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.