Emotional Mysteries

One of the reasons I like to write so much is because I think it helps me deal with, and sort through emotions. But even after all these years, I still feel like I have made little to no progress in understanding the complexities and mysteries of emotion. They still seem strange and even dangerous to me at times.

Someone who knows me casually my think I don't feel many emotions because I try not to show what I am feeling often. However, I don't know if that is the best way to deal with emotions. I feel them alright. I feel them so hard sometimes I can barely contain myself. But I am afraid to show. Afraid of what, though? Afraid of judgment? Afraid of loss of self-control? Afraid of misunderstanding? Afraid of what it all means? These are some big questions, and their lack of answers are part of what makes emotions so scary to me.

If you think about, emotions are always there with you and they control almost everything you do. They come and go as they please without warning. They can make the exact same situation either a good one or a bad one. Yet people talk about controlling emotions like it is no big deal. Babies and toddlers are the only people allowed to not control their emotions in public, and even then we scold them and tell them about self-control. Maybe physically it is easy to control how you act, but I would argue it is damn near impossible to mentally control how you feel.

For example, when something happens to make you upset and someone says, "Don't get upset", I literally have no clue how I am supposed to just make that happen. Sure! Let me just turn off my brain for a moment! I know there are strategies involved with this, like taking a deep breath, trying to think of something more pleasant, or trying to think about how the other person feels. But absolutely none of that takes away the emotion, or even diminishes it much. To me that is like cutting someone and then saying, "Try not to feel the pain." Well, there are ways to not feel the pain, but they all include either incredible mental and physical control, or drugs. I think it is ironic when people judge others for dealing with emotional pain with drugs, when they have no problem popping an aspirin when their leg hurts. To me there is no difference except for a stereotype.

I will probably never discover the secret to controlling emotion, or if there is even any meaning to emotion besides a biological process. All I know is that I think we need to give more leeway for them, and more understanding to those dealing with difficult ones. My own emotions are something I prize yet respect, because they can change the tone of my life at any given moment for better or for worse. Yet I wouldn't have it any other way.

Opinion Overload

If there is one thing I have learned in my 34 years, it's that there is advice EVERYWHERE. After that, the second thing I have learned, is that most of that advice comes off as downright demands. The third thing I have learned is this - most of that advice is nonsense that would never work for me or even the majority of people.

When you think of the kind of advice I am talking about, you may imagine an overbearing mother or a religious fanatic. Yes those can be sources of well-meaning but unwanted advice. However, I would suggest that the kind of advice I am talking about can come from even more covert places. I am talking about things like internet articles, doctors, lawyers, newspapers, scientists, news reporters, books, and just about any respectable source you can think of.

You may be wondering at this point exactly what is the kind of advice I am talking about? Let me give some examples. When your doctor tells you you need to take a certain medication to improve your condition and when you take it, it does nothing to help. The news reporter tells you the best way to prevent (insert incurable disease here) has been found to (insert any daily habit). You hear that a scientist has said that the best thing for your tomato plant is (insert plant food idea here). An internet article claims that as long as you get 8 hours of sleep a night you will feel great every day. A fitness expert claims that such-and-such a regime will be the best for such-and-such a person. These may not be the best examples, but by now I hope you are getting the idea. A lot of people think they have figured out the best way to do things, and they insist that you do the same if you are to have any semblance of a good life.

I'm not saying all of this advice is bad or even unfounded. If you doctor prescribed you a medicine, it is probably because there are years of study and experience put into that medicine. If someone says 8 hours of sleep is the best amount, it comes from the experience of all human existence. I certainly don't claim to know better than all of human-kind, but I do know what is better FOR ME than anyone in the world, and I get really tired of having other opinions shoved down my throat. Sometimes I just want to do my own thing even if it means making the wrong choice or going against years of widely-accepted theories. Let me feel free and not bullied into living the perfect life.

