Take a simple question (in the concrete realm) like, “why are you home so late?”
Without knowing who it comes from or why, we can guess at 1/2/3.
Love/care
Fear/worry
Frustration
From an emotional management perspective, all we need to do is validate the feelings. The best answer might be,
(a) “I can tell that you care about me, it sounds like you are worried about where I was, I can see how it might be frustrating not knowing where I was.”
(b) Alternatively, also good response to (1)- “I can tell how much you care about me”
(c) And the less good response to (2), “do you have a problem with that?”
(d) Or response to (3), “why are you always accusing me of things!”
Notice that an answer like, (e) “I was caught in traffic” manages to make the asker do the emotional work of deciding if the question was answered.
The asker could then have to follow up, “that doesn’t explain why you were so late?” and the feeling behind/in the question has changed.
A question is an opportunity for connection, emotional connection (John Gottman called it “emotional bids).
Answering the question with (e), closes the question and ends the opportunity for connection. Effectively, one of the worst things that can be done for emotional entities trying to create connections. One of the best things that can be done is (a) and even b, c, d generate emotions that demonstrate investment in the current events. An investment that can be engaged with and interacted with.
The answer (d) goes about putting emotional Labor back on the asker to validate the defensiveness feeling demonstrated in the response. It’s not ideal, it’s asking/demanding to be heard, but at least it’s living in love emotions.
Lastly the case of (f) silence in response. If asked the question above and the response is silence, the asker gets to fill the void with their inherent assumptions. In a good relationship that means the asker can fill the void with their own validation, in a bad relationship, the asker fills the void with their own fear or anger emotion. The longer that the void is, the more chance that the uncomfortable emotions resolve themselves (oh! I’m only frustrated because xyz, I feel better now even though I didn’t get an answer). Silence is useful, important, and complicated.
When I ask a question from the known to the unknown, I give my brain (consciousness?) a chance to point at the unknown and find itself the answer. I also give my brain the chance to point awareness at 1/2/3 and resolve the issues that exist by those emotions needing to be validated. If I just answer the question, I don’t validate 1/2/3, I just close the inquiry.
Often a question needs a bit of silence before being answered (2sec+) because in the silence, people often know the answer they are wanting.
Classic, “flip a coin because while it’s flying through the air you find out which side you want it to land on”.
From a rationality perspective, we aim to maximise the known, because knowable things are “safe”. Unfortunately, knowns are also boring. In post-rationality (or mysticism) we realised the need to traverse both the known and the unknown equally and thus the need for the willingness to be uncomfortable.
We build a house to create known safety from the elements. That’s amazing and important. Then we get bored of staying home and we go out to do things that are interesting. Stepping slightly out of safety and into the unknown, because that’s where the good things are to be discovered.
Life (creativity, freedom, existence), the good stuff, the exciting, amazing stuff, happens in the unknown. A good measure of known will support the unknown. I create a few hours of free time in my calendar to do some creative work.
Too much of either known or unknown is not going to be the right balance. There is a need for balance between the known and unknown.
(and the weird and mystical answer likely to get me thrown off lesswrong) there’s a balance between 1 and 0.
Separate comment: (improv theatre says, don’t ask questions, make statements)
Obviously this is a very simple example and I’ve filled in the blanks massively. It’s easy to tear apart this example but that’s not the point. This examination works if the 1/2/3 motivations fit the asker.
(this response is going to be odd)
Questions don’t need (direct) answers.
There are three parts to a question.
The feeling behind the question.
The feeling in the question.
The feeling that the question provokes.
Take a simple question (in the concrete realm) like, “why are you home so late?”
Without knowing who it comes from or why, we can guess at 1/2/3.
Love/care
Fear/worry
Frustration
From an emotional management perspective, all we need to do is validate the feelings. The best answer might be,
Notice that an answer like, (e) “I was caught in traffic” manages to make the asker do the emotional work of deciding if the question was answered.
The asker could then have to follow up, “that doesn’t explain why you were so late?” and the feeling behind/in the question has changed.
A question is an opportunity for connection, emotional connection (John Gottman called it “emotional bids).
Answering the question with (e), closes the question and ends the opportunity for connection. Effectively, one of the worst things that can be done for emotional entities trying to create connections. One of the best things that can be done is (a) and even b, c, d generate emotions that demonstrate investment in the current events. An investment that can be engaged with and interacted with.
The answer (d) goes about putting emotional Labor back on the asker to validate the defensiveness feeling demonstrated in the response. It’s not ideal, it’s asking/demanding to be heard, but at least it’s living in love emotions.
Lastly the case of (f) silence in response. If asked the question above and the response is silence, the asker gets to fill the void with their inherent assumptions. In a good relationship that means the asker can fill the void with their own validation, in a bad relationship, the asker fills the void with their own fear or anger emotion. The longer that the void is, the more chance that the uncomfortable emotions resolve themselves (oh! I’m only frustrated because xyz, I feel better now even though I didn’t get an answer). Silence is useful, important, and complicated.
When I ask a question from the known to the unknown, I give my brain (consciousness?) a chance to point at the unknown and find itself the answer. I also give my brain the chance to point awareness at 1/2/3 and resolve the issues that exist by those emotions needing to be validated. If I just answer the question, I don’t validate 1/2/3, I just close the inquiry.
Often a question needs a bit of silence before being answered (2sec+) because in the silence, people often know the answer they are wanting.
Classic, “flip a coin because while it’s flying through the air you find out which side you want it to land on”.
From a rationality perspective, we aim to maximise the known, because knowable things are “safe”. Unfortunately, knowns are also boring. In post-rationality (or mysticism) we realised the need to traverse both the known and the unknown equally and thus the need for the willingness to be uncomfortable.
We build a house to create known safety from the elements. That’s amazing and important. Then we get bored of staying home and we go out to do things that are interesting. Stepping slightly out of safety and into the unknown, because that’s where the good things are to be discovered.
Life (creativity, freedom, existence), the good stuff, the exciting, amazing stuff, happens in the unknown. A good measure of known will support the unknown. I create a few hours of free time in my calendar to do some creative work.
Too much of either known or unknown is not going to be the right balance. There is a need for balance between the known and unknown.
(and the weird and mystical answer likely to get me thrown off lesswrong) there’s a balance between 1 and 0.
Separate comment: (improv theatre says, don’t ask questions, make statements)
Obviously this is a very simple example and I’ve filled in the blanks massively. It’s easy to tear apart this example but that’s not the point. This examination works if the 1/2/3 motivations fit the asker.
(apologies for formatting weirdness)
Cleaned up some of the formatting, let me know if I broke anything in doing so.
Thanks, I intended for no bold parts. That’s good though.