Sometimes, but not always, these interests overlap with our own interests here and now and it isn’t always wise to mess with them.
In the specific case of our socially-driven negative emotions—those associated with status and status threats, especially—they rarely overlap with our considered interests, unless we either
already have high status, or
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
In most other situations, actually having a negative emotional reaction will not serve our goals.
Interestingly enough, even in the event that a display of anger is tactically useful, a fake display of anger is actually even more effective and can even be status-enhancing. (I’ve heard it said that this is true of horses as well: that a trainer acting angry gets respect from the horse, but a trainer who’s actually angry loses their place in the pecking order.)
This is probably why sociopaths are especially effective in the corporate tribal jungle, but I’ve also known a few very nice, non-sociopathic company presidents who had no problem yelling when something needed yelling about… without actually being angry about it.
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
That one is complex. A small status threat does not, in itself, threaten survival, but a large number of status threats may well affect one’s chances of making money, getting medical care (or getting decent medical care), or being attacked by police and/or imprisoned—these are a matter of physical survival.
In most situations I encounter people’s emotional reactions tend to be rather useful. It takes a lot of experience in machiavelian thinking before you can replace instincts with raw strategic manipulation.
This I have to concur with:
Interestingly enough, even in the event that a display of anger is tactically useful, a fake display of anger is actually even more effective and can even be status-enhancing. (I’ve heard it said that this is true of horses as well: that a trainer acting angry gets respect from the horse, but a trainer who’s actually angry loses their place in the pecking order.)
I find that a lot of people (over the age of three) who use the ‘berzerk button’, particularly those who do it effectively, are using it strategically rather than merely being at the mercy of their emotions.
I also agree that negative emotional reactions are more useful for those who already have high status than those who do not.
In most situations I encounter people’s emotional reactions tend to be rather useful.
I would agree, if we define “useful” as “fulfills their own short-term emotional needs.” If those happen to correspond with their considered preferences, great. But that’s often a matter more of coincidence than anything else.
It takes a lot of experience in machiavelian thinking before you can replace instincts with raw strategic manipulation.
Actually, I was more talking about using positive instinctual responses, like compassion, encouragement, and enthusiasm, as well as simply behaving rationally. These are far less problematic than our instinctual negative responses.
I would agree, if we define “useful” as “fulfills their own short-term emotional needs.” If those happen to correspond with their considered preferences, great. But that’s often a matter more of coincidence than anything else.
I was using ‘useful’ to mean ‘fulfills their predominately status oriented agenda’. How to relate people’s ‘considered preferences’ with well, the unconscious preferences that they actually act on is a somewhat different question. We probably do agree once we have people take a step back and realise status isn’t necessarily what will maximise their eudomonia in this day and age and for them rather than their genes. But that’s a rather huge step of personal development to overcome and I’m not quite willing to assume it into my usage of ‘useful’.
Actually, I was more talking about using positive instinctual responses, like compassion, encouragement, and enthusiasm, as well as simply behaving rationally. These are far less problematic than our instinctual negative responses.
Those do seem to be useful for most part. Although even then it can be useful to accept the compassion, suppress the instinctive reaction and, as they say, shut up and multiply. Even compassion is misguided at times.
In the specific case of our socially-driven negative emotions—those associated with status and status threats, especially—they rarely overlap with our considered interests, unless we either
already have high status, or
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
In most other situations, actually having a negative emotional reaction will not serve our goals.
Interestingly enough, even in the event that a display of anger is tactically useful, a fake display of anger is actually even more effective and can even be status-enhancing. (I’ve heard it said that this is true of horses as well: that a trainer acting angry gets respect from the horse, but a trainer who’s actually angry loses their place in the pecking order.)
This is probably why sociopaths are especially effective in the corporate tribal jungle, but I’ve also known a few very nice, non-sociopathic company presidents who had no problem yelling when something needed yelling about… without actually being angry about it.
are literally dependent upon our social circle for physical survival
That one is complex. A small status threat does not, in itself, threaten survival, but a large number of status threats may well affect one’s chances of making money, getting medical care (or getting decent medical care), or being attacked by police and/or imprisoned—these are a matter of physical survival.
In most situations I encounter people’s emotional reactions tend to be rather useful. It takes a lot of experience in machiavelian thinking before you can replace instincts with raw strategic manipulation.
This I have to concur with:
I find that a lot of people (over the age of three) who use the ‘berzerk button’, particularly those who do it effectively, are using it strategically rather than merely being at the mercy of their emotions.
I also agree that negative emotional reactions are more useful for those who already have high status than those who do not.
I would agree, if we define “useful” as “fulfills their own short-term emotional needs.” If those happen to correspond with their considered preferences, great. But that’s often a matter more of coincidence than anything else.
Actually, I was more talking about using positive instinctual responses, like compassion, encouragement, and enthusiasm, as well as simply behaving rationally. These are far less problematic than our instinctual negative responses.
I was using ‘useful’ to mean ‘fulfills their predominately status oriented agenda’. How to relate people’s ‘considered preferences’ with well, the unconscious preferences that they actually act on is a somewhat different question. We probably do agree once we have people take a step back and realise status isn’t necessarily what will maximise their eudomonia in this day and age and for them rather than their genes. But that’s a rather huge step of personal development to overcome and I’m not quite willing to assume it into my usage of ‘useful’.
Those do seem to be useful for most part. Although even then it can be useful to accept the compassion, suppress the instinctive reaction and, as they say, shut up and multiply. Even compassion is misguided at times.