I got an interesting call from an ex-colleague in the US yesterday evening, asking for advice on how to interpret and handle their supervisor, my ex-supervisor. They'd had a situation with them that they thought was very unfair and misrepresenting of the situation as it played out, and is now worried for his position, as if he is being set up for failure. Something I know a bit about I guess. So, after a catchup on family life and sharing surgery stories like the old men we are fast becoming, we got into the crux of the matter and I talked it through with them. I enjoy being a springboard to bounce ideas off, and I also enjoy picking apart situations to see what lays beneath the surface.
Enjoying it doesn't mean I am always right though, so I try to get confirmation or at least indication where I am able. What was doubly interesting in the above call, was that earlier in the day I had been messaging with another ex-colleague who shares the same supervisor about something different, but related. The supervisor makes an assumption that they are very good at reading situations, and they also make the assumption that they know what is best for everyone around them. Perhaps I am a bit like this at times too, maybe we all are, but the difference is that the supervisor doesn't check accuracy on their interpretation or application of what they believe to be the case. They suffer from a massive confirmation bias, where the accuracy is confirmed by the belief that they are right, rather than any actual evidence.
Feelings lie.
Feeling right, doesn't make it right. Yet increasingly we are being conditioned to "trust our feelings" as if they are accurate representations of reality. They are not. They are our interpretations of our experience, meaning that they are influenced by our past, our perspective, our beliefs, and our own personal mechanisms that tend to protect our ego. We see things as we want them to be, meaning that we will look to fulfil the prophecy of how we feel about it, rather than be objective of what actually happens.
My ex-colleague for instance saw the situation that arose one way and the supervisor another, but the supervisor then projected their feelings onto it and included other people who had been in the meeting, making assumptions about the way those others saw the situation. This opened a door though, because my ex-colleague then went to those others this week to review and verify, and thereby validated that they saw it the same as he had. While not infallible, it is a far better process to validate feelings than just assuming correctness.
The supervisor is highly intelligent, yet their beliefs about themselves, their abilities and others, gives them large blind spots in their experiential analysis. Without even entertaining the possibility that they might be wrong, they charge ahead as if they are correct. This means that when they are correct, they are very effective, but when they are wrong, they are very damaging. They are probably more right than wrong much of the time, which is how they are seen as effective, but when they are wrong the wash affects the people around them, not the supervisor directly. They get out unscathed, because other people are the ones doing the practical work.
The way we feel is a guide to our perspective, but shouldn't be confused as truth. Feelings should always be taken with a grain of salt, meaning that they shouldn't be fully trusted. Instead, they are pointers and flags that provide focus areas that can be further reviewed. Of course, in a pinch and when there isn't the time or opportunity to review, some feelings should be taken at face value - like fear for physical safety. But when the stakes aren't life-threatening and there is time to check some facts, it is best to acknowledge the feelings and then validate them.
This is emotional management - not emotional repression.
A lot of people think that I am negative on emotions, but it is quite the opposite. Emotions are vital for our human experience, but they aren't very well calibrated to reality, and they suffer from having to use the same physical systems that indicate base emotions. Like fear. The fear for the physical self while walking on the edge of a cliff is different to the fear of public speaking, but the feeling response is largely the same. But they are not the same.
Emotional control for me is being able to evaluate what kind of feeling is being felt, validating whether it is actionable, and then choosing an appropriate behaviour in response. However, there are times that this hinders experience, rather than enhances it. For example, it is good to slow down the emotional response when there is a lot at stake, or the decisions that need to be made should be carefully considered. But, if in bed with a lover, it is probably better to not slow down the emotional response and rather immerse oneself fully into the emotional experience of it. This second one would be living "in the moment".
If we are living in the moment for all the significant decisions and guided by our emotions though, this means we are actually slaves to our past, acting on what we know, which is what triggers our feelings, and behaving blindly, thoughtlessly, automatically. It might "feel right" in the moment, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Crimes of passion are actually just automatic responses acting on immediate feelings. If the perpetrator were to just slow down and think a little, they likely wouldn't premeditate murder, and act upon it. This is why there are laws in places like Australia about how guns are stored so that gun and ammunition are stored separately. This gives time between getting the gun and being able to fire it, and that small amount of space can interrupt the emotional train of thought.
I don't know if I am right.
I might feel right, but it doesn't mean I am. Part of my process to slow down my thoughts is to write a lot to process my experience. It doesn't mean I have to talk about the entirety of the situation, but it gives me a chance to ask questions of myself and think through the implications, and possible other perspectives. Too many these days don't ask themselves the right questions and too often, they say "this is the way I am" when it comes to their behaviours, as if their default response is the only way they can be. It is the behaviour of a toddler, who lives fully in the moment, without yet understanding the ramifications of their actions.
Intelligence doesn't equate to good behaviour.
At least, IQ doesn't mean someone will behave well. Nor does it mean that they are going to read situations well. I think that if we were truly very intelligent across all of the human faculties, we would have far less issues in the world because no matter what happened, we would slow our thinking down before we act, more often than not. But, unfortunately, we are far away from being that intelligent at scale, so poor behaviours will continue on largely unabated.
And everyone will still feel they are right.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
