The 'Cash Value' of Mind-Body Integration: An Example

[dan_edge]

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Followers of my blog will note my fascination with the subject of psycho-epistemology, especially how it relates to mind-body integration (see The Psycho-Epistemology of Acting, Self-Love as a Prime Mover, Mind-Body Integration, The Benevolent People Premise, The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality, Are There “Bad” Emotions?). I love thinking about these topics, writing about them, and discussing them with friends. So I was very pleased recently when a new friend expressed an interest in my thoughts on the subject.

Before we got too embroiled in discussion, my friend smartly asked: “What is the ‘cash value’ of these theories?” He wanted to know what applications and implications could be drawn from psycho-epistemology. This is an absolutely brilliant question which can never be asked often enough. If one cannot apply his principles to his life, then his philosophical ramblings are nothing more than armchair rationalisms. With that in mind, I would like to offer an extended example of why the psycho-epistemology of mind-body integration is a very practical field of study.

If one understands the interrelationship between automatized physical, conceptual, and psychological units stored in his subconscious (see Mind-Body Integration and The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality Part III), then he is better able to “train” his emotions. If one’s emotional responses are not consonant with his explicit value hierarchy, then he can “retrain” his mind to respond appropriately. Consider an example:

A woman overreacts to minor disagreements with her husband. When he spills milk on the counter, she scowls at him and burns a hole into his head with her eyes. When he protests that she is overreacting, she becomes upset and defends her response by pointing out the value of a clean kitchen. She may not even realize that she was giving him a dirty look. A needless fight over spilled milk explodes.

If one asks the woman how much she values her husband, she would say that she loves him dearly. And she may freely admit that spilling milk on the counter is no big deal. Even when she acknowledges that she is overreacting, she may have difficulty bringing her emotions in line. Emotional responses are automatic, after all, and are not always easy to change. How should she proceed in “retraining” herself?

The first step is to get her priorities straight. She must learn to properly evaluate the relative importance of minor annoyances vs. the value of her relationship with her husband. She must introspect and determine with absolute certainty that she is in fact overreacting. She must introspect in the moment, while she is getting upset about something, and stress to herself her hierarchy of values. Over time, this will allay the intensity of her negative emotional reactions. But there is something else she can do that will help her “retrain”: she can make sure that her mind and body are integrated in her reactions.

One important element of her emotional reaction is the way her body responds. She automatically scowls and narrows her eyes at any minor annoyance. This kind of body language is often strongly associated with very negative evaluations and emotions. If the subconscious treats automatized physical motions, evaluations, and emotions as related units, then by scowling, she is actually communicating to her subconscious – telling it “I am very upset.” Her subconscious responds by stressing negative evaluations and emotions.

Assuming that she has brought her mind in line by clarifying her hierarchy of values, she can bring her body in line by controlling her automatized physical reactions. The next time her husband spills ketchup on the kitchen floor and she starts to get upset, she can monitor her facial movements, remove the scowl from her face, slow her breathing, and otherwise physically act as if she is not upset. Now she is sending a different message to her subconscious. Not only is she training herself to evaluate the situation properly, she is training her subconscious how to respond physically to the situation. Since mind and body are integrated in the way I have described, controlling the physical elements of an emotional reaction facilitates retraining. It can help effect a change much more quickly. As an added benefit, positive body language communicates the proper message to one’s lover as well as oneself.

Paying attention to the physical elements of one’s emotional reactions can be greatly beneficial in many areas of one’s life. It can help one become a better communicator, a better friend, a better lover and, most importantly, a better valuer. If one trains his mind and body to respond to values appropriately -- then he will be happier, more passionate, and more motivated.

Tune in next week, when I will offer another “cash value” example, this time relating to sexuality and romantic love relationships.

--Dan Edge

View the full article

[~Sophia~]

Assuming that she has brought her mind in line by clarifying her hierarchy of values, she can bring her body in line by controlling her automatized physical reactions.

