In certain contexts, impulsiveness is translated with “spontaneity.” This name change is part of dressing it up as acceptable, and in certain types of thinking, to make it even as an ideal way of being-in-the-world. But, I always wonder, what about the consequences? Let me unpack one dimension of the source of impulsive behaviour:
- Typically impulsiveness is the result of a go-signal from an emotion. The internal “chain of events” which initiates the behaviour flows from an emotion/feeling. The act that flows from this emotion expresses the emotion; the act is like the emotion. For example: anger begets angry behaviour; a feeling of sympathy expresses itself in sympathetic behaviour.
- The internal experience is that the emotion is the complete experience: there is nothing in terms of judgment, decision making, or considering the “form”. “Do the feeling.” This kind of insular thinking results in a random outcome: the outcome for the doer is simply to do the feeling. Checking the ecology, i.e. assessing the benefit and potential cost to doing the action, is also not given a moments attention. In other words, two key decision points for acting appropriately are taken out of the internal chain of events.
What might be some conditions for appropriateness?
- It might be decision based: deliberate give to give away
- The behaviour becomes an extension of a benevolent intent: Put an act into the world, and it takes on a life of its own; I have let the bird fly, no holding back, no strings attached to the giving.
- Give within the specific boundaries of the situation or need of the event: clear on giving what specifically and a clear intention of benevolence. This is how and why a giving can be a firm “no” or “stop”.
- The decision to act is in line with my highest values, with what is right in the moment of my judgment/decision. Mistakes? Of course. I can misread the situation. I might get my courage-generosity equation wrong in deciding the form of my action. For example: rather than be assertive, I come across as aggressive, domineering which are conversation stoppers and inhibits the discussion options. My right to say and express my concerns are then done at the cost of the options of the listener to express themselves. My rules for me, not applicable to them.
Emotions are a message about my experience of the situation: it is the feeling component of the judgment made. Jean-Paul Sartre writes of emotions as the “embodiment of meaning.” Emotions being incomplete (only judgment), acting on emotions as the driving source leads to incomplete behaviours. For example: apparent “giving” is a way of resolving the emotion (“want to give, be helpful, be caring”), but there is a tail to it: the comeback to complete the emotion. Without the comeback, the emotion is unresolved. In the least it might not be satisfied: the act is not getting the response to resolve the emotion: hurt, gratefulness, love, dependence, etc. on the side of the recipient.
- Unresolved emotional acts lead to repeats (more of the same), or blaming the recipient. Blaming the recipient is of course a way of denying my role as the initiator of the action, and deprives me of a learning opportunity or options to give better.
- Impulsiveness mostly has poor ecology
- Immediate pseudo-feel-good is the outcome, without coming to grips with possible not-intended consequences
- Waiting for the comeback in a specific form and time to “resolve” the emotion.
- Presented as bona fide giving, putting the recipient in a beholden position without them being aware of the “terms and conditions.”
There appears to be solid wisdom, and opportunity for growth, in the adage: count to 10.