with society and in the other seen as a genuine attempt at controlling ones own fate against future disasters. After all insurance companies survive just on that premise alone – and ironically would be the first not to survive an economic breakdown of capitalism as seen by the failure of many banks in 2008/9 around the world. Today the most popular movies at the box office are disaster films, those where flood, sun-flares, bio-warfare, alien invasion and other catastrophes cause the social breakdown of society. The heroes of these movies are always the resourceful survivalists who through violence protect their kin from all-comers. Why do the public find these people as attractive, as hero’s and yet the real survivalists are vilified as public enemies of the status-quo? Judging by the success of these movies ordinary people recognise that the breakdown of society is something that may happen or is if fact inevitable. So they look to these movies as a type of hope for another future that may come about by the demise of their own everyday world.

Psychology as Evolution:

In human history all people started out as survivalists as hunter gatherers roaming the land looking for easy accessible animals for food and warmth. As time goes by we see these societies settle into agro-cultural settlements that create rules, laws, leaders and a moral code. As they develop and grow these settled societies create art, music and religion to compensate for a limited existence within the constrictions of the very society they have formed. From these beginnings land and property become important. The possession of goods and chattels becomes essential to growth. As time goes by these settlements become villages, towns and cities which eventually form countries with boundaries. Survival becomes now the group and not the individual as was human’s natural instincts from the beginning of time. However eventually all these societies fade and crumble away. Some for unknown reasons such as the Mayan and other South American civilisations. Most fail as they grow into empires who dominate the weak with a version of their own laws and religions. However one thing history teaches us all is that societies do disappear for all sorts of reasons. (Greek, Roman, Egyptian in the ancient world and British, French, German and Japanese empires in the modern world). All of these societies had one thing in common they did not envisage their own demise. In today’s world a European and American could not imagine the fall of the EEC or the USA yet these new modern empires have their own Achilles heal, “Capitalism”. Although Karl Marx saw the evils of capitalism and its eventual failure he could not have seen how it would grip the modern world to such a point that wars over oil and gas would dominate the 21st century. Marx however would probably laugh with glee at the failure in 2009 of the banking system based on greed and debt around the first nations of the planet. Most of the failures can be contributed to mismanagement but in fact it was a loss of confidence in the financial system by ordinary people that caused a rush on funds and inability to service crippling debt through high interest rates and little return on investments. When people panic they go into survival mode – they look after themselves first.

The Dark Side Conclusion:

At this junction it is time to conclude from these observations that social norms, laws and morals are actually “not normal” for human beings and that society often forces group behaviour based on what the powerful want over the powerless. That in fact survivalist mentality is our norm and that what society tries to do in fact is control the wild beast in every human by training them from an early age to obey the laws, rules and morals of the controlling group, usually the rich, who dominate our governments and institutions. Therefore should we condemn those that feel society is not offering them a fair deal – which in fact they should take what they need in order to survive an often hostile environment where privilege depends on your school, family or wealth? Psychology itself needs to come out of the closet and admit that normal human behaviour is to oppose rigid societies and rules? That in fact people resent society but because they are powerless against those who control law-making and morality they feel certain helplessness in trying to live amongst the sheep. Is it any wonder then occasionally a lone individual takes it into their own hands to change society or their own environment in order to live a more free self-controlled existence away from the rigours of societies that as we have seen all eventually breakdown and reinvent themselves as the new rich and powerful take control once again. In the last century we saw China go from a Empire ruled by depots to a military regime controlled by the rich and powerful, to transform itself into a communist stare of the 1950’s where Marxism would determine a fair life for all and eventually to the China of today as a capitalist socialist state based on a ruling party that determines the lives of the powerless populace, that in fact fought for the rulers to lord over them much as the Emperor of old – nothing changed except the rich and powerful.. Will another revolution occur in China in the future – at the moment it looks unlikely despite the unrest in many parts of China by minorities forced to comply with central rule. All empires cannot see their own demise! How will psychology then deal with this question of human behaviour as a basic survivalist mechanism, that in fact humans are naturally violent, cruel and dominating of others who are weaker than themselves? Psychiatry in mental hospitals is often seen as the agents of social control – if you do not agree with society and its rules then you must be insane – therefore you should be committed and controlled for the safety and benefit of all. Psychology on the other hand is seen as the liberating aspect of mental health – where we help those out of synch with society of find their place and fit back into what is considered normal behaviour for that group. Where will the answer be for those who rebel against the society they live in and want another way of existence with out the interference of the powerful and the freedom to live a life they choose as suiting themselves? Or do we wait – for the movies to come true – the disaster that awaits all humans and a return to a dog eat dog existence called survivalism – the real social norm!

