If there’s one thing I didn’t learn growing up, and I’m making up for it now, is being OK with my feelings. That is, the negative ones. I have waged a nearly fifty-year battle against acknowledging my feelings and more importantly, accepting them. Anxious? Someone, probably me, is to blame. Self-doubt? It must be true, else I wouldn’t think it. Insecure? Must be a personality disorder or a statement of my value to the tribe.

None of those are true, and more importantly, not helpful. This doesn’t mean that you have to feel this way forever, or even long; in fact, just sitting with your feelings is therapeutic.

What is the healthy response to feeling emotions?

“If you’re feeling sad, allow yourself to cry instead of holding back tears,” Viñas says. “If you’re feeling happy, smile and let others know. The sooner you acknowledge the feeling, the sooner you can move through it.”

Feeling negative emotions helps you move through them.

Interestingly, and this shouldn’t be surprising to students of psychology, is that emotions aren’t really designed for the sake of feeling them: they are designed to motivate us. And negative emotions are quickly reinforced by those two most rewarding of behaviors: (escape and avoidance. But outside of some truly awful situations, neither condition is preferable to patiently dealing with yourself.

So why feel them? (Why not escape or avoid?

It is also a cruel irony that while striving to avoid emotions may bring some brief relief in the short-term, it doesn’t really work over the long-term. This is because we really don’t have direct control over our feelings (if we did, we’d all be hanging out in bliss). So when we try to reduce or avoid emotions, we get stuck on the hamster wheel of trying to control something we really can’t. The resistance takes up much of our attention and energy, while the core issues remain. As we say in the trade: what you resist persists.

The first step? Name the feeling. Another step: talk to yourself in the way that you would someone for whom you care. This is because you may criticize yourself for feeling something negative.

An important hack with feelings emotions is to engage in "(reapprisal)." This is because you can’t control your feelings; you are going to have feelings whether you want to or not. (I think this has been my hangup.) Reapprisal involves recasting your feelings in a more positive light. This helps you avoid attempting to express feeling.

What about "bad" feelings?

This is a meta-cognitive take on the topic, but appreciating that your feelings aren’t good or bad is important: they are all able to help you, but experiencing your negative feelings fully [can help you feel less negative emotions](What You Think About Your Emotions Matters (berkeley.edu))… down the road, at least:

Her study supports other research showing the benefits of believing that all emotions are useful and equally valuable. For example, one study found that participants who thought emotions were helpful also reported being happier and having more social supports than those who found emotions a hindrance. Additionally, the more participants viewed emotions as helpful in their lives, the better they performed on a timed reasoning task—which is somewhat surprising, given how often people pit reason against emotion.

This isn’t a screed against reason and logic; those two are still your friends. But you have to sit with your feelings if you want them to teach you something.

I have something of an affinity for novelty; I am not upset when my day’s plans are interrupted by something emergent (usually, and depending upon deadlines and competing expectations), and often embrace the sudden change. I know plenty of people who are not like that, though; they hate anything that is unplanned or an interruption.

Writ large, people actually prefer familiar activities:

In a recent study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, researchers found that people prefer old and familiar activities over hedonic ones that are new and exciting. This means people might prefer revisiting a favorite spot rather than exploring a much-hyped restaurant.

"The research is especially interesting because, on the surface, it runs counter to the idea of the bucket list, whereby people tend to pursue novelty — things they’ve never done but have always wanted to do — as they approach the end of life," study author Ed O’Brien of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said in a press release. "Here we find that, at least in these more every day ending contexts, people actually do the opposite. They want to end on a high note by ending on a familiar note."

People Prefer Familiarity Over The Excitement Of Novelty

I have a food and dining bucket list in OneNote, sorted by kind of food, and to some degree, location! We do tend to stick to old favorites, but I’m always game to try something new. I don’t look at a bad experience as something to lament; I consider it a piece of data I benefitted from acquiring. Mostly.

