HappinessCounseling.com

Owning feelings, then changing them

One of the most important and psychological insights is that feelings are not irreducible primaries. While most people take them as “the given,” feelings are actually the result of our subconscious assessments or interpretations, in the form of super rapid thoughts (or “silent assumptions,” as Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) calls them). This means that feelings are not to be viewed as detached from the evaluative context in which they arise.

Because feelings are derived from subconscious, super-rapid assessments, they’re ultimately derived from our basic premises and value-judgments. In addition to Nathaniel Branden’s stellar work on this subject, David Burns has a great CBT book called Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy. It’s profound —and incredibly liberating—to discover that by changing the way you are thinking about a particular subject (i.e., specifically how you are interpreting it), you can change how you feel.

But there’s a bit more to it than that, especially given the fact that in the moment you are feeling something, only by fully accepting or “owning” that feeling, will you be able to discover a new way of interpretation. After all, you have to admit where you are in order to get to where you want to go. Feeling something in the moment, while simultaneously wanting to change that very same feeling can be problematic. Without truly coming to terms with what you are feeling, yearning to feel differently is a prescription for denial and repression. Fighting against reality doesn’t work, and it’s actually detrimental to understanding reality in an honest way.

When you feel badly (angry, anxious, fearful, humiliated, ashamed, depressed, etc.), you may experience the tendency to disown that feeling or distract yourself from the nature of it—to not acknowledge it in a genuine sense. Because of the additional negative emotion you may feel about the implications of that genuine acknowledgement, you may even have conscious habit of saying “This is not what I should be feeling!” or “It’s wrong to feel this way!” Of course, this tendency often stems from how you learned to treat your feelings as a child; oftentimes, adults fail to assist children in developing an emotional vocabulary that’s in line with cultivating emotional intelligence. Thus, feelings tend to be stifled and not totally acknowledged, which fosters a pattern of repression that can lead to self-estrangement and all sorts of dysfunctional behavior.

As I noted in “The Pursuit of Happiness” section of The Psychology of Liberty:

Yet our emotional world may have become fragmented in childhood. We may have been recipients of practices that neglected our feelings. Since most parents treat their children as they themselves had been treated when young, cycles continue. Branden wrote about the varieties of unfavorable treatment:

“For the majority of children, the early years of life contain many frightening and painful experiences. Perhaps a child has parents who never respond to his need to be touched, held and caressed; or who constantly scream at him or at each other; or who deliberately invoke fear and guilt in him as a means of exercising control; or who swing between over-solicitude and callous remoteness; or who subject him to lies and mockery; or who are neglectful and indifferent; or who continually criticize and rebuke him; or who overwhelm him with bewildering and contradictory injunctions; or who present him with expectations and demands that take no cognizance of his knowledge, needs or interests; or who subject him to physical violence; or who consistently discourage his efforts at spontaneity and self-assertiveness.”9(p.8)

These influences may be subtle or not so subtle. Either way, they can encourage a child to repress and disown his or her emotional world. Such influences, not surprisingly, can also be noticed in people we encounter in our daily adult life, although the forms may be different. Repressing and disowning major parts of ourselves necessarily affects our behavior, self-assessment, and treatment of others. How we deal with and think about ourselves ultimately influences how we deal with and think about others.

Right now I’m feeling…

As I learn to “own” what I’m feeling in the moment…

As I look back on how I came to feel this way…

I am becoming aware…

It’s important for us to realize that feelings are neither “rational” nor “irrational,” because the virtue of rationality pertains to using reason, which is the identifying aspect of the human mind. Feelings are part of the interpreting aspect of the human mind. In other words, rationality comes from the cognitive aspect of consciousness, and feelings come from the evaluative aspect of consciousness. Cognition (identifying what things are) and evaluation (determining whether they are good or bad for us and our value system) are the two main functions of consciousness. Hence, we experience reason and emotion as two primary aspects of mind. I expanded on this in The Psychology of Liberty, btw.

However, as noted, feelings can be based on irrational or faulty assumptions or interpretations, and these can be explored and remedied via psychotherapeutic exercises and curious introspection. Questioning the nature of our values can lead to new insights and new ways of feeling about things. Of course, something—some feeling—needs to motivate us to begin questioning in the first place. Feelings are indeed invaluable indicators of the sort of thinking we have done (or failed to do). They can also give us immense insights into the nature of our experiences. So much of our evaluative world lies in the subconscious realm that it’s always important to not just note but also experience what we are feeling, especially when it seems to contradict our conscious beliefs as well as new evidence or new arguments. Ultimately, by using a process of non-contradictory identification, coupled with authentic emotional acceptance, we can attain increased levels of serenity, joy, and happiness.

