Emotions tend to be looked upon unfavorably in a society that puts a premium on rationality and objectivity. Feelings are often seen as clouding one’s thinking, such that it is not uncommon to hear phrases like, “Let’s be rational about this,” and “You don’t need to be so emotional.”

Yet when functioning properly, our feelings are adaptive in directing our responses to various events in our daily lives. For example, love draws us toward our partners and others who are likely to be supportive of our endeavors. Anxiety urges the exercise of caution, stepping back from situations to assess the danger before engaging. It encourages a “look before you leap” attitude. Sadness often times stops us in our tracks, which enables us to take some time to grieve our losses before moving on, so that we do not carry that “extra baggage” with us. Anger encourages us to confront others who challenge our well-being, either by threatening harm or by interfering with our pursuits. Disgust repels us from situations we find noxious, whether physically or emotionally.  In all these examples, emotions play an adaptive role in living secure and rewarding lives.

Yet our feelings do not always function properly. At times, they may be so numbed or muted that we become complacent and avoid responding to situations that need our attention. At other times, our feelings may be “over the top,” too intense for us to utilize properly. That may be somewhat akin to having a jackhammer when a situation calls for a simple hammer. Often, it is not our emotions, but our thinking that is the culprit. Our attitudes shape our feelings toward others, events, and things, in terms of both quality and intensity. We have various sayings that illustrate this phenomenon, such as “seeing the glass as half empty or half full,” “making a mountain out of a molehill,” “seeing the silver lining of the dark cloud.” Such outlooks can have a dramatic impact on one’s feelings, which in turn can have a major impact on whether and how one responds to a given situation.

If we look at stress as an accumulation of various feelings in response to various challenges in living, we come to realize that the level of stress we experience from a given event is not so much determined by the event itself, as it is by our perception and interpretation of that situation. In other words, it is the meaning that we attach to the event that shapes the types and intensity of feelings we experience from it.

Another way of looking at emotions is the analogy of potential energy, such as from gravitational pull. The force of water flowing downhill can be either destructive or constructive. When there is too much water, such as with a downburst, a flash flood can bring pervasive destruction to all downstream from it. Building a dam, on the other hand, not only offers a safeguard against the destructive floodwaters, but also provides an opportunity to harness the energy in generating electricity. Following this analogy, we can work at developing healthier outlooks toward the challenging events in our lives, so that we can make adaptive use of our emotions in guiding our actions, rather than having our feelings, supercharged by maladaptive attitudes, lead us to actions (or inaction) that we later regret.

While these unhealthy attitudes can interfere with our response to events by numbing or shutting down our emotions, this exercise will explore various attitudes that wreak havoc by intensifying the feelings. Here, we will follow the format used in my previous blog, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems, which explores a positive application of the cognitive behavioral approach in challenging various types of rationalizations. The following table presents various types of rationalizations in the first column, while proposing healthier alternative perspectives in the second column.

Challenging Unhealthy Attitudes

Perspectives That Temper Our Emotions	Perspectives That Temper Our Emotions
The “Fairness Doctrine”: the expectation of fair treatment as an automatic or guaranteed right that we are entitled to, almost as if it were a law of nature	Recognition that fairness is a social convention adopted to help us get along with one another, and that advocacy is required not only to establish one’s rights, but also to maintain them
Assumed Intent: taking things personally, such that one interprets others’ actions as intended to do us harm	Considering how others’ actions are primarily focused on serving their own needs and wants, and are not necessarily aimed at hurting us
Assigning Blame: focusing on who is at fault for a given situation, typically focusing on the past	Working at understanding the differences and resolving the problem or conflict, with more of a focus on the present and future
The “Egocentric Imperative”: perceiving a situation from only one’s own point of view, often viewing other perspectives as wrong or inferior, if recognizing them at all	The recognition that there can be various legitimate points of view on a subject, without viewing any of them as inherently right or wrong
Conditional Assumptions: the assumption that certain relationships imply specific obligations across the board (the “fine print” in the relationship contract) (e.g., “If you really loved me, you would . . .” Or “if you were a real friend, you wouldn’t . . .”	Recognizing that we all must balance being-for-others with being-for-ourselves, and that others are free to choose when to be there for us and when to be there for themselves, and that there are usually no hard-and-fast rules to determine the correct choice at any given time
Dichotomizing: using distinct categories for good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, with black and white thinking, allowing for no shades of gray	Recognizing that both sides of an issue can have both positive and negative points
Catastrophizing: imagining the worst-case scenario and treating it as reality	Making provisional contingency plans for the worst, but also considering and planning for other possibilities

Identifying Your Own Unhealthy Attitudes

While this table does not present a complete list of the various perspectives which tend to intensify emotions, it covers a considerable portion of them. We can thus use this as a tool for identifying specific perspectives that intensify feelings, much as we identified various rationalizations used to justify problematic use of substances in the blog, Rationalizations Used to Minimize and Deny Substance Problems. In the first column is the statement, using one’s own words or thoughts, which tend to intensify feelings. In the second column is the type of unhealthy perspective being used in this statement. Note that if your example does not appear to fit any of the above categories, you are free to come up with your own category. In the third column, you come up with your own alternative perspective that offers a healthier and more adaptive outlook to the situation. You will note that the spaces on the table are empty. This is simply because I have not sought out the input of my “panel of experts” (i.e., clients with whom I work in individual, family, and group therapy). This is a project in the making, and I also invite readers of the blog to submit your own examples, which I will gladly plagiarize (so as to protect your anonymity, of course). If I do use your example, you should be honored, as it is plagiarism, not imitation, that is the highest form of flattery.

SPECIFIC THOUGHTS OR STATEMENTS THAT TEND TO INTENSIFY FEELINGS	TYPE OF PERSPECTIVE (e.g., Fairness Doctrine, Assigning Blame, etc.)	CHALLENGING PERSPECTIVE THAT TEMPERS OR MODULATES THE FEELINGS