I was not surprised to learn that dopamine causes us to search for novelty…exploring leads you to expect a reward:

You’ve probably heard about dopamine before, and its effects on the brain. It’s often touted as a ‘reward chemical’ or part of the brain’s ‘reward center,’ but more recent research has shown that, like novelty, it’s actually more closely related to our motivation to seek rewards rather than being a reward itself.

Why Getting New Things Makes Us Feel So Good: Novelty and the Brain

So novelty is related to reward seeking.

Seeking novelty, or "neophilia," has classically been associate with troublesome behaviors. But coupled with two other traits–persistence and self-transcendence–novelty seeking leads to greater happiness:

What was the secret to their happy temperament and character? A trio of traits. They scored high in novelty-seeking as well in persistence and “self-transcendence.” Persistence, the stick-to-it virtue promoted by strong-willed Victorians, may sound like the opposite of novelty-seeking, but the two traits can coexist and balance each other.

I worked with someone who used to repeat the cliché, "Perception is reality." I don’t doubt the limited veracity of that statement; that is, for some people, their perception is the only reality. When you’re dealing with other people, it’s certainly worth knowing this truism.

But it’s only half of the story. There is, on the one side, the invocation that all sentient people are called to: bettering yourself. Evolving. And understanding that your perception is not, in fact, reality, but as noted in this video, unique to you. And while it’s debatable what the definition of the truth is, it is certainly not unique to you.

The other side is the persuasion angle, the sales tactic: advantaging your influence by understanding the other person’s perception. This is the crucial difference between perception and perspective.

It is certainly possible to shift a persons’ perspective on an issue. In order to do so, it’s important to understand why they feel the way they do. What are the perceptions and beliefs that are giving them a particular perspective? Once those perceptions are clear you can begin to change their perspective. Heed my warning when I say that people hold onto their beliefs and perceptions tightly so be careful in how you approach them. ¹

There’s no doubt the world would be a better place if we all could move off of perception and move into perspective. But you can’t control other people. You can, though, do this for yourself.

---

¹The Difference Between Perception and Perspective

I was mesmerized by this movie as a child; my mom got a reel-to-reel projector for a birthday party when I was just a squirt and we all watched this.

Amazing notes and examples of the animation from the film.

How Chuck Jones Animated the Mongoose in Rikki-Tikki-Tavi

I posted quickly the other night that [I love pears][1]. That’s true, and the post stands. Pears are delicious.

But I like them for another reason.

When I find myself thinking about eating something after dinner (an activity about which I am circumspect, having effectively not done that deliberately as part of a larger weight-loss strategy), the usual suspects fall into my mind: That can of Virginia peanuts in the pantry! Liccorice! A nub of chocolate!

Depending upon what FoodNoms tells me is my calorie balance for the day, I often spring for frozen blueberries, or more recently, a pear. Rhonda loves them, too.

Grabbing a pear isn’t so simple as plucking one from the crisper and chomping down, though. I have a process that involves a few curated steps:

1. Peel the sticker off of the pear: you can’t eat those. I hated this step and sometimes sought to affix the offending decal to the cutting board, until I committed to just trashing it. It takes a few seconds and a half-dozen steps.
2. Core the pear: Rhonda bought a uni-tasker a while back, which is just a metal tube you push into the fruit to core it. It’s pretty efficient and fast if you take the time to set up your aim.
3. Weigh the pear: I like to know how many calories I’m eating. Sue me.
4. Slice the pear: I get a good 16-20 thin slices out of the whole fruit. This goes on a tiny cutting board. Perfect for sharing.

OK, so why enumerate such quotidian steps? I like the routine. Maybe it’s a sign of middle age, or an expression of my overly-active left brain (my brain is a loud mash of language, all day. All day.) It’s a process entirely spatial and physical in its completion. It involves some work and care in its preparation, in contrast with the quick hit of dopamine you get from unwrapping something sugary. It takes a little time before you can enjoy it.

