Emotions make excellent servants, but tyrannical masters - John Seymour
Thereby arguing that yes, Principle 3 is flawed, and there is a better way to phrase the essence of what the author appears to be communicating.
From the forbes article:
"For example, when faced with immense grief, the human mind has the power to choose between self-pity/alcoholism or refocus attention on creating a positive future. Yet, we forego this choice and allow ourselves to go deeper into our misery."
'(re)focusing attention on creating a positive future' does not in itself remove the emotion of 'immense grief', and might ultimately fail due to factors entirely outside of the individual's control.
Humans have the capability to influence their own emotions, mitigating the negative and reveling in the positive in turn, but the article's message of 'just choose to be happy' is offensive, misguided, and wrong.
Originally Posted by TedronaiAs for the abstract, the link is no longer working for me, so I'll have to go from memory, but to (re)define emotion based solely on tendencies to action, even if doing otherwise is difficult, robs the concept and the experience of most of it's value and meaning.
Just because I tend not to knock people's teeth out (or take whatever other course of action one might associate with extreme anger) does not, in fact mean that I am not extremely angry.
Of the several 'stages' of emotional control in that abstract, only ONE pertains to, as I phrased above, 'controlling [one's] emotions'. I believe it was phrased 'changing cognition' or something of the sort.
|According to a process model of emotion regulation, emotion may be regulated at five points in the emotion generative process: (a) selection of the situation, (b) modification of the situation, (c) deployment of attention, (d) change of cognitions, and (e) modulation of responses.|