A Subjective Quantitative Study of a Qualitative Concept

Most of my life I have had a hard time explaining concepts.  Usually I try to find something that the person might understand an add imagery to make it closer to what I am trying to explain.  Often times it is a complete failure.  Either the person stubbornly refuses to understand what is being explained, or there is no frame of reference with which to build the compendium of images.  In both cases, the level of frustration for the speaker (explainer) is palpable.  I am an odd person.  I am definitely not in the majority of people that understand the simple (majorly complex) realm of emotion.  Or rather, how emotion is related to everything we do. 

It has taken me years and lots of therapy to get to the point of understanding what I do, and I have miles to go.  Emotion (display of and propriety of) has always been difficult for me.  I have never been able to express the proper emotive response without either prompting or learning.  To be more precise, I know to be sad at a funeral (it is convention) despite my own lack of sadness.  It is only natural to die, so why should I mourn the death of a 94-year-old woman?  Because it is polite to do so…that is why.  Intellectually, I am aware of this concept, though again, I do not understand why I should mourn.  

I have had emotions.  I have even had real live legitimate on the spot emotions.  I did not understand why I had that particular reaction to that particular situation.  It has always eluded me.  I have always been a quantitative person.  I have always the need to see a representation in order to understand (but more so with regard to emotions/emotional response).  I like to take things apart that do not work (and even a few that did) to see why something (did not) work (-ed).  I figure, at this point, that there is a mathematical formula somewhere explaining it all, so until discovery or disclosure, I have my own theory to share. 

I am going to attempt to explain quantitatively, the qualitative concept of relationship.  I know that the study of human interaction with environment is anthropology and I know the study of the human psyche is psychology.  I will use mathematical concepts to validate and clarify my position.  First, I want to define the term that I will use and its context.  Standard deviation refers to the mathematics of averaging and is the basis of this discussion.  The bell curve predicts that a standard sample will fall into a range to either one side or the other, based on their average.  In other words, from the middle being the average, a certain percentage will fall into the average range, +/- a certain percent.  The next ranges are mostly to one side, but not all the way to one side or the other.  The last positions are for the polar opposites.  The visual depiction of this concept is usually that of a bell, thin on both ends, and building to a curved peak.  Another way to think of it is that a thing will happen (+++), could happen (++-), might happen (+/-), probably will not happen (+--) or will not happen (---). 

This theory can apply to every aspect of life and this is how.  Throughout our lives, generally speaking, we learn to behave in or believe a particular way.  As an example, general convention is that all fire trucks are red and the sky is blue, though both of those also have a deviation.  Fire trucks are typically one of two colors, red and yellow, and the sky can vary in color from white all the way to deep purple.  If you think of the standard, red for fire trucks, and blue for the sky, you can think of anything that is not typical as the deviation.  A yellow fire truck is not typical, but not unheard of either.  We learn that fire trucks are red and that the sky is blue.  Growing up we learn standards of behavior the same way.  We learn that it is not proper to laugh at a funeral.  We learn from not only our parents, but also our peers, the media, role models, and others.  We cope with daily bombardment of information that corrals us into behaving a certain way or reacting a certain way to stimuli. Most of the time the information we learn is accurate (we cry at funerals), but sometimes, the information is subjectively applied (we laugh at the bullied).  I want to call this conditioning because it makes sense though it is more complex than that.  As humans, we tend to apply past information to current situations.  As kids, we laughed at passing gas, but as adults, we tend to ignore it, similar to the Japanese concept of being observed, but not seen, as it is impolite to bring attention to something that may or may not be in their control.  We compare past situations to current events and decide if we reacted right the last time, if we want to react the same way to this situation, or even if this event is the same as any event in our experience.  Sometimes, we have to decide to react without having any frame of reference at all. 

I am not sure whether the issue is with the convention, or the idea that I cannot react in any way that I feel is appropriate.  Perhaps I am exhibiting a bit of the defiance that I never had the courage to express as a teen.  In any case, I am learning that just because a thousand calls a potato a spud, does not invalidate their belief, as a spud is also a potato.  Potato would be the average, and spud, tater, and any other euphemism for it is the deviation.  Most people learn this from an early age, but I did not. 

As a gay person in the 1970’s and 1980’s it was taboo to be anything not heterosexual.  As a result, I had to pretend to be someone I was not in order to fit the subjective norm and now find it difficult to differentiate between polite acquiescence and genuine correct behavior.  The result is the same, but the method of delivery is an issue.  Today, if I do not feel sadness, I find it difficult to express sadness though I can understand why a person would be sad (by convention or example).  Many people get offended that I am not crying with them instead of wondering where the coffee is.  This is where the issue is.  I know what the convention is, but I do not like pretending.  I know I should try to feel X emotion, but without a frame of reference, I feel it would not be a genuine inflection.  I am slowly realizing that my reactions are not unheard of, just outside the standard deviation, and that is okay. 

I have been battling this way most of my adult life.  The feelings of not being genuine contrasted by social convention has made me introverted and socially awkward.  I feel like unless I divulge every bit of my fault, it will not be good enough for me and as a result, have a difficult time making and keeping friends.  Who wants a lunatic for a friend?  Having a romantic relationship has become a virtual never because I am not willing to compromise my integrity for another person’s emotion.  I will not pretend to be anything for a person to like me, either they do or they do not based on the real unadulterated unfiltered me. 

As a society, we have become so adept at pandering to the masses that we forget what is real and true.  I refuse to cater to the will of the masses.  I am my own person with my own experiences, wants and desires.  I am me…and that is okay.