END

End-note: I should as the author point out I am not advocating the American version of survivalists or any counter-revolutionaries in China or elsewhere nor do I condone actions against society that would lead to unhealthy outcomes. I do however recognise that societies change and fall often by what we term terrorists when they oppose our way of life and freedom fighters when they oppose a way of life that controls or restricts our personal freedoms. This as always is a philosophical question rather than a psychological one! I have not used the word evil in reference to human behaviour in this paper as the connotation infers a religious outlook which I certainly do not possess.

Dr. Stephen Myler is from Leicester in England, an industrial town in the Midlands of the United Kingdom. He holds a B.Sc (Honours) in Psychology from the UK’s Open University the largest in the UK; he also has an M.Sc and Ph.D in Psychology from Knightsbridge University in Denmark. In addition to this Stephen holds many diplomas and awards in a variety of academic areas including journalism, finance, teaching and advanced therapy for mental health. Stephen has as a Professor of Psychology many years teaching experience in colleges and universities in England and China to post 16 young adults, instructing in psychology, sociology, English, marketing and business. He has been fortunate to travel extensively from Australia to Africa to the United Sates, South America, Borneo, most of Europe and Russia. Stephen’s favourite hobby is the study of primates and likes to play badminton. He believes that students who enjoy classes with humour and enthusiasm from the teacher always come back eager to learn more.

Positive psychology is a new trend in the world of psychology, one that began in the early 1990’s and is getting a great deal of attention. Positive Psychology focuses on the positive aspects of individual’s lives. Generally men and women view happiness differently. Consequently, that means that different ideas and actions have different meanings for each gender.

Psychology has looked into and been focused on mental illness since World War II. Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania wanted to look at what made people happy. The postulation is that the meaning an individual places on a task is the underlying feeling associated with that task. This of course will vary from person to person but seems to be universal when discussing supposed gender tasks.

Take for example the idea that men are better providers than women. This of course has been argued over the past several decades by women’s activist groups. These women’s groups cite that women are able to provide for their families just as well as men. The alternate question that is now being asked is if women are happier providing for their families outside of their homes. Similarly another question is if men are happier providing the nurturing care to their children.

In terms of our gender roles, men and women have inherent needs that drive us to perform tasks that give our lives meaning. Generally and historically speaking women are the caregivers of society as men are the providers and protectors. In World War II when a gross majority of men were called to arms, women were asked to work outside of their homes to support the United States and the men of this country. More and more after this time period, the female population grew in the work force and began operating outside inherent natural structures.

Mental illness has continued to grow and more people have become unhappy. Positive psychology looks at the past experiences that have created feelings of happiness. It is fair to say that if a woman has feelings of happiness caring for children and taking care of a home, she should continue those activities that provide her with that happiness. Similarly, if a man finds positive feelings in working outside of the home earning a living for his family, then to continue those feelings he needs to continue to perform those same tasks.

If individuals continue to perform the same external tasks that created feelings of satisfaction, we illicit the continuous feelings of happiness. Instead of relying on external validation as most are apt to do, Seligman suggests that the key to happiness is internal validation. Seligman’s suggestion is for men and women to internally validate our own actions rather than following the rules of societal normalcy for happiness.

That is to say that man can perform the tasks that make them feel useful and appreciated without having to succumb to being a house husband. In the same way, women are able to perform tasks that support their innate need for nurturing and feel good about those actions without consideration for what society dictates.

Argosy University offers a wide selection of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree programs in a variety of psychology concentrations at 19 locations across the nation.

Positive Psychology is an ever growing branch of psychology and since its ethos is about getting the most out of life, I believe it can be readily used in counselling.

For many years psychology has focused on looking at problems and seeing if anything can be done about them. As a result so much focus seems to have been on what’s wrong rather than what’s right with people. Somehow people have become victims of their genes and environment and the best they can hope for is to learn how to tread water. Positive Psychology offers more than this. It teaches people how to swim and to swim well. We don’t just have to ‘make do’. It recognises that people are capable of real growth and change.

There are many ways Positive Psychology can be used in counselling and in fact it often flows quite well into widely accepted techniques such as Solution Focused Therapy and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. For instance Solution Focused Therapy works to help the client recognise what they are already doing in their life, noting what’s better for them and what worked well in the past. Focus is on the solution rather than the problem. Whereas Seligman’s work on learning optimism is about recognising unhelpful thought patterns and learning to dispute and replace them. This is a fundamental aspect of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.

Beyond this, Positive Psychology provides us with an opportunity to nurture what is already within the individual, but years of unhappiness and struggle mean the person is no longer able to recognise it. I see Positive Psychology offering a series of techniques (which have ever growing scientific support for) which can help people cope when things go wrong. The ideal would be to learn these techniques whilst things are good, enabling us to readily draw upon them during times of difficulty. This is the ideal. However, by integrating them into therapy an opportunity is given to introduce ideas and techniques the client can take with them. That being said, seeking out support during difficult times is a fundamental facet of Positive Psychology, whether this is through a friend or the assistance of a mental health professional.

Some of the ideas stemming from Positive Psychology that I think are particular prevalent to counselling include eliciting personal strengths, learning optimism as well as understanding the concept of control (i.e. the things we can and cannot control and what we can do about both). Work on gratitude and forgiveness will both have their place in a counselling environment. However, perhaps the most important concept so vital to Positive Psychology is the one of hope: the belief that things will get better. If a counsellor has no hope for their client, then what is the point?

Copyright Julia Barnard 2009

Julia Barnard is a professional counsellor living in Adelaide, Australia. She provides an online counselling service through her website http://www.makethechange.com.au, which offers counselling at a time and place that suits you. Julia also writes articles and tips for the website aimed at enhancing wellbeing and promoting good mental health.

Over the past 11 years, the field of psychology has been on a new mission, one of identifying, researching and teaching the skills that lead to well-being and resilience. Called “Positive Psychology,” it’s a rapidly growing branch of scientific psychology that studies the strengths and virtues that enable individuals and communities to thrive.

In 1998, Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania was elected President of the American Psychological Association (APA). At the time, Dr. Seligman was famous in the world of research for his work on Learned Helplessness and Optimism. As President of the APA, he designated Positive Psychology as the theme for his term.

In many of his presentations to psychologists and others, Professor Seligman reviewed the field of psychology in the 20th century from a historical perspective. He pointed out that before World War II, psychology espoused three missions: curing mental illness, making the lives of all people more fulfilling, and identifying and nurturing talent and genius. A number of famous psychologists dedicated their work to promising theories of happiness but without the empirical research to support them. 
 
After the war, two events changed the focus of psychology. In 1946, the Veteran’s Administration was created, and practicing psychologists found they could make a living treating mental illness. Then in 1947, the National Institute of Mental Health was formed, and academic psychologists discovered they could obtain grants for research on mental illness. Thus, the major, almost exclusive emphasis in psychology was on mental illness. And the effort has been very effective in bringing both greater understanding of psychopathology and many more effective treatments.
 
