It came to me that trying to control one emotions and remaining stoic can be a slippery slope for disassociating with them. Principles I admire such as not stressing over things which we have no control over, not lusting after things for which we can never attain, using difficulties as a means of personal growth, etc. - I had to separate them from what I think is disassociating with yourself and reality.
The difference, I would say, is that controlling your emotions requires you to be aware of your feelings, truly feeling them, whereas disassociation implies that you are disconnecting from them and are trying to ignore them. Just because you are trying to alleviate your feelings does not mean you're trying to ignore them, you are simply giving them less of an impact on your behavior, on your mind, and on your stress levels in general. Understanding that emotions are temporary is different than not perceiving emotions at all.
Another way to know if you're disassociating or if you're mastering your emotions is to take a look at your life and mental state. Are you improving? Do you have any more control over your emotions than you did a month or two ago? One example of an improvement for me is that I've somewhat become more assertive, even if it's only mildly. I've also become less afraid to say what I want to say, again even though it's only been mild improvements so far. I've been less in need of trying to impress people, I've certainly relaxed on being Mr. Perfect. These are just some of the examples of improvements in my behaviors that show me that I am still in touch with my emotions because I've been controlling them instead of letting them control me.
/end rant.
When the brain writes to memory, emotional tags are added to sensory content. Our memory has both sensory content; cerebral, as well as feeling tags; limbic system. This is why our strongest and most enduring memories have the strongest feelings tags; graduation, marriage, first child, etc.
This tagging process is useful since is allows us to approach our memory from two ways; differential content side and/or from the emotional tag. This, in turn, allows one to process memory with both sides of the brain, at the same time. This overlap is why it appears the left and right brain distinction is less clear cut, based on brain scans.
The problem of approaching memory via the emotional side; emotional thinking, is there are only a finite number of emotions; tags, used for all the memory. The limited emotional tags are recycled and are used for a wide range of similar memory. The sensory content, on the other hand, is far more diverse than the emotions, and allows one to see more details, even within the same emotional tagging groups.
For example, if I asked you to list your favorite 10 foods, these will all give you a similar sense of satisfaction /enjoyment in terms of feelings. However, these can be much more varied in terms of ingredients and the style of cooking; sensory content; sight, flavor and smell.
As an alternate example, say I asked you to list all the things your fear. If you were from the political Left, this may include climate change, nuclear war, pandemics, AI, Donald Trump, etc. Where problems occur for emotional thinkers, is the recycled fear tag, from other memories, can become lumped in ways that are not rational; Trump was like Hitler and will start a nuclear war, was based on fear tags that appear to lump things together. Approaching memory from the sensory content side has the advantage of differentiating each recycled emotion, so the content does not get wrongly lumped based on emotional conditioning. The emotional thinking approach of the Left makes it easier for them to be manipulated via emotional lumping.
The DEI approach to culture; diversity, equity and inclusion, makes use of emotional thinking to confuse common sense; feeling versus sensory content. If you approach this with emotion first, it will feel good and fair. However, since emotions tend to get lump, based on political biases, this approach ignores key details, such as the equity always comes at the expense of loss equity for others. How is the tax payer included and how do they break even to make this equitable for them? Emotionally, with conditioned tagging, the tax payers owe everyone else; that feels right.
Science, which is Atheist, has led to this problem; Psychology. In one sense, it is good to know how to feel and express your emotions, but that is not the best way to think. But there is too much emphasis on emotions, to where it has made people more irrational, and far easier to manipulate with emotional lumping; white, straight, males do all the evil of the world. This may feel right to some, but it is irrational if look at from the sensory content side. Psychology needs to be less about making money, since creating problems helps their business model.
Mr Spock of Star Trek tries to suppress emotions when he thinks, to make sure he has constant access to his full sensory content data base. Ideally, you need to be able to go both ways; both sides of the brain, since the emotional side can be useful for creative lumping; integration, but only after reason is able to wade through all the details. Captain Kirk could use both sides of the brain to come up with a unique strategy. Spock, as science officer was there to make sure all the details stayed conscious.
In modern science, the affect of politics adds emotional thinking to the blend. For example, climate science constantly over estimates; over/under bets, which is used to create fear. If they under estimate or are spot on, the feelings of urgency would subside, as would the money flow. Casino science or fuzzy dice, is also there to add emotions such as uncertainty and risk; fear.