From my experience having an unreasonable emotional reaction (for example to my son spilling milk all over the kitchen floor) comes from letting yourself react without thinking. It can also be a reaction to an unindentified, implicitly accepted ideas. Once you involve your consciousness, however, (and in the case of spilled milk keep things in the right perspective - or identify the idea as wrong) the body does not produce those responses. Next time it happens the first thought that pops into your mind (instead of the emotional reaction) is: this is not a big deal. So my comment is that, from my experience, once you bring your mind in line the body responds accordingly.

What I find instead is that there is a difference between accepting that something is true or false, good idea or bad idea and that information actually sinking in fully. After it sinks in your emotional responses follow automatically (and there are not problems with motivation). It is a difference between knowing conceptually that exercise is good and thus you should do it and feeling that you should "in every bone of your body".

How to bring yourself to that second state is something that would be worth discussing.

Edited November 21, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[airborne]

Assuming that she has brought her mind in line by clarifying her hierarchy of values, she can bring her body in line by controlling her automatized physical reactions. The next time her husband spills ketchup on the kitchen floor and she starts to get upset, she can monitor her facial movements, remove the scowl from her face, slow her breathing, and otherwise physically act as if she is not upset. Now she is sending a different message to her subconscious.

This does work, the only difficulty is becoming aware of something which is an automatic response. I have many irrational responses I would like to change but it can sometimes take a while especially when it happens in a quick moment. My only thought is perhaps I should write these things down as soon as I become aware of them and make a list.

[softwareNerd]

Dan,

I agree with your point on mind-body integration.

This is really off-topic, because it's about the parts of the example which do not go to the heart of your point. Nevertheless...

The woman in the example you describe might be overreacting. Then again, she may not. It depends on what went before. The milk on the floor might simply be the last in a sequence of events. For instance, it might have its roots in different values about order and cleanliness, with hers being "higher" than his. Following from this, assuming they reach some middle ground on what their house will look like, it is possible that the husband is the one who does not keep his side of the bargain. Since he really does not value the same level of cleanliness and order on his own accord, this would be normal without any special effort from him. So, one can imagine a background of incidents where she has tried to achieve this value of hers, and finds that the husband is frustrating her attempts (not purposely, but perhaps in being unaware of or not supportive of her values). Given this type of context, one incident -- like milk on the floor -- carries with it much more symbolic meaning: "there you go not caring about what I value"!

Analogously, one might get hassled with a child about an incident like this, not because there is milk on the floor, but because you've told the kid 20 times to carry one thing at a time, and not look at the TV while he's walking across the kitchen with things in his hands; and, he still persists. The analogous aspect is that the frustration does not come from the single incident, but from the history and the meaning ascribed to it.

Needless to say, in the case of the husband/wife and the parent/child, the expectations may be irrational; but, that's a different topic still.

[dan_edge]

What I find instead is that there is a difference between accepting that something is true or false, good idea or bad idea and that information actually sinking in fully. After it sinks in your emotional responses follow automatically (and there are not problems with motivation). It is a difference between knowing conceptually that exercise is good and thus you should do it and feeling that you should "in every bone of your body".

How to bring yourself to that second state is something that would be worth discussing.

Michelle,

I agree with you. My article describes a strategy for optimizing the "sinking in" process.

Note that it is easier for things to "sink in" to the subconscious of a rational adult. An irrational person will find it more challenging to bring his ideas and emotional reactions in line -- he is struggling with internal contradictions. Young adults may also have difficulty because they often struggle with issues from childhood, like irrational premises ingrained in them by their parents. The method I propose is more helpful to these kinds of people, though I still think a rational, fully integrated adult can benefit from it.

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

[dan_edge]

The woman in the example you describe might be overreacting. Then again, she may not. It depends on what went before. The milk on the floor might simply be the last in a sequence of events. For instance, it might have its roots in different values about order and cleanliness, with hers being "higher" than his.

Hi softwareNerd,

I agree. Someone brought up a very similar example in my blog comments, and I responded:

"Good point. That's why, in the example, I noted that she must be absolutely certain that she was in fact overreacting. Can you imagine the psychological turmoil one would create in himself in he were re-automatizing emotional responses without knowing exactly why he was doing it? Talk about f*cking yourself up.