A little over a decade ago, however, Professor Seligman believed it was time for psychology to learn what it is that makes life worth living, what helps people bounce back when adversity occurs, what makes their lives more enjoyable and meaningful, what communities and institutions can do to promote well-being. He declared it was time to find what’s right in people — rather than only what’s wrong with them.
 
What has occurred in the period from 1998 until now is nothing short of spectacular. Research is being done on Positive Psychology in just about every corner of the world. The findings are being applied in therapy, coaching, schools, institutions, corporations and communities. So much has been discovered about happiness and its pursuit. Interestingly enough, some of the results have been counterintuitive, that is, they are not what would be expected by most of us.
 
The field of Positive Psychology holds dear the goal of preparing people to handle all the difficulties and curve balls that life so often throws our way. When Seligman asked one of his heroes, Dr. Jonas Salk, the American biologist and physician famous for the first effective polio vaccine, what he would do if he were a young scientist today, Dr. Salk said, “I would do immunization, but instead of doing it physically, I’d do it psychologically.”
 
You can find more information on the impact of Positive Psychology in my book, It’s Your Little Red Wagon… Six Core Strengths for Navigating Your Path to the Good Life (Embrace the Power of Positive Psychology and Live Your Dreams), available on Amazon.com.
 
Copyright 2009. Sharon S. Esonis, Ph.D.

Sharon S. Esonis, Ph.D., has spent close to three decades helping individuals thrive and improve their lives through her work as a licensed psychologist, author and life coach. An expert in human behavior and motivation, Dr. Esonis specializes in the burgeoning field of Positive Psychology, the scientific study of optimal human functioning and the core strengths that can lead to the achievement of one’s personally-defined goals.

Dr. Esonis earned her doctoral degree at Boston College and currently maintains a life coaching practice in the San Diego area. She also teaches Positive Psychology in the Extended Learning Program at California State University San Marcos. To learn more about the power of Positive Psychology and to order her latest book, visit her website at http://www.PositivePathLifeCoaching.com

I want to control my feelings!

Clients often come into therapy dismayed and upset by the strong feelings that they are undergoing.

Sometimes the causes are “situational”…

You may be reeling from a recent blow, an emotional loss, a divorce, a death, a disappointment, a serious life transition. In these cases empathy, interpersonal support and especially time, are the forces that will naturally bring your feelings back down to what is normal, manageable and acceptable for you. You may be able to find these helpful resources in friends or in family circles, but when these supports are not accessible or effective you may find it useful to go through your process with another person in the safe space of a therapeutic relationship with a psychologist, coach or other professional helper.

…in other cases the situation is not so clear in origin.

You may suffer from a pervasive feeling of being unable to control yourself emotionally in more ordinary situations. Emotional expressions may be too forceful, inappropriate to the situation… or even absent when they should be present. As a result you may feel out of step or out of control or inadequate. You may also be criticized by others or feel that the situation is damaging interpersonal relationships that are important to you. The “uncontrolled” feelings may be anger, sorrow, shame, or jealousy. (We rarely worry that our positive emotions ….love, joy, pride, are out of control).

What does it mean to “control” feelings?

Most people’s first instinct when it comes to the control of feelings, especially negative feelings like hurt or anger, is to wish for the ability to minimize them, to hide them when they are present, or to not feel negative feelings at all. The poster child for this attitude might be Mr. Spock, the character from the TV show “Star Trek” who prided himself on showing no emotions and making all decisions on the basis of pure logic. It was however one of the recurring themes of the show to prove over and over again that the emotionality of the other characters was wise and useful… even essential to good outcomes for the characters. Among the positive human emotions lost by Spock’s excessive control were his love, compassion, pity, and joy. He could not be angered… but he could feel none of these positive emotions either.

Simple control of feelings by will power or the reduction of thought to logic and practicality do not create a good human life. It is easy enough to see that we need emotion and that emotion serves us. So when people develop fantasies of “ridding themselves of emotion” they are usually barking up the wrong tree.

