Maddi Goldstein Psy.D.
Face Summer
8 Ways to Express Emotions in the Dumpster Luv
How to process the biggest feelings you can experience.
Posted May 01, 2021|
|
Reviewed by Ekua Hagan
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Source: Photo by Immo Wepple on Unsplash
Emotional contagion is an interconnectedness of people with similar or shared emotional experiences.
Emotional contagion inevitably arises in dynamic, shared situations involving two or more people. Although personal feelings soar, the interpersonal dynamics that create shared memories are the products of mutual information processing. In other words, we cannot abstract or reduce the information lost or changed because it is part of our personal experience.
The role of emotion in shared memories
When the social interaction becomes too disorganized, the memory traces of the event are lost, and only fragments of the event are available for personal review and evaluation. For example, when Julie and Chris share a painful memory of being choked by a pizza man, they can credibly review it and hold it against their bodies, reporting the event as if it were a naturalistic event driven by their bodies’ physiology, and their memory can be used to evaluate its veracity by considering the possible meanings of its triggers and whether it is possible for them to correct the memory or just avoid the memory.
When the memory is analyzed, two distinct representations can be found. One is the original physical representation of the event, the other is the evolved, meaning-making explanation provided by memory. Although they are physically distinct, they both have a common source. They are two aspects of the same card, a bargaining chip.
Traditional card games have a similar play style with cards as matching a set of numbers. In traditional red card games, the aim is to move the pot one card at a time. You cannot ask Pete to move the pot one card at a time. You cannot make Pete give you one card at a time. You can play a hand of four cards and ask Pete to reveal one of his cards. Once you have all the cards, you cannot request anything else. Pete might, for example, request that you move the pot one card at a time, or he might ask you to start looking at each other over your shoulder at the same time. In both cases, he is requesting that you treat him as if he is your opponent and not as your opponent.
When you play poker, the dealer never reveals the cards involved. You always know what cards you are dealing with.
The next time you are in a winning position or position, and you want to lower your opponent’s score, you can offer a small gift to him with an instruction to withdraw from the pot.
Functionally speaking, you are not the opponent
When it comes to playing poker, the dealer is never going to reveal your card... he always keeps handing you the card, even when you are flush with cash. If you ask for the number one card, he always gives you the two-card setup, revealing both the hand and the numbers involved.
The same is true in any commitment / divorce situation, where someone is never dating, and it is better for the self-esteem of the couple to keep the shame and distance between the two of you alive.
If you want to play, you need to be proactive and actively courting your partner’s interests, desires, and capabilities. Once you know what your partner wants, you can play to improve the relationship, for example, being the \\_(ツ)in-the-relationship guideposts.
The takeaway
So, what’s the lesson to be learned from this?
When your partner is behaving beyond his or her values, making a request for change or addressing a concern that may have arisen may be reasonable and appropriate.
But even if the request for change or dialogue is not appropriate, making a request for help to improve the quality of the relationship may be the most laudable goal.
References
Sin, A., & Houston, J. W. (2009). Self-esteem and social achievement. Social Studies of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(4), 241-263.
M. Brat, G., & Brat, D. (2003). The construct of self‐esteem: The instrument of self-concept understanding. Social Studies of Human Behavior, 4, 173-208.
R. Geher, D. N., & F. W. (1970).