I just overheard a coworker saying “Oh, I would never try that in my life!”, in a discussion of food. (This was about consuming a steak cooked less than medium well). It made me wonder what life is like for those who refuse to try new food, especially those who refuse to try mundane things like fried shrimp.
Why limit yourself? It seems like such a closed-minded way to view food. Help me understand?
That’s arguable. Setting aside determinism or whatever, what it appears we can choose is our actions (in response to our emotions). Not the emotions themselves. I’m not sure I could any more choose to be happy if a beloved pet died than I can choose what my eyes see when I look a particular direction. I might be able to filter those inputs through my own perceptions moments after the experience but that initial reaction is instantaneous and, as far as I can tell, uncontrolled.
Put another way: if some drunk shitbag, flying down the street, runs over my cat - my initial response is going to be some combination of horror, rage and sorrow all wrapped up in a sense of panic. Whatever I choose to tell myself after the fact, in an attempt to alter that state, will be reliant on me convincing myself of it before (or rather if) my emotional state can then change. Maybe I say to myself “at least Mittens was spared the pain of old age, organ failure and a slow death” and that silver lining is enough to curb the rage and reduce the sadness. Maybe it’s not. Either way it’s post hoc to the initial, visceral reaction.
Another example might be what’s humorous to you. Something “dark” or morbid might leave you in a laughing fit where it would leave others aghast. I don’t think either of us can choose that. I certainly can’t choose to find Seinfeld funny.
Why are you conflating an inability to practice emotional regulation in a sudden, horrific event to the same in the topic of conversation: trying unfamiliar foods? Emotional response is a muscle, and while there are certain things which cannot be practiced for, there are absolutely others which are entirely trainable and controllable, barring some massive disability that leaves you unable to function independently in society. Having an aversion to new experiences is absolutely something most people have the tools to cope with, and I say this as someone who is on the AuDHD spectrum.
If you’re struggling to view the reply chain, cytobit used disgust as a specific emotional response. They stated emotions are not something that can be chosen. A_Random_Idiot disagreed. I happened to agree with cytobit so I provided examples where emotions seem to clearly not be a choice.
Who exactly is conflating? What you’ve said is in agreement with my position - that one can control, at least to some extent, how they respond to their emotions. What you’re calling “regulation” and “response” seem to be identical, yet neither have to do with controlling or choosing the emotions themselves - which was my only point.
If you need me to tie it back to food, in some parts of the world there is little-to-no concept of animal cruelty - extending to food processing and preparation. If you witnessed, or have knowledge of, what went into the meal in front of you then disgust might be what you feel reflexively. How intensely you feel that, whether or not you empty your stomach, is most likely outside your control. Assuming the reflex is mild enough that you can maintain your composure then what you call “regulation” and “response,” the actions you choose with regard to your emotional state, has a chance to come into play.
I don’t think this is particularly controversial. Emotions are not, so far as I can see, in any way chosen. Emotional response (actions) possibly can be, which you seem to reiterate, but those come after the fact.