Coffee is like this, for me, too. So many people jam a plastic cylinder in a machine, pull a trigger, and ruefully gulp down tepid brew in a litany of morning ablutions. For my parent, I adore the weighing, grinding, and measuring that goes into my morning jag, via pour over. Good beans, simple tools, time, and attention.

Happy Mother’s Day! Here’s this week’s list of things to check out:

1. Crumbl Cookies: I got six of these while hitting up the Hallmark Store near my office on Friday. I don’t think they went over well here… they weren’t housed that night, and there are some pieces left in the box as I type this. They are cakey cookies, not crispy or chewy or thin, and there’s a lot of icing going on. Still worth a try.
2. Wintoys for Windows: This is a cool hack utility for Windows that offers to optimize your system for you. I’m not inclined to try most of the features on a machine I use frequently, but I do like the battery report and God Mode toggles. Even if you aren’t inclined to hack your system, this is a cool app for seeing background processes and installed apps.
3. Moms: TikTok and Insta will have you plumbing your psyche for childhood wounds and trauma, pointing out all the ways your parents wronged you. It’s comforting to know that there are really great moms out there, like my mom and Rhonda. And lest you find yourself criticizing your own parenting, this is worth a read.

I have to rise a bit earlier to stick to my am rowing routine. This pretty much how it’s going:

How do you know you’re misusing due dates in your task management app? You’re setting due dates that are I wan to do by dates but that have no externally corresponding due date. In English: you’re assigning due dates to tasks that aren’t actually hard deadlines.

And a good sign that you’re doing that is you find yourself looking over your "Today" list and moving the date to the next day. Again. And again.

What’s wrong with this?

Nothing, really. But ultimately, due dates are when something is actually due. It’s a deadline.

"But I set a deadline for myself!" you might object.

Don’t do that.

Simpler task managers don’t offer many ways to bubble a task up to your awareness outside of due dates. But apps with more robust metadata, like Todoist and OmniFocus, to name a couple, can help you focus your attention on urgent and important tasks, while not tricking yourself with due dates.

My current example: I wrote about applying the Eisenhower Matrix to Todoist here on Uncorrected a while back. My particular system is a mashup of GTD and this method. Besides organizing tasks into projects with corresponding tags (context, in GTD parlance), I apply a P1 tag to things that are urgent and important (things I should do as soon as possible), P2 to things that are urgent but not important (things i have to plan), and important but not urgent (P3, not important but urgent), and can be delegated.

That organization scheme adds another processing step when getting things out of your inbox, so there’s some friction there. But it helps you focus when you find your "Today" perspective full of things you can keep pushing off to tomorrow. Working out of your P1 or Important/Urgent perspective keeps you moving forward, while things that are actually due today can appear in Today.

More here.

How do you know you’re misusing due dates in your task management app? You’re setting due dates that are I wan to do by dates but that have no externally corresponding due date. In English: you’re assigning due dates to tasks that aren’t actually hard deadlines.

And a good sign that you’re doing that is you find yourself looking over your "Today" list and moving the date to the next day. Again. And again.

What’s wrong with this?

Nothing, really. But ultimately, due dates are when something is actually due. It’s a deadline.

"But I set a deadline for myself!" you might object.

Don’t do that.

Simpler task managers don’t offer many ways to bubble a task up to your awareness outside of due dates. But apps with more robust metadata, like Todoist and OmniFocus, to name a couple, can help you focus your attention on urgent and important tasks, while not tricking yourself with due dates.

My current example: I wrote about applying the Eisenhower Matrix to Todoist here on Uncorrected a while back. My particular system is a mashup of GTD and this method. Besides organizing tasks into projects with corresponding tags (context, in GTD parlance), I apply a P1 tag to things that are urgent and important (things I should do as soon as possible), P2 to things that are urgent but not important (things i have to plan), and important but not urgent (P3, not important but urgent), and can be delegated.

That organization scheme adds another processing step when getting things out of your inbox, so there’s some friction there. But it helps you focus when you find your "Today" perspective full of things you can keep pushing off to tomorrow. Working out of your P1 or Important/Urgent perspective keeps you moving forward, while things that are actually due today can appear in Today.

