Ironically, I felt somewhat upset reading OP, I think for the reason you point out. (No criticism towards OP, I was actually amused at myself when I noticed)
I think some reason-specific heterogeneity in how easily something is expressible/norms in your society also play a role:
I think some reasons are just inherently fuzzier (or harder to crisply grasp), e.g. why certain language makes you feel excluded. (It’s really hard to point at a concrete damage (or in summer circles, something that can’t be countered with “that’s not how it’s meant [, but if you want to be sensitive, we can accommodate that].”)) I think that’s double troubling because the other person often takes you less seriously and because you might take yourself less seriously. I think at least I’m more prone to be emotional when I feel like my reasons are of this type, and maybe that’s similar for others?
some kinds of reasoning are more socially excepted in different circles. E.g. In some EA circles, I imagine the “anti”-vegan argument would be associated with higher social status, and in some EA circles it would be the other way around. At least in my case, I’m more prone to be emotional when I feel like I have the less socially approved opinion/reasoning process.
I guess the common thread here is feeling threatened and like one needs to defend one’s opinion because it’s likely to be undermined. I guess the remedy would be… Really making sure the other person feels taken seriously (including by themselves) and safe and says everything they want? (Maybe someone else can come up with something more helpful and concrete) That’s obviously just the side of the non-offended person, but I feel like the ways the upset person could try to improve in such situations is even more generic and vague.
Obviously, this is just one type of being emotional during conversations. E.g if what I say explains any meaningful variance at all, it probably does so less for 4) than for 3). (Maybe not coincidentally since I’m not male)
That’s a good point, that the upset person in the conversation might be prone to be taken less seriously, even by themselves, especially if their reasons are hard-to-describe, but not necessarily wrong.
Looking back at theses situations through this lens, I actually think at one point I didn’t take myself seriously enough.
If my reasons are fuzzy, and I’m upset, it is tempting to conclude that I’m just being silly. A better framing is to view negative emotions as a kind of pointer, that says “Hey, in this topic there is still some unresolved issue. There may actually be a good reason why I have this emotion. Let’s investigate where it comes from.”
For the non-offended person, I think it already helps a lot to have the possibility in the back of you mind, that a topic may be emotional. For example, many people aren’t aware that privacy is a topic that can be emotional for people.
Ironically, I felt somewhat upset reading OP, I think for the reason you point out. (No criticism towards OP, I was actually amused at myself when I noticed)
I think some reason-specific heterogeneity in how easily something is expressible/norms in your society also play a role:
I think some reasons are just inherently fuzzier (or harder to crisply grasp), e.g. why certain language makes you feel excluded. (It’s really hard to point at a concrete damage (or in summer circles, something that can’t be countered with “that’s not how it’s meant [, but if you want to be sensitive, we can accommodate that].”)) I think that’s double troubling because the other person often takes you less seriously and because you might take yourself less seriously. I think at least I’m more prone to be emotional when I feel like my reasons are of this type, and maybe that’s similar for others?
some kinds of reasoning are more socially excepted in different circles. E.g. In some EA circles, I imagine the “anti”-vegan argument would be associated with higher social status, and in some EA circles it would be the other way around. At least in my case, I’m more prone to be emotional when I feel like I have the less socially approved opinion/reasoning process.
I guess the common thread here is feeling threatened and like one needs to defend one’s opinion because it’s likely to be undermined. I guess the remedy would be… Really making sure the other person feels taken seriously (including by themselves) and safe and says everything they want? (Maybe someone else can come up with something more helpful and concrete) That’s obviously just the side of the non-offended person, but I feel like the ways the upset person could try to improve in such situations is even more generic and vague.
Obviously, this is just one type of being emotional during conversations. E.g if what I say explains any meaningful variance at all, it probably does so less for 4) than for 3). (Maybe not coincidentally since I’m not male)
That’s a good point, that the upset person in the conversation might be prone to be taken less seriously, even by themselves, especially if their reasons are hard-to-describe, but not necessarily wrong.
Looking back at theses situations through this lens, I actually think at one point I didn’t take myself seriously enough.
If my reasons are fuzzy, and I’m upset, it is tempting to conclude that I’m just being silly. A better framing is to view negative emotions as a kind of pointer, that says “Hey, in this topic there is still some unresolved issue. There may actually be a good reason why I have this emotion. Let’s investigate where it comes from.”
For the non-offended person, I think it already helps a lot to have the possibility in the back of you mind, that a topic may be emotional. For example, many people aren’t aware that privacy is a topic that can be emotional for people.