The Emotional Dynamics Of Consent And Dissent
I am rational, I am an Epicurean and I can be very emotional. This is not a contradiction. Being rational does not impede being emotional, it only influences the triggers and the predominance of specific emotions compared with others. Concerning human interactions, my emotions are mainly elicited as a reaction to my cognitive evaluation of people.
I am rational, I am an Epicurean and I can be very emotional. This is not a contradiction. Being rational does not impede being emotional, it only influences the triggers and the predominance of specific emotions compared with others. Concerning human interactions, my emotions are mainly elicited as a reaction to my cognitive evaluation of people.
Consent and agreement make me feel good, dissent and disagreement make me feel bad.
The emotional effect of how people treat me depends not so much on their behavior itself, but upon my consent or dissent with the attitudes causing the behavior.
Consent and dissent about core values, attitudes and moral principles has a much stronger impact than about superficial opinion. Atheism is a core value, it is wired into my brain as a part of my identity, therefore consent is of paramount importance as a condition to feel close, while dissent makes me feel a ditch between believers and me.
Consent and dissent about core values, attitudes and moral principles has a much stronger impact than about superficial opinion. Atheism is a core value, it is wired into my brain as a part of my identity, therefore consent is of paramount importance as a condition to feel close, while dissent makes me feel a ditch between believers and me.
Consent or dissent about a political issue like for example nuclear power is of much less significance. A preference on such an issue is the result of the momentary level of knowledge, which can change, because the problem is too complex for a lay person to ever know enough.
The emotional effects of consent and dissent differ depending on the kind of relationship.
With strangers and all people of no personal significance for me, the situation is asymmetrical. Consent can always make me feel good, while dissent has no impact upon me.
Sympathy for an acquaintance or a friend depends on the net result of consent and dissent. When that result is antipathy, I avoid the person and thus I avoid the bad feelings.
Bliss and happiness in a committed relationship depend upon the sum of consent plus the absence of any dissent in all core values.
The emotional reactions require the honesty and sincerity of revealing the genuine opinions and attitudes. The fake consent of 'people pleasers' or 'conflict avoiders' can be temporarily very misleading. As it is with lies and manipulations, when the truth gets known, the effect is very unfavorable. Fake consent is as unpleasant as is dissent.
The emotional benefit of consent is a win-win situation based upon the symmetry of both being right and nobody being considered and tolerated as being wrong. Whether someone agrees with me or whether I hear or read something, that I can agree with, has the same effect. This is the contrary of the zero-sum situation of the triumph, that some people feel, when they can prove someone else wrong and thus one person pays the price of feeling bad for the other's feeling good.
This dynamics of consent and dissent are the basis of my search of a mindmate and of the egalitarian rational commitment paradigm. More about this in another entry.
The emotional effects of consent and dissent differ depending on the kind of relationship.
With strangers and all people of no personal significance for me, the situation is asymmetrical. Consent can always make me feel good, while dissent has no impact upon me.
Sympathy for an acquaintance or a friend depends on the net result of consent and dissent. When that result is antipathy, I avoid the person and thus I avoid the bad feelings.
Bliss and happiness in a committed relationship depend upon the sum of consent plus the absence of any dissent in all core values.
The emotional reactions require the honesty and sincerity of revealing the genuine opinions and attitudes. The fake consent of 'people pleasers' or 'conflict avoiders' can be temporarily very misleading. As it is with lies and manipulations, when the truth gets known, the effect is very unfavorable. Fake consent is as unpleasant as is dissent.
The emotional benefit of consent is a win-win situation based upon the symmetry of both being right and nobody being considered and tolerated as being wrong. Whether someone agrees with me or whether I hear or read something, that I can agree with, has the same effect. This is the contrary of the zero-sum situation of the triumph, that some people feel, when they can prove someone else wrong and thus one person pays the price of feeling bad for the other's feeling good.
This dynamics of consent and dissent are the basis of my search of a mindmate and of the egalitarian rational commitment paradigm. More about this in another entry.
