SPORTS · FLOW    RESEARCH LIBRARY
ARISTOTLE  ·  STATION 05 OF 12
PATHE

Feelings Are Notthe Problem

Aristotle wrote the first systematic account of the emotions, defined each by its conditions, and argued against removing them. It is the direct ancestor of this library's own weather system.
WRITTEN BYNoah Wickliffe
PATHE
THE EMOTIONS
 
THE RING TEMPLATE
TEN PAGES

§I   The Call

Somebody wrote the Weather System in 350 BC

The seat race results go up on the office door on a Thursday, one sheet, four names in order. Two athletes read it standing next to each other and neither says anything.

Both of them feel something. From the outside the two faces are the same face.

One of them is in pain because someone else did well. The other is in pain because the result is wrong. Aristotle separates those in Book II of the Rhetoric and gives them different names, and the distinction is the most usable thing in this station.

Book II goes through the emotions one at a time. For each he gives the state a person must be in to feel it, who it is felt toward, and the conditions that produce it. His definition of anger is pain at a perceived unjustified slight, with a desire for redress. That is an appraisal theory, twenty-three centuries before anyone called it one.

An appraisal theory says the emotion is constituted by an evaluation of the situation rather than caused by the situation itself. That is what Lazarus argued in the twentieth century and what the nineteen articles in this library are built on. The practical yield is that every emotion contains a claim, and a claim can be checked.

ArenaWhat it looks like there
Any arenaThe emotion that arrives, and the appraisal underneath it that nobody examines.
RowingAnger at a seat race, which is a judgment about justice wearing a feeling.
Team sportIndignation, which Aristotle separates from envy and most people do not.
OfficiatingEvery dispute, which is an appraisal disagreement rather than a factual one.
CoachingConfidence, which Aristotle defines by conditions rather than by talk.
SelectionEnvy and indignation, arriving together and needing separating.

§II   Two Failures

The two ways this goes wrong

Removing them

The first failure is the one Aristotle argued against in his own time. The Stoic position, developed after him, treats the passions as errors to be extirpated. Aristotle disagreed, and the disagreement is the most useful thing in this station: he held that the emotions are part of a good life and that the work is proportion, not elimination.

Treating them as data-free

The second failure is modern. Emotions as noise, weather, things that happen to you and mean nothing. Aristotle's account says the opposite. Each one contains a judgment, the judgment is checkable, and it is sometimes correct.

§III   The Line

The line

Anyone can get angry. That is easy. But to the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way, is not easy.ARISTOTLE, NICOMACHEAN ETHICS II

Five variables, and the sentence concedes the difficulty in its last three words. Aristotle is not saying be less angry. He is saying that anger is a skill with five parameters and most people optimize none of them.

§IV   The Story

The story

Aristotle separates envy and indignation and the distinction is the most practically useful thing in Book II. Envy is pain at another's good fortune because it is theirs. Indignation is pain at another's good fortune because it is undeserved. They feel similar from inside and they are entirely different judgments.

An athlete left out of a boat feels something. Whether it is envy or indignation depends on whether the selection was actually unjust, which is a question about the world and not about the athlete. And the two require opposite responses. Envy is information about you. Indignation is information about the program.

Aristotle's whole method is this. Take the state, find the judgment inside it, and then ask whether the judgment is true.

§V   The Science

The science

Richard Lazarus formalized what Aristotle sketched. Primary appraisal evaluates whether a situation matters to one's goals, secondary appraisal evaluates coping resources, and the specific emotion that results is determined by the pattern of appraisals rather than by the situation.

Jim Blascovich's biopsychosocial model gives the applied version and it is the one coaches can use. When perceived resources meet or exceed perceived demands, the physiological signature is challenge, with efficient cardiovascular mobilization. When demands exceed resources, it is threat, with a less efficient pattern. Same situation, two states, determined by an appraisal that can be influenced.

Schwarz and Clore's feelings-as-information work supplies the other half. Emotions function as data about a situation, and the errors happen when the data is attributed to the wrong source. The athlete who feels bad on race morning because they slept badly and concludes the race will go badly has made an attribution error, not an emotional one.

5parameters on Aristotle's anger
2appraisals in Lazarus
2states from one situation in Blascovich
1question: is the judgment inside it true

§VI   The Case Against

The case against proportionate emotion

The Stoics answered Aristotle at length and their objection is still the live one.

Proportion has no scale

Right degree, right time, right purpose. The five parameters describe a target and supply no way to know when you have hit it. The Stoic argument is that because we are reliably bad at judging proportion in our own case, the safer policy is extirpation, and that a doctrine of correct anger will in practice license whatever anger the angry person thinks is correct.

It can become a licence

An athlete or coach who has read this station now has classical authority for their outbursts, which were the right degree at the right time. The failure is predictable and the tradition offers no check on it.

Emotion policing

There is a modern objection too. A framework in which emotions can be correct or incorrect in magnitude hands institutions a vocabulary for telling people that their reaction is disproportionate, and that vocabulary is used most often against whoever has least power in the room.

Where this leaves the station Kept, with the emphasis moved from proportion to appraisal. The usable part is that every emotion contains a checkable judgment, and the practice below checks judgments rather than calibrating intensities. The five parameters are quoted for the difficulty they concede, not as a target anyone can aim at.

§VII   The Practice

The practice

  • Find the judgment. Every emotion contains one. What am I claiming about the situation. Say it as a sentence that could be true or false.
  • Check it. Not the feeling. The claim. Was the selection actually unjust. Is the demand actually beyond my resources.
  • Separate envy from indignation. The most useful single distinction in this station and it takes one question: would this bother me if it were deserved.
  • Watch the attribution. The feeling is real and its source is often not what you assume. Poor sleep, low blood sugar and a bad conversation all arrive disguised as a judgment about the race.
  • Do not aim at proportion. It cannot be measured from inside. Aim at the accuracy of the judgment and the proportion mostly follows.

§VIII   The Deeper Block

Two weeks

Days 1–2
Name the judgment once a day. Take one strong feeling and write the claim it contains as a testable sentence.
Days 3–5
Test one. Actually check it against what you can find out. Some will be true, which is the point.
Days 6–8
Run the envy question. Any time a teammate's good news lands badly: would this bother me if it were deserved.
Days 9–11
Check attributions. Before accepting a judgment about the day, check sleep, food and the last conversation.
Days 12–14
Look for the true ones. Which of your judgments held up. Those are information about the environment and belong in a different conversation.

§IX   For the Coach

For the coach

Take the true judgments seriously. If an athlete's indignation about a selection is accurate, the response is not emotional regulation. It is an explanation.

Use challenge and threat language, not calm-down language. Blascovich's model says the lever is the resources-to-demands appraisal. Reminding an athlete what they have prepared moves it. Telling them to relax does not.

Never use proportion as a rebuke. The vocabulary of overreacting is where this station gets misused, and it gets misused downward.

How to raise it

“What are you claiming is true. Not how you feel. What is the claim. If it is right I need to know.”

§X   The Turn

What this station leaves you with

Aristotle went through the emotions one at a time and wrote down the conditions for each, and then argued with the people who wanted to remove them. The library he was starting is the one this series is still writing.

Anyone can get angry. That part is easy.

SOURCE · Aristotle, Rhetoric II; Nicomachean Ethics II
STUDY · Lazarus, appraisal theory
STUDY · Blascovich, challenge and threat states
STUDY · Schwarz & Clore, feelings as information
JOIN · The Weather System, nineteen articles, same structure
RING · Aristotle, station 05 of 12