You may feel fine with believing everything your doctor says, or doing anything that more than a million people have condoned. As for me, I take every opinion with a grain of salt (or two), and more often than not, the popular thing is not the best thing for me.

Built to Fail

Obviously I have been slacking a bit in the blog-writing department. But with the weather warming up it is just too tempting to do something outside or hang out with my awesome husband. I have ideas floating around in my head, but I can never seem to spare the few minutes it would take to realize them in text. My brother and his family have also recently moved back here from Louisiana, so I have been soaking up my time with them as well. Time changes all things, so the trick is to enjoy the current change rather than worry about the next.

A couple of years ago a new building was constructed in my city. I wasn't too happy about it from a visual standpoint because it didn't fit in with the other buildings around it. The buildings around it are probably over 100 years old. They have been modernized over the years, but still retain their character. The new building just doesn't fit in. While I know it was built for a purpose, it sticks out like a sore thumb because it is ultra modern and probably twice as tall as any of the other buildings nearby.

Still, I think I could have accepted this new building for it's own style until I read an article that told me more about it. In the article, it stated that the building was expected to last 30 years. 30 YEARS! That's not even half a lifetime! There are buildings around the world that have lasted hundreds or even thousands of years. Yet somehow this building can only last 30?

What happened to the days when things were built to last? Do we really live in such a wasteful world that we are willing to throw away an entire (mind you, not small in any way) building after just 30 years? Maybe I am just not informed enough to make a judgement. Maybe the building is made to be recycled, or maybe it will just need a few touch-ups in 30 years. However, I just can't get over the fact that a brand new building would have a time limit like that.

If anything, maybe this will make us think about what we really need and what we are leaving behind for others. Even if we a recycling, are we still using more than we need to? Are we we truly using something up before we discard it? Most of all, are we using our resources wisely and leaving behind something that can be used for generations?

Future Follower

In this country and this time period, there always seems to be a big push in schools to create "future leaders". Children are taught that they must always be leaders to make any sort of a significant impact on the their own life and the lives of others. Most jobs also encourage people to be leaders, and list "leadership skills" as a requirement for an open position. With everyone being pressured to be a leader, I wonder, "Who is left to follow these leaders?"

Certainly we all know that most people don't become great leaders, and by default these people become the followers. But what if following was a choice rather than a default? What if we praised followers for doing their part as much as we praised leaders? Maybe then, more people would feel worthy by doing things other than leadership. Things that may come more naturally to them.

I am not saying that we shouldn't think for ourselves. It is never a good idea to blindly follow a leader just because you don't feel like you can stand up for what you believe. But I also don't think people who are not natural leaders should be pressured to fit into a mold of "future leaders". Being a very shy person, I can tell you I never enjoyed being a leader. I can barely decide what is best for myself, let alone a whole group of people. That kind of responsibility would be terrifying to me. Yet that doesn't mean I don't have anything to contribute to a group, and it also doesn't mean that I couldn't be a good leader if the situation required it. It just means that I prefer not to lead, and that most of my strengths lie elsewhere.

Leadership can be a great quality, but it is often favored over other, just as important, qualities. Who are we to force others to rely on their weaknesses? There should be praise for the strengths of followers as well as leaders. After all, what is a leader without followers?

Surrounded by Wealth

This may be a strange thought to have, but sometimes I think about people who have been very successful with making money. Then I think about how these people usually either buy or build a huge house that is in a isolated location, or closed off with gates and security. However, the main thought I have when I think of these people is how incredibly depressing it seems to be so isolated and alone. Even if your house is in a full neighborhood, being inside a big house can feel very lonely.

People always talk about buying a big house when they have the money, but that never seemed right for me. Even though I am a shy person, I still need human interaction, and I think most other people do also. Why, then, would you essentially close yourself off the moment you have the means? It doesn't make sense to me.

