Emotions are wrong in relationships (and adults)

 

Facebook has been exploring showing me various relationship-related comments and statements, and it’s sad to see the range of advice that is being advertised or gaining traction via the algorithm. There are mutually-exclusive ‘affirming’ assertions: ones in which caring, previously-abused people are reassured that having boundaries is wise, and that others creating conflict and drama are best avoided; and ones in which drama queens are reassured that anyone who avoids or shuts down during conflict is immature and should learn to have and accept more openness.

So let’s be clear: it’s not mature to create conflict with someone you supposedly care for. It is not your partner’s job to deal with the base animal within you, unfiltered by thought or self-control. It is your job to be a decent, complete human who shows concern and thoughtfulness for everyone, and I would expect those you care about to be the absolute easiest to be nice to.

                Some people grow up never knowing any better: their parents emote as the moods take them, and they too have their childish tantrums and the cycle of negativity almost never stops. I know this is common because it’s the usual depiction of family life in both American and British television and film. People snipe at each other, get upset and moody, slam doors, storm off huffily et cetera.

                We are told that men are immature because they don’t even understand what emotion they’re having: they’re allowed to express anger, and little else, so they express themselves through being angry. This is true, but I think people have labelled the wrong thing as immature: it’s not only that many men don’t even know what emotion they’re experiencing (supposedly), but that they express anger.

                A mature human has self-control and instrospection. Feeling angry and expressing that anger, at friends or family, are very different things. If you love someone you want to be good to them; and being angry at them is not that. Every person who cites the hideous phrase ‘if you can’t love me at my worst then you don’t deserve me at my best’ is a self-absorbed, entitled brat. The truth is that if you’re not your best for those you love then you don’t love them. Love should make it hurt to be mean to them; a constant reminder to be better whenever they’re around. If you’re selling ‘your best’ in exchange for getting to be obnoxious you’re not in a loving relationship: you’re conducting a transaction.

                I don’t know why this seems to be more prevalent in women. Many factors are probably involved, such as greater societal tolerance (and promotion of) of moodiness, biological triggers for moodiness, greater emphasis on short-term investment in looking good (hair styling, make-up, specific outfits versus long-term attendance at a gym) that make a difference between looking one's best and worst, and, of course, the fact that women have more social capital and are more desired than men, and therefore can get away with ‘selling’ their mere presence. If you want a woman then you must deal with her bratty behaviour, and if you won’t there’ll be hundreds of men who will.

                And not a single one of them will end up in a mutually loving relationship. If she gets addicted to the validation he provides and he feels fulfilled through association with arm candy you might call it good for each of them, but my ideal is a partnership of equals who improve each other, rather than indulge each other’s vices.

 

                I’ve mentioned here and there that most of the world implicitly, even if not consciously, operates on a karma-based moral system. If the rest of the world has done you wrong then you are owed something, and you take something, and everything for you is balanced again. No need to think about whether you have taken from the same person(s) who did you wrong. Balance yourself and to hell with justice.

                This is not a mature approach to morality, but it is the implicit principle behind much interpersonal behaviour. If you have been angered, you deserve to be angry, and that means that you are angry at the people you spend time with. And they should endure that happily, because you’ve had bad karma and you need to balance it out.

                In truth, however, if a random stranger crosses the road when it was your right of way, or holds you up in a corridor or path, you should display anger at no-one else. Your family or friends have not hurt you, so why punish them? That would be deeply unjust and unfair: a sign of a weak mind not yet ready for mature interactions with fully-developed humans. To some people the ability to spew vitriol at vile people and immediately afterwards treat others with respect and care comes across as inhuman: a jarring swing in mood.

                What we should all realise is that our behaviour is our choice. Every action, whether emoting or calm, is one we have power over. Displaying emotion doesn’t show how deeply it is felt: it shows how lacking in any and all self-control a person is. The only uncontrollable signs of emotion are sweating, blushing, heart rate and tears. Wailing, shouting, storming around, making spiteful or unpleasant comments and so on are things people choose. And by choosing them they reveal something nasty about themselves.

                If I want to be loved by an animal that has no rational mind and acts on its moods I will get a dog, as dogs are wonderful. But if you want a partner or a friend uncontrolled moods are not a gratifying sign of how much this human animal cares: they are sign that this potential companion is more animal than human.

                I know that some people manage low-level conflict better than I do: that they can forgive a bit of frustration or banter. My godmother and her husband have been happily married for 60 years and a defining feature of visiting them is the regular chuntering at each other: “you’re so stubborn”; “you always do this”; “how can you be so stupid”. Yet they are truly, genuinely happy. They are both strong-minded individuals accustomed to being right and self-confident enough to continue even in face of criticism. I can’t ignore the evidence that it is possible to strike a balance with each other that works for both and isn’t fully self-controlled, but like everything in relationships the assumption that there is a default needs justification.