More here.

Here’s this week’s list of things to check out:

1. Endgrain Coffee Brewed in a Chemex coffee brewer: I wrote about purchasing a Chemex recently after eight years of prevarication. I took it into the office after using it at home last weekend. I’m missing having it at home and might get another one, or swap the two pourover setups. It makes a nice cup of coffee indeed. But I brewed some coffee (a gift) from Endgrain in nearby Pitman, NJ, and it was a perfect match.
2. The Aperol Spritz: This isn’t a new drink for us and I’ve surely written about it before here on Uncorrected, but we revived the Aperol Spritz this weekend, as we stayed home. Makes me excited about the imminent pool season, and having Fridays off.
3. Winget for Windows apps: The Microsoft Store is a joke next to Apple’s App Store on the Mac, but you can easily use PowerShell to search for apps instead of firing up the Store proper. This has the added benefit of exposing you to Git Hub apps you wouldn’t otherwise find in the Store.

Sous vide ribeyes and some chicken for Joe.

How much should we shield ourselves or others from the challenges of life? Are we nurturing resilience or inadvertently fostering fragility? Maybe it’s about finding that sweet spot where we’re supported enough to thrive but still exposed enough to grow strong and resilient. Sometimes, the very things that make us feel safe can hold us back from developing the strength we truly need.

A Bit Of Resistance Does Wonders

Today, during an interview (for once, I wasn’t in the hot seat) I learned about ambiverts and ambiversion. The candidate described herself this way, and I was intrigued by both the word and the concept.

It harkened back to my own second-round interview for the job I’m currently occupying. The superintendent asked me, in what he described as a strange question, whether I’d rather be a travel guide or a travel agent. I was intrigued by the question and it got me thinking, in that moment, about how I consider myself vs how I comport myself.

I do very much prize alone time and am comfortable being by myself most of the time. I’m also not likely to put myself in positions where I have to talk in front of groups of people, although I often feel better after having done so (and regret situations where I shy away from the challenge).

And I also thought about all of the times I’ve taken parents and students around to see a school they are curious about or reluctant to send their child, and I always heartily agreed to provide tours to parents. I like these situations because I often get a chance to talk about what I know, and also to exercise a little bit of persuasion.

And when I worked at the Camden County Educational Services Commission, I often found myself in a sales mode, trying to persuade customers to use our services. I was surprised by how much I got into this role, considering how little I every wanted to be in a sales position. I always considered it something I wasn’t suited to or interested in.

Anyway, ambiversion: The term was coined by Edmund Conklin, a psychologist, encompassing both extraversion and introversion. It’s not interesting, from a research perspective, because it’s normal:

In other words, ambiverts are simply healthy people, neither too extroverted nor too introverted. Some have argued that because of Conklin’s attempt to define the "normal," he’s the progenitor of positive psychology—remember that what was popular at the genesis of much psychology was defining what was going wrong in someone’s mind, not right.

Hans Eysenck [considered ambiversion](Extroversion-Ambiversion-Introversion – Arlene R Taylor PhD, Realizations Inc (arlenetaylor.org)) to account for the vast majority of people’s personality traits:

68% to 70% are estimated to fall in the middle of the continuum and are moderately alert when fully awake (Ambiverts). These individuals tend to function best with moderate or average levels of stimulation.

I like these seemingly obvious conclusions to our otherwise all-or-nothing orientation towards personality traits. Of course most people aren’t always extraverted or introverted. We’re both, depending upon the situation. I have often thought that, were we as a culture and a society less didactic about gender roles, young people would be less likely to declare a gender orientation and just be themselves. As a male brought up in a culture that celebrates extreme versions of masculinity, I don’t find the notion of switching identities personally alluring, but I have often longed for a more tolerant world.

If we can exist comfortably-normally-in between the two extremes of introversion and extraversion, we can surely understand and accept others, and ourselves, as living in between other polar opposites.