That's one of the problems I see in the Motivational Psychology field (folks like Tony Robbins and Dr. Phil): they advocate re-automatizing emotional responses for the purpose of self-motivation, but they don't have a fully integrated, rational philosophy to guide them. So, in general they often give good advice, but one can create massive anxiety in himself if he re-automatizes his physical and emotional reactions without first making sure his ideas are in line. That's when you start to cross the line from rational suppression of emotional responses, to irrational repression."

--Dan Edge

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Assuming that she has brought her mind in line by clarifying her hierarchy of values, she can bring her body in line by controlling her automatized physical reactions. The next time her husband spills ketchup on the kitchen floor and she starts to get upset, she can monitor her facial movements, remove the scowl from her face, slow her breathing, and otherwise physically act as if she is not upset. Now she is sending a different message to her subconscious.

While I agree that mind / body integration is crucial, I am against this policy of trying to control one's emotional reactions via controlling the outward expression of them. For one thing, emotions are automatic and if one has re-thought the issue through carefully -- i.e. is spilt milk a really big deal or isn't it? -- then the emotional reaction one has and expresses will fall in line with one's evaluations. In other words, there is no need to try to control one's emotional reactions by controlling one's physical expressions of them; and I actually think this could be detrimental to her re-evaluating the circumstance.

And she should not be trying to control her emotional reactions in an effort to please her husband. I don't know if you meant it quite that way, but that is the way it came across. She and he ought to be emotionally open with one another -- even in the overreactions -- because this is a good way of discovering that one has some sort of problem with over-reacting. Suppressing or repressing the emotional reaction will only make things worse in the long run. I would even speculate that repressing emotions is what leads to over-reacting emotionally -- it's like a damn bursting under too much pressure.

The primary point to realize is that emotions are not tools of cognition. That is, just because he or she is greatly upset over a minor issue, this doesn't mean that it becomes a major issue. One's emotional reaction is not an indication of the actual factual importance per se, only one's subconscious evaluation; and generally making an explicit conscious evaluation will help to prevent one from over-reacting.

[~Sophia~]

And she should not be trying to control her emotional reactions in an effort to please her husband. I don't know if you meant it quite that way, but that is the way it came across. She and he ought to be emotionally open with one another -- even in the overreactions -- because this is a good way of discovering that one has some sort of problem with over-reacting. Suppressing or repressing the emotional reaction will only make things worse in the long run.

First, the motivation has not been described as wanting to please your spouse but rather to bring your emotional reactions in line with your explicit hierarchy of values.

Second, the idea of allowing yourself to act on your overreactions is a terrible idea. You absolutely should control your reactions to others which does not stop you from experiencing the emotion itself. Sorting through emotional reactions should never be made a communal effort in a relationship. If something has to be discussed, like for example, differences in valuing cleanliness, it has to be discussed rationally and calmly AFTER. The proper way of being 'emotionally open' is to identify the cause of your emotions and if necessary communicate it (your values) to your partner.

[~Sophia~]

My article describes a strategy for optimizing the "sinking in" process.

Yes and I don't disagree that it can be effective. It is true that correct action can help the process of the idea 'sinking in' (in the example of exercise - through building a good habit) especially that you start experiencing it's benefits but I was thinking more in the realm of ideas.

Edited November 23, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[dan_edge]

Thomas,

I appreciate the feedback.

For one thing, emotions are automatic and if one has re-thought the issue through carefully -- i.e. is spilt milk a really big deal or isn't it? -- then the emotional reaction one has and expresses will fall in line with one's evaluations.

I disagree with the implication that a change in one's explicit value-judgments will effect his emotional reactions immediately. In my experience, it can take weeks, months, or even years to bring one's emotional reactions in line with his explicit value judgments. Just as one does not develop instantaneous muscle memory the very first time he hops on a bicycle, so he does not automatize a principle the moment he discovers it. It often takes a series of "repetitions" with the principle - practice in applying it - before the subconscious has automatized it. Also, philosophical errors can be complex and deeply ingrained in one's subconscious. This is especially true regarding bad habits left over from childhood.

