Yesterday I've had a terrific talk with my able bodied friends at a bar. This chat has made me realize once again how deeply different we are, despite apparently belonging to a very similar social circle (people that have studied at University of São Paulo in the late 90s and the first decade of 2000's).
The matter of the chat was pretty straight forward, but for some reason our perspectives were radically opposed. Core question is whether or not you should make a critical life decision if you feel under severe emotional distress.
Curiously, this question has two different, opposed and absolutely correct answers:
1- No, you should avoid making a critical decision under these circumstances since common sense shows people's decisions quality will be significantly impaired by a highly emotional state (especially a negative one). This is factual. So why is there a need for a different answer? Because this answer depend on the following factors to be valid:
a. Event frequency: emotional distress must be something sporadic and transient.
b. Independency: decision at hand must not be a highly relevant factor for determining whether emotional distress stops or continues.
If these 2 conditions aren't present, you'll need the second answer:
2- Emotional reasoning is a common distorted thought pattern. It usually emerges from a person will to avoid more emotional distress (usually anxiety). Depending on how cronic this pattern is, it can lead to immobilization, because the person will avoid taking action while the need for it remains. It's a loop mechanism, in which the individual doesn't act because she/he believes it's not the right time and because of the decision not to act, emotional distress can continue for much longer.
In these cases, not only it's beneficial to act in spite of negative feelings, but doing so can actually be the single way out of the whole crisis.
Next, I'll discuss the reasons why my friend finds so obvious 1 is correct and why I tend to go for 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment