Principled people can sometimes be very predictable, partly because they're emotionally rational about following their principles no matter the cost.
If it makes sense, this "emotionally rational" approach is quite different from the flimsy emotions that come and go within a short period of time, changing our moods in the process.
I've always generally considered emotions as muddy waters, in that the sand is heavily mixed with the water. Clarity (water) comes with noise (sand) disguised as insight or intuition.
Probably, no semblance of clarity can be discerned with emotions alone. After all, don't they move us around like puppets attached to unknowable strings?
One day, I'm enthusiastic, grinding on my life's work, believing it's the most natural thing to do. The next night, I'm paranoid, staring at the moon, anxious about why I can't go to sleep despite following the same routine for the past few months.
Interestingly and from the grand scheme of things, what I felt at those moments don't seem to carry much weight when I look back at them now. It was so trivial yet loomed large in my head at that time.
The missing part or rather unobvious aspect is that principled people don't actually transcend emotions other than they've learned to distinguish between emotional information and emotional compulsion.
Compulsion makes all the difference when it demands immediate action to relieve psychological pressure, whereas information simply provides data about our circumstances and values without dictating our response.
A principled whistleblower feels genuine fear about retaliation and anxiety about their career if they expose corruption in their organization.
The emotional rationality in this context is "Yes, I'm terrified, and this terror is telling me real risks exist. But my principle of transparency in public interest remains more important than my personal comfort and security."
What I'm trying to get at is that most people mistake emotional intensity for emotional truth.
They assume that because fear feels overwhelming, it must be telling them to avoid something, or because anger feels righteous, it must be pointing them toward the right action.
Somehow, it just hit me that many people live as emotional fundamentalists, treating their feelings as infallible scripture, unconsciously.
This is coming from the backdrop of knowing someone who feels intense social anxiety before giving a presentation. I think this is largely a normal behaviour nowadays and the compulsive response is usually to avoid it entirely, some also do try to medicate the feeling away.
I tried to reason with this person that it's not that deep and what they need to do is just recognize that the anxiety contains valid information about what's at stake and the preparation needed while refusing to let it override the principle of professional growth or commitment to colleagues.
If you really think about it, emotions can also be viewed as ancient survival mechanisms often poorly calibrated for modern situations but yet still contain evolutionary wisdom about what matters to us on a non tangible level.
I've observed that the most emotionally rational people often appear to experience emotions more fully than reactive people, partly because they're not afraid of what their feelings might reveal.
They can sit with discomfort, examine, learn from it, and then choose their response.
Meanwhile, people controlled by emotional compulsion tend to desperately try to escape or immediately act on their feelings, which ironically makes them less emotionally aware.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