I am operating from the principle that emotions are a response to automatized value judgments. The question is: what does it take to automatize a value judgment? Or, as Michelle might put it: What does it take for a value-judgment to "sink in"? Does a principle sink in as soon as one acknowledges its truth, or can it take longer? Thomas, your post implies the former, but I argue that the latter is true.

And she should not be trying to control her emotional reactions in an effort to please her husband.

Michelle pretty much answered this one. Part of being a good communicator is learning how to monitor and control one's reactions. People who don't know how to do this are often poor communicators in a romantic relationship, especially when

it comes to conflict resolution (a critical skill in any relationship).

Thanks,

--Dan Edge

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think we might need some clarification of what is going on in this hypothetical relationship. I mean, on the surface, I certainly agree that one's spouse (or significant other) ought not to be hyper-ventilating emotional reactions to things that are minor. But in my personal experience, both regarding myself and my observations of others, these types of emotional blow-ups usually come about because something big is bothering them and they don't know how to deal with it and as soon as, say, they have an excuse to vent the emotion of anger, it all comes out at once. Guys tend to be like this regarding football games, because they don't overtly express their emotions, say during movies, and let it all out in a guy sort of way when their team makes a touchdown or their guy fumbles the ball. Similarly, I've noticed that when my boss is having problems at home, he is extra rough on me when I make a mistake on the job.

For example, it wasn't made clear what was going on before she had her blow-up regarding the spilt milk. Was he being callous towards her, say she tried out a new recipe that was delicious and he didn't thank her because he never thanks her? I could see where she might get angry about that. Though, of course, she should have told him she was angry all along about that specific injustice instead of holding it all back until it explodes.

And I think a lot of guys don't know how to handle emotional reactions that women have -- I mean appropriate emotions -- because they have been hurt in some way and need to express it. Being emotional -- i.e. openly expressing emotions -- is not the same thing as being emotionalistic. But a lot of guys think that because their woman is emotionally expressive, then she must be going by her emotions; whereas the guy is all repressive and doesn't hardly lift an eyebrow about anything.

I do agree, however, with Sophia and Dan, that in a romantic relationship one needs to communicate openly about things that are bothering you about one another and openly communicate that which you like about one another. I think this will help prevent the blow-ups (on either side). And I think they should be there for each other when they are having problems that lead to the blow-ups. I mean, what's bothering him or her? Usually, the guy just wants to walk out, or she just shuts up and goes sulking in a corner -- neither of which is good for a relationship.

Now, should either use the other as an emotional punching bag? Absolutely not, but I wasn't trying to suggest that. If she does it too often, he'll walk out on her. Perhaps that's what Dan was getting at regarding taking her hierarchy into consideration.

Normally, some spilt milk is not all that important, but it was when I was growing up because my parents were dirt poor and couldn't really even afford that gallon of milk; so if one of us dropped our glass of milk, it was a big deal. So, the emotional reaction ought to be gaged according to the value of the spilt milk. Is it going to lead to starvation if you lose a glass of milk? Or is it just a mess that you are going to have to clean up? And if it is just a mess, is it really going to kill you to clean it up (the one who spilt it, that is)?

Often times, however, I see woman getting into a hissy fit over something because she thinks that her husband or boyfriend did something that she is really angry about; and she expects him to know what it was, even if he doesn't have a clue. That sort of thing builds up until it explodes with a minor incident that he knows, without a doubt, that he shouldn't have done. Basically, girls, we can't read you mind no matter how angry you get at us -- your strong emotional reaction does not make your ESP work any better

If somebody gets unjustly angry at me, I don't return in kind -- or at least I try not to -- I gage what I did according to the facts and try to determine if such a reaction was appropriate or not. If it was inappropriate, then I usually let them vent it out, and then I let them realize that they committed an injustice. I have found that by doing this, the issue is settled rather quickly with an apology to me. And they tend to watch how they are treating me. But if one returns in kind, then the other person tends to feel justified --and anger begets anger sort of thing occurs, escalating until you are both screaming at the top of your lungs trying to out yell one another, without solving anything.