On the t.v. shows that show people looking to buy a new house, I would say 90 percent of those people mention that they want privacy from their neighbors. Why? Is privacy all it's cracked up to be? Don't you want to feel connected to your neighbors? Maybe it becomes a necessity when you become well-known and you don't want people spying on every part of your life. But I still think there needs to be a balance. If you shut yourself off, you will not be taking care of your social and mental needs. I would think it would lead to depression and probably a lot of other mental disorders.

I am nether famous nor do I have a big house, so maybe this is all just a personal feeling. All I know is when I even go to a big house, I can start to feel a bit of loneliness and sadness creep in, and I can't believe how anyone would want that for the rest of their life.

No Favorites

I was once told by someone who is a parent that every parent has a favorite child, and that you should always try to hide that fact from everyone. I am not a parent, so I can't say I have been in this situation. But my gut tells me this is the wrong way to go about it.

I think that the way you treat your children should be the same way you treat anyone else you are close with - as an individual. Sure you get along with some people better than others, but that doesn't mean you can't love them all equally for their own unique personalities. It's like comparing apples to oranges. If one child is a great athlete and the other is a great writer, you don't turn to the athlete and say, " I sure wish you were as good a writer as your sibling." or vice versa. You go to the events of your athlete and you read everything from your writer. Even if you yourself are more interested in athletics than writing, it doesn't have to take away from your love for the child who likes to write. You can still get excited about each story he or she writes. You may have more in common with one child, but I don't believe that should take away from your love of the other children.

This is, of course, a simplified example. Personalities are very complex and varied. However, it still stands that you can love a child for many different reasons, or even for no reason other than they are your child. Love should be multiplied, not withheld. If you don't feel you have enough love for each of your children, then that is a personal problem. Hiding the fact that you have a favorite won't work because sooner or later, everyone can see through your lie. I would suggest that you work on yourself rather than trying to fool everyone else. Work on having unconditional love.

Maybe I would feel different if I had children of my own, but at the present I couldn't tell you that I love any of my family or friends more than the others. They are all very different and very special to me, and I could never care more for one than I do for them all.

Over-Sensitive or Desensitized

When I read articles or watch reports on T.V., I have seen a lot of contradictory conclusions. No one seems to notice or be bothered by these contradictions, so I thought I would write about one to bring it to people's attention.

Many people claim that children or people in general are becoming desensitized to the world around them. We are supposedly desensitized to violence and crime because we see it on T.V. and in the news. We are desensitized to the suffering in other countries because we see it on T.V. all the time. We are desensitized to the reality of global warming because the effects creep up slowly. We are desensitized to negative emotions and mental health problems because we see them everywhere yet we don't discuss them.

On the other hand, there is the claim that everyone is becoming too sensitive. We are said to be too sensitive about politics and religion. We are too sensitive about differences of opinion. We are too sensitive at work and school because our parents never gave us any "tough love" or we had an easy life. Our bodies are too sensitive because we haven't had to do hard work. We are over-sensitive with our emotions because we never learned to deal with them.

I know that it is possible to be sensitive to one thing and desensitized to another. But all these claims of "desensitized" or "over-sensitive" are not singularities. They are claims of society as a whole, and society as a whole can not be mostly desensitized AND mostly over-sensitive at the same time.

I think the debate between desensitized and over-sensitive should be looked at as introverts and extroverts. For a long time people believed you had to be one or the other. But it should be looked at more like a sliding scale. Some introverts are closer to extroverts and vice versa. Likewise, some people are more desensitized, while others are more sensitive, but they are all a little of both, and it can change due to circumstances. With this complexity of feelings and emotions in each individual, it would be very hard to add them all up into an "over-sensitive" society or a "desensitized" society.

I guess what I am trying to say is, don't put labels on people or society just for the sake of simplicity or a good story. There is scientific research on the subject, but not nearly enough to make blanket statements like "Society is over-sensitive" or "Society is desensitized". We are a complex mixture, and we should be treated as such, not dismissed as a single problem.