Controlling Emotions To Maintain Rationality In Challenging Situations

Your Emotions

“Emotions are adaptive and behavioural physiological response patterns to environmental stimuli. These patterns are malleable, transient, and can be regulated. The goal of regulating, or controlling, emotions is simply to obtain and maintain preferable emotional states and ending emotional states which are detrimental to your physical well-being, and social standing.” (Wadlinger, H. A., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2012, February 1). Fixing our Focus: Training attention to regulate emotion.)

We base our emotions on our perceptions of our environment, and then we externally express those emotions in varying ways.

Some expressions of emotion are rational, some are irrational.

When something makes us angry, the irrational person who has no control over their emotions tends to lash out in very loud and boisterous ways.

And when we experience positive emotions, we express that with affection, laughter, or another appropriate affect.

Rationality vs. Reason

As a species that is capable of thought and self-interest, we like to believe that we behave rationally.

However, behavioural game theory has painted a different picture, and the Ultimatum Game uncovered violations we’ve committed in assumptions of rationality. (Behavioral Game Theor. (n.d.). Retrieved from Behavioral Economics )

When we say words like “rational” and “irrational”, we tend to equate them with “reasonable” and “unreasonable”, respectively.

After all, linguistically speaking, they are synonymous with each other, and Webster uses each in some way to define the other:

• Rational: having or exercising the ability to reason; consistent with or based on reason.
• Reasonable: rational; governed by or in accordance with sound thinking.
• Irrational: the term used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives.
• Unreasonable: Not reasonable or rational.

In fields of psychological study, however, reason and rationality sometimes miss each other a bit, and the Ultimatum Game has highlighted a perfect example of this.

The way the game works is simple:

1. There are two players.
2. Player One is given a sum of money.
3. Player One is then instructed to give a portion of that sum of money to Player Two.
4. Player Two then makes the decision to either accept or decline that sum of money.
5. If Player Two accepts the sum of money, then both players get to keep the money they each have.
6. If Player Two declines the money given them by Player One, then neither player gets to keep the money they were given.

One variation goes further where Player One is given a menial task that requires them to earn the money they are given to start the game.

In the variation of the Ultimatum Game where Player One has to earn the money they then split between Players One and Two, Player One is generally more conservative with the portion given to Player Two.

In either case, where Player Two feels the split between the two sums is not fair, Player Two declines their share of the money more often than not.

This shows a natural aversion to unfairness and inequality, but while an aversion to unfair terms is reasonable to most people, in situations like the Ultimatum Game, it’s completely irrational.

This study showed that it didn’t matter whether Player One gave Player Two more or less money than they themselves kept, if the difference was too heavily in one player’s favour over the other, more often than not, Player Two took the route of a Lose/Lose situation.

In Win/Win outcomes, both players feel like they’ve won. In negotiation terms, this means that each party gave up something so that each could come out ahead.

With the Ultimatum Game, even if Player One split the money 70/30 in their favour, if Player Two accepts this split, it’s a Win/Win because both players come out with money in their pocket.

In Lose/Lose situations, which is the route most often taken by Player Two, both parties lose altogether. As irrational as this is, the inequality of a 70/30 split is often too much for Player Two to accept.

We tend to see the rational train of thought as the reasonable, and demand that the world exists on some spectrum of what defines fair.

Unfortunately, the feeling of something being fair is emotionally based, as are most of our decision-making processes.

As humans we are highly susceptible to our emotions. When we’re faced with challenging situations, we tend to lean toward the irrational even more so than rational choices.

Our emotions are the basis for our actions.

Externally behaving irrationally can cause us to lose social standing with our peers, alienate our significant others, or force a Lose/Lose situation over the more desirable Win/Win just to avoid a little inequality.

However, it’s a fact of life that none of us can escape: inequality and unfairness exist, and we must manage that.

While we have no control over whether the frog eats the snake or the snake eats the frog, we do have control over how we react emotionally, and how we express those emotions externally.

The Rational Equation

Sorry - The Rest Of This Article Is Only For Self Help Nirvana Members

JOIN FREE FOR 7 DAYS

Self Help Nirvana is an online community for everybody whose goal is personal improvement and development. Become a Self Help Nirvana member today and get access to everything here at SelfHelpNirvana.com!

Already a member? Sign in.