A better thing to look for and develop might be what psychological researchers call “emotional intelligence”

What is emotional Intelligence?

Psychologists Salovey, Mayer and Caruso (2002) describe emotional intelligence as having four components:
Emotional perception and expression. This is the ability to identify emotions in yourself and others. It means being able to read other people’s signals and to express your positive and negative feelings accurately Emotional understanding: This is the ability to label emotions with words, to understand the causes and consequences of emotions and to see how emotions are connected to events and to other emotions in complex ways. This includes understanding how feelings change over time and recognizing the effect of contradictory emotions. Emotional management. Truly effective emotional management calls for an ability to reflect on feelings and disclose them appropriately to others. It also means being able to help others manage their emotions Emotional facilitation of thought. Because emotions turn our attention to what is important in a situation they can be harnessed to energize and motivate effective problem solving and to find creative solutions. and to use emotions to inspire action, for example when a coach inspires his team with feelings of pride or a motivational speaker creates in his audience a desire to take action. This is especially true of interpersonal problems but understanding what others want and need helps us in everything from automobile design to investment strategies.

But feeling like an emotional mess inside…

Individuals develop typical strategies for managing their emotions in public and in private.
Drugs or alcohol or food may be used to turn down the dimmer on feelings… or the opposite… they may be used to permit feelings, both positive and negative, to be released or expressed … sometimes inappropriately or in ways that cause problems for others. Suppression and avoidance are two of the least effective because they are the emotional equivalent of stuffing all your junk into the closet and shutting the door on it. The room may look tidy but every time you open the closet stuff falls out on your head… or the head of any other poor soul… friend, lover, co-worker… who tries to get something out of your emotional closet! Usually they object to this. They say, “Get your feelings under control! It is often at these points that a person might think about therapy as an option and wonder how therapy might help.

How does therapy help “control” feelings?

Therapy provides a safe supportive environment in which to develop emotional intelligence by examining your own thoughts and feelings and emotional history in a compassionate, and curious way.
Talking about the triggers and maintainers of emotional states helps you to clarify the role that they play in life situations, both positive and negative. Recognizing and exploring contradictory emotions often helps to reduce anxiety and unblock energy that was bound up by indecision and release it for action. Understanding that feelings change over time and considering how, why and what is currently appropriate can reduce guilt.Feeling and showing emotions appropriately can help to reduce depression when it is caused by a need to suppress and avoid anger, envy, guilt or some other negative emotion.

Positive benefits of developing emotional intelligence

Other research by Salovey et al (2002) suggests that the benefits of developing emotional intelligence are significant, including better leadership skills in the workplace, lower levels of aggression and less substance abuse including cigarette smoking and alcohol abuse.

Researcher Daniel Goleman (2002) argues that emotional intelligence may be the distinguishing characteristic of good leaders. It permits them to bring out the best in others, to build relationships and to solve disputes.

The human world is an emotionally charged and colorful world.

Emotion researchers suggest that up to 90% of emotional information is transmitted non-verbally, by tone, glance and gesture and that we are rarely consciously aware of how much we are transmitting or reading from others.

To have to deny, to lie about, to suppress feelings, or to be blind to the feelings of others causes tensions and anxieties that limit us in our ability to connect to and live with others. It is necessary to develop emotional intelligence because the ability to move easily and freely in the emotional world is a very important part of what it means to live an authentic and happy human life.

References

Goleman, D (2002, June 16). Could You Be a Leader? Parade Magazine, pp. 4-5.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D. & D. Caruso (2002). The Positive Psychology of Emotional Intelligence. In C.R. Snyder and S. J. Lopez (Eds.) Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 159-171) New York, Oxford University Press.

Susan Meindl, MA, is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Montreal Canada. She has a special interest in Jungian ideas and practices a Jungian approach to psychodynamic psychotherapy

http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/59983