=)
W

Happiness and hedonism

As I’m about to go out to enjoy the sun-drenched Mission Bay beach that beckons from my bedroom window, I thought “hedonism” would be good to address. Along these lines, I also had an extraordinary conversation the other night with a woman who had not yet encountered the explicitly Objectivist perspective on happiness. (Btw, if any dear readers haven’t read Ayn Rand’s magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, then by all means get thee to a bookstore! Minor caveat: I would recommend reading Nathaniel Branden’s Honoring The Self concurrently, for proper psychological perspective on the characterization and style elements of Rand’s novel). The extraordinary nature of our conversation stemmed from the fact that it occurred in a bar that was filled with very loud dance music and lots of alcohol-assisted merriment, and that her curiosity and engagement in such a discussion stood in stark contrast to what typically passes for conversation in most late-night establishments.

Anyway, the topic of hedonism arose on account of my statement that she ought to pursue her own selfish interests, and that by doing so, happiness can be achieved. At first glance, this sounds awfully similar to hedonism, which is defined as the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake. By the way, are not the people in dance clubs pursuing outright pleasurable activities? Indeed, it seems that many good times can be had in such places, because they oftentimes combine an intoxicating mixture (pun intended) of art and esthetics, amidst a relentlessly celebratory atmosphere. Yet I think there are two components to this experience, one stemming from the true-self and the other stemming from the false-self.

The true-self component is the authentic aspect of enjoyment, of shared experiences, of funny stories, dance moves, and all the esthetic elements of music and dress/fashion that keep so many people coming back for more. All are ostensibly looking to have a good time (however that is constituted) with people they already know or new people who are appealing. This seems all in line with pursuing one’s selfish interests, does it not?

In our conversation I of course had to qualify the nature of “selfish interests” to mean that which is rational, neither sacrificing self to others nor sacrificing others to self. Turns out, self-honesty (and by extension honesty with others) plays a major role in pursuing one’s rational self-interest. There comes a point when one asks, “Is this what happiness is really about?” Most participants in the bar scene seem to take the present context as the given, so they hardly ever get to that question (“We’re here because the clubs are where the late-night fun is!”). This is where hedonism diverges from happiness. Hedonism takes one’s feelings and the places that cater to them as the primary methods to pursue one’s bliss. Happiness takes one’s feelings as valuable indicators, to be sure, but the method concerns one’s context on Earth as a rational, conceptual being that is focused on flourishing. Reflecting on hedonism, Ayn Rand eloquently put it this way:

I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.

“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964.

So, there is an objective standard for happiness. What makes it objective is the fact of human existence on this particular planet (or wherever else we may venture). Humans’ essential nature stems from their reasoning ability (in contrast to our rather inarticulate primate cousins). In his essay titled “A Philosophy for Living on Earth,” Peter Saint-Andre explored this topic further by quoting another passage by Rand (from a character in Atlas Shrugged):

Just as your body has two fundamental sensations, pleasure and pain, as signs of its welfare or injury, as a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death, so your consciousness has two fundamental emotions, joy and suffering, in answer to the same alternative. Your emotions are estimates of that which furthers your life or threatens it, lightning calculators of your profit or loss. You have no choice about your capacity to feel that something is good for you or evil, but what you will consider good or evil, what will give you joy or pain, what you will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on your standard of value. Emotions are inherent in your nature, but their content is dictated by your mind. (Rand 1957, 1021)

In general, then, I hold that enjoying is just as much a characteristic activity and cardinal value for humans as conceptualization, self-direction, and achievement. The key to avoiding the trap of hedonism that Rand, Branden, and Mack all warn against is to avoid making joy the standard of value in ethics, while recognizing that the four cardinal goals of conceptualization, achievement, self-direction, and enjoyment must be pursued and realized in an integrated fashion. And this integration is at root metaphysical: the integration of the fundamental aspects of the individual (thought, choice, and action), and the experience of this integration as causally efficacious and valuable through states of joy, and especially the state that Rand called “metaphysical joy” or “love for existence”.[11]

Happiness in hard economic times

This year may prove to be difficult for many, as the seeds of statism sown over the years grow into seriously poisonous foliage. Since government has a monopoly on the medium of exchange in our economy (via fiat currency and legal tender laws), it’ll be hard for anyone to escape the consequences. With that, how are we to maintain our happiness? I came across an interesting article and thought some of the ideas in it were worth addressing:

Briefing: Holding on to happiness in hard times – THE WEEK

How does money affect happiness?

There is no universal answer: A hedge fund manager and a Tibetan monk provide two very different models of satisfaction. But most experts agree that the correlation is direct—up to a point. Poor people become happier as they escape poverty, studies have shown, but once people are free from privation, the tie between money and happiness begins to fray. Wealth in America grew dramatically in the second half of the 20th century, but surveys found that Americans on average were no happier. One study found that the “happiness benefits” of money peaked at the modest income of $20,000. Middle-class and affluent people who seek more wealth are often stuck on what psychologists call a “hedonic treadmill”—a perpetual pursuit of material goods, which reduces the available time for personal relationships and yields minimal emotional rewards. The kick of owning a big house or a giant flat-screen television tends to be short-lived, as these possessions become the next, unexciting norm.