                My suggestion that the default should be showing as much concern and care for the other person as is humanly possible; of demonstrating love fully; seems the most reasonable. If people agree to a lesser standard because they’re so well-balanced in expressing some frustration and handling being got at, that is a deviation from a reasonable baseline of behaving in a fully loving manner towards people whom you love.

                In effect, there is a conflict between ‘what you expect from others who love you’ and ‘what you should expect of yourself as a loving person’. You might expect others to be patient with you if you lose control or insult them but they love you; but you should also be generous and loving enough not to force them to indulge that patience. You start off being the best you can be; love should not be a reason to get away with being worse, but an inspiration to be better.

               

                For me, emotions often have a target. Anger has a specific cause; sorrow has a cause; frustration has a cause. Being the target of such negative emotions is an accusation that I have wronged someone or let them down, and that’s not nice or comfortable. If someone acts angrily towards me I experience that unpleasantness of being implicitly accused of infringing on their rights or expectations. If that anger was caused by something entirely different I expect it to be directed towards that thing. I can understand that toddlers and animals are incapable of such clear thought, and treat them with care and patience, but it is not a relationship of equals: it is of a fully sentient being tolerating the excesses of a lesser one. If I am to have such distance with a person, of seeing past the emotional connection to a benign tolerance of its uncontrolled outbursts, we will not be close: how can I feel understood and supported by something that I must ignore my emotional connection to?

                Emotions are not total deviations of my being, such that when angry I must uncontrollably rage at anything nearby. They have causes and targets. But if feelings were total deviations of my being, then there would be a conflict inside me. What happened when I was a child and I was angry with the other children and telling this to my mother? What triumphs: the love I felt for her or the anger for others? If I were an angry person, perhaps that’s a sign of who I am, and it’s not lovable: it’s a sign that I need to change.

                Even if emotions are widespread forces that affect all behaviour, there is no excuse for being mean to those close to you. Behave nastily and you are, in fact, a nasty person. There is no excuse that you experienced nastiness and are purifying yourself of it. It’s not karma whereby only your personal total matters. The specific individual on each side of right and wrong matters. And if nastiness is a bad thing floating round, how much better it is to be someone who absorbs it, like Yoda does with force lightning, turning it into nothing.

               

                If you think that someone should accept your worst, then you do not deserve their love for you. Their job is to lift you up to be better, and yours is to be better. Everyone has problems, flaws and down days. I have many moments of melancholy in life, a wistful longing for what was, might have been and even could never have been. Sharing these moments is what deepens a relationship. However, there is a right way and a wrong way, and simply displaying a negative emotion is like introducing your partner to a flooding river by throwing them in it. If it’s a problem, you alert them to it: over here is this raging torrent of emotion. Isn’t it beautiful? But it’s also holding me back. I would like to cross it: can we set up a rope over it, and maybe eventually dam up the banks so that everything flows smoothly past.

                You point out and discuss your feelings without targeting your friends and lovers. They will feel bad enough just at the thought of you feeling bad without you needing to display it. You treat them as people, with minds that will imagine and empathise, rather than passive aliens who need to be forced to share your pain directly. And if they don’t empathise; if they ignore you and continue as usual, it shows how much they care. Forcing them into acknowledging your emotional state won’t change that: it just means that you will all be wasting your lives living a lie.

    The word 'emotion' is wrong. Its derivation is simple: outward motion. Your internal feelings should never cause outward motion. That should always be your choice. Feelings, internal, analysed, deeply felt, heartfeltly-expressed and sometimes directly displayed, are a central part of humanity. Without them we are nothing; feelings give, and are, meaning in our lives. But to emote: for those feelings to move you; is a renunciation of your personhood. It is no longer you living your life, but spectating it. You can do better.

Positive discrimination isn't positive

 

The idea of picking under-represented groups to balance out apparent bias against them is debatable on its face, with many people disagreeing with the idea. Opposition, however, is often wrapped up in incoherence or bigotry, so it’s worth listing the three main arguments against it that I see.

1.       The problem remains unsolved. Cure is better than treatment, and the visible symptom of (presumed) underlying bias might be addressed, but the causes of inequality are a better focus. Racism will remain, if racism was the cause. 

2.       The visible correlation is not necessarily the causative factor. The measurable outcomes, of fewer women in positions of power, or fewer black people, are not necessarily directly because of bigotry against visible characteristics. These measurable features correlate with a host of factors which are more likely to be the cause, such as poverty, cultural background, upbringing, learned character traits and so on. This truth is even acknowledged in literature on the subject. For example, feminists have found that women tend to be taught to be more considerate, polite and self-effacing, and that this directly effects their lack of promotion. Picking more women without addressing the underlying cause will select arrogant, confident women who are as bad at the job as the arrogant, confident men.  

If minorities do worse at school because of poverty, fix poverty and bad schooling. If rich parents naturally promote their children’s chances, and white people tend to be richer, reduce parental influence and give equivalent support to all. If people respect confident, aggressive men and trust their judgement of themselves, teach people to be better judges of ability.

3.       It assumes that the bias being addressed is the only distortion in the selection process. If there are other, hidden quotas being enacted then the result can shut other groups out entirely. For example (and b is also roughly what I believe), let us imagine that:

a.       there are 10 executive roles being recruited for, and all is fair in recruitment except that there is direct bias against women, such that only 3 would be recruited. In this circumstance mandating a target of five women might be fair and useful.

b.       there are 10 executive roles, of which five are filled by nepotism and networking, in which qualified, but not the best, candidates are selected because of their connections. Historically there has also been some force against selecting women, as only 3 in 10 of the roles have been taken by women. If we mandate a target of 5 women, the result could be very far from fair. If, for example, women tend not to be beneficiaries of the networking effect, then of the five merit-based roles available, they have historically achieved about half, which could easily be entirely fair, since they are 51% of the population, or perhaps bias in their favour, as 3 in 5 is 60%, above their proportion of the wider population.

The new mandate would ensure that all unconnected men stand no chance at all of getting these desirable roles (all five would be filled by women, to balance the five well-connected men who did not get their roles through merit), and we would then have a system in which the established connections-based privilege remains unaddressed, and is joined by a new form of sex-based privilege, while shutting the rest of the population out of such chances entirely.

This option b is very likely to be true, but not as extreme. It is people at the margins who suffer. If there is only one instance of nepotism in the ten roles, the fifth-best man will be bumped off the bottom of the list. He might be worse or better than the fifth-best woman, but campaigners who compare him to her and say it’s a marginal decision miss the point: the quota ensured that rather than sharing a 50% chance of being bumped off the list because of nepotism, it would always be the man. He, a blameless, hard-working individual, is being punished for sharing a characteristic he did not choose and cannot control with someone else. Men are not one great hive mind, sharing their success and power. We are humans, and the success of one is not the success of all.

                Everyone wants their chance at the top, and it’s easy to see discrimination where misfortune occurred. Quotas displace discrimination onto others rather than eliminating it: they are a way to enhance inequality by dumping ever more disadvantage onto a shrinking group of people who fit no measurable grouping.

                If we do nothing to address hidden factors then we are working off a logical fallacy. Any researcher who found a correlation and left it at that would be laughed out of a job (in the sciences, anyway: think tanks clearly have a lower standard). Correlations are the start of research: we need a theory for how they occur, which we test with further evidence. Do we believe that people dislike brown skin? We can test that outside of work contexts. Do we suspect that dark skin is a signifier of unwanted cultural background or behaviours? We can test the effect of such behaviours when exhibited by other skins. And so on, for many ideas and tests.

                And when we have a well-evidenced theory of how the correlation occurs we will have a solid foundation from which to act, which may well not involve using the more easily measurable factors of sex and skin colour at all.

                Instead we have hysterical lefties, who ought to be promoting fairness (this being a central plank of left-leaning politics), instead insisting on positive discrimination as some sort of show of adherence to bleeding-heart doctrine (called ‘woke’ nowadays). Their opponents struggle to explain exactly why this feels wrong, and their misgivings are often explained as bigotry by the left, and turned into bigotry by the right, who assure them that their doubts are reasonable and feelings valid… and that this is because bigotry is reasonable and valid. Faced with being denounced as heretics by frothing loons or welcomed by sly people who engender misgivings of their own, many fall into the embrace of the bigoted right.

                There is another way: enunciate clearly the arguments that lead to such doubts, so that sane people can resist the pull of each radicalizing force and think for themselves. I am not a centrist who thinks that the middle of any two positions is the morally correct one, but I do think that the unquestioning loyalty to doctrine on the left, and the hateful idiocy on the right are both negative radicalizing forces in society.

                Those men who see quotas for disadvantaged groups as crowding them out from opportunity in life are not necessarily people who want to maintain privileged access to good things. It could be the precise opposite: noisy, arrogant, wealthy, over-confident members of those disadvantaged groups welcome quotas which give them an easy route to success (while the rest of the group remains as disadvantaged as before); and meritorious candidates who belong neither to a privileged network nor a defined disadvantaged group get crowded out of what little chance they already had of living the meritocratic dream. Campaigners seem to enjoy squabbling over who gets the crumbs left behind by connections and privilege, leaving the real problem of wealth inequality unaddressed.