Is this indeed the case? Last week I attended a talk in La Jolla about a popular book on getting one’s financial house in order, Your Money or Your Life. I thought it offered some sound concepts regarding becoming acutely aware of, and then cutting, expenses and living a more minimal lifestyle. Here’s a thorough summary. The 9 steps to financial integrity can be downloaded and explored too. The “hedonic treadmill” mentioned above relates to feelings of fulfillment and then apathy or dissatisfaction, following from a cycle of wanting something, buying it, and then moving on to the next want.

As Your Money or Your Life keenly noted, money buys necessities, ensuring your survival. Money provides you the means to be more comfortable and to experience fulfilling things, such as vacations, nice dinners, or better work environments and better living spaces. Money can also buy you luxuries, which may become hard to distinguish from comforts after you attain a certain level of income; this of course can lead to unfulfillment and wanting more, no matter how much you’ve acquired and experienced beyond basic comforts.

The key is to realize that happiness depends on whether you feel in control of your emotional perspective, or whether you believe it’s the result of various circumstances beyond your control, which buying more things can supposedly alter. Here are a few sentence stems to ponder (btw, a 3-day stems program explains how to do them, so fee free to join the email list in the upper right sidebar) :

“Money buys happiness” to me means…

If happiness is actually my birthright…

If, once my basic needs are met, I could be happy without worrying about my future…

If I can find satisfaction in the process of being creative and achieving things…

As I reflect on the psychological traps I fall into regarding money…

One way to change my perspective on money issues might be…

I am becoming aware…

Here’s another excerpt from the article:

Then why do we pursue wealth?

In order to have a “positional” advantage over a rival, whether that be a brother-in-law, the loudmouth who lives across the street, or some imaginary “other.” Surveys have shown that most people would be happy making less money, but on one condition: that everyone else made even less. In fact, most people prefer that scenario to one in which their income rises but everyone else’s income rises more. In other words, it’s not how much we have that counts. It’s how much we have compared to how much the Joneses have. That could explain why people in more egalitarian societies generally report higher levels of satisfaction with their lives. Scandinavian countries with large social safety nets consistently score highest on the happiness scale.

Obviously, the wish for happiness egalitarianism reveals deficient self-esteem (lack of self-confidence and self-respect), something cultures throughout the world are very ‘good’ at fostering. Your own happiness has little or nothing to do with other people’s level of wealth or satisfaction. Looking to others to check your happiness level is misguided and neurotic at best and pathologically anti-social at worst–that is, when coercion (via governmental uses of force) is used to make people feel better about their lot in life by hindering others’ achievements and living at their expense.

The take-away here is to remain grounded in yourself to experience happiness on your own terms. What can you do to make your own life more fulfilling? Here’s an interesting summary paragraph from the article again:

Where does that leave us?

Even within a robust, sometimes shaky system of capitalism, psychologists believe that increased happiness is attainable. Distilled to its most basic level, positive psychology encourages people to strive for “mindfulness”—living in the moment, recognizing the beauty of nature, and appreciating the positive aspects of our lives. Research has also shown that happiness is enhanced by optimism; religious faith; acts of generosity and altruism such as community service; and work or hobbies that produce a frequent experience of “flow’’—a state of total engagement.

Being mindful, living in the moment, recognizing the beauty of nature, and appreciating the positives are indeed extremely important to being happy. Yet, the researchers then dive off the psychological cliff by offering faith (rather than reason) and community service-oriented altruism (oftentimes self-sacrificial and duty- rather than self-interest-oriented) as antidotes to being unhappy. This is equivalent to saying, “Cheer up by closing your eyes to reality, believing in things that don’t (and can’t) exist, and work on helping others (who are also unhappy) instead of yourself!” Granted, lending assistance to those less fortunate can be extremely fulfilling, but as I noted in my section on ethics in my first book, the plight of those in dire conditions is commonly perpetuated by corrupt codes of morality coupled with coercive, anti-social systems known as governments. We’d likely all be able to experience lots more flow–and wealth and opportunities–in our chosen activities if people in society respected individual rights and thus believed in mutual respect.

This brings us full circle to our present economic conditions. We all need to realize that things could be so much better if no one relied on coercion to get their way in society. Relying on coercion, be it a “stimulus package” or regulations for “helping” people, is merely a race to the moral and economic bottom. That “sometimes shaky system of capitalism” is only shaky because misguided intellectuals have built it on an unethical foundation. Grounding your happiness in your own achievements and taking responsibility for your own emotions (and accepting and working through them), rather than looking to others and deferring to the hockshops of authority, will keep you on the enlightened path.

Your happiness will then be as good as gold (the type of money we’d be using in a happy society, btw).

W