expressed, and enjoying being the center of attention of the group. Having recognizable anger being humorously expressed this way more often meets, rather than frustrates, the recipient’s basic emotional need, when that recipient has a high degree of emotional strength. Being temporarily “center stage,” as the focus of recognizably expressed anger, and enjoying the group laughter it provokes, can meet well what might be unmet of these people’s basic emotional needs. We can see the same thing in any closely-knit group where much talking, joking, and “ribbing” is taking place. It’s the shared laughter that meets exceptionally well the basic emotional need of the members of a group. Mutually shared enjoyment in humorously expressing recognizable anger, where the basic emotional need is continuing to be well met in an obvious way, while recently stored anger is being diminished, is a prominent characteristic of any closely-knit group.
With the extended talking that they do, members of a closely-knit group don’t have to store up as much anger so that it doesn’t accumulate as much within a person’s unconscious as it too easily can do in a person not involved in daily talking. Daily talking, and especially daily group talking, can get rid of uncomfortable levels of recently stored anger so that it doesn’t reach high levels in any one person as it easily can do with daily accumulations of it, without a means to decrease it. Directly expressed recognizable anger that is humorously done in a closely-knit group, is a popular means to express anger. One doesn’t have to be careful of what one says, as a person might feel in any one-to-one talking where the meeting of the basic emotional need is being more concentrated in one source. In one-to-one talking, recognizably expressed anger to the listener is rarely a laughing matter like it often is in the talking of a closely-knit group. In group talking, there may be many equated sources present for unconsciously meeting the basic emotional need on a “part”-oriented basis amongst the members of the group, so that there is less reluctance to express anger even if it is done so in a recognizable way, and particularly when it makes everyone laugh. This is just what meets the basic emotional need so well, and keeps recently stored anger in the unconscious at low levels in a closely-knit infantry squad in combat, in spite of an immensely adverse reality. An infantry squad’s members can be getting rid of anger almost as fast as it is being formed, not only in a very recognizable way with what they angrily do to the enemy in combat, but also with their extended talking with each other, when they have opportunity to do so. But they may not be able to do either with overwhelming enemy forces. Neither can they when they are subjected to continuing physical or mental exhaustion, or any physical illness that greatly diminishes their ability to express recognizable anger in battle, or to express both recognizable and unrecognizable anger in their extended talking with buddies. Not being able on a regular basis to express anger, in any way it can be done, and not being able to sufficiently meet one’s basic emotional need enough to be emotionally comfortable, can easily lead to becoming a psychiatric casualty from too little emotional strength. An insufficiently met basic emotional need, and too much stored anger, result in inadequate levels of emotional strength and a wide variety of possible resulting emotional problems.
With a more adequately met basic emotional need and less stored anger, as we can have by regularly engaging in the talking of a group of our own choosing, any stressful, disappointing, or hurtful event will be coped with better than what it would be with an inadequately met basic emotional need, from not enough time in talking. To say that coping better is a result of learning “coping skills,” rather than from a high level of emotional strength, is analogous to someone saying that you have to learn to run up a flight of stairs with less effort. It’s analogous to someone saying you have to learn to think better of yourself if you have been feeling “down” on yourself. Thinking better of yourself, like having a better self-image, isn’t learned, like many people might have us believe. Thinking better of yourself, or having a better self-image, which is feeling more acceptable about yourself, follows meeting better your basic emotional need. You have a better self-image, and more optimism, with a better met basic emotional need. Unless you meet better your basic emotional need, you won’t think better of yourself by any learning, and you won’t be optimistic. But when you do meet better your basic emotional need, which you might easily do in an unrecognizable way, and you do appear to think better of yourself, and you are more optimistic, it may then appear as though you’ve “learned” to do this, and that’s a big deception. We build emotional strength; we think better of ourselves; and we are more optimistic, a lot less by any learning, and a lot more by the hidden emotional process of meeting more of what is unmet of our basic emotional need, and by decreasing the stored anger we have. It’s our increased emotional strength that can decrease our perception of any stress, disappointment, loss, or pain. With diminished emotional strength, those perceptions can be greatly exaggerated and may then become a cause for opioid addiction or alcoholism.
Rationalizing a high level of emotional strength produces another big deception. When I asked that highly decorated combat veteran why he didn’t feel terror every day he was on the front lines, he told me it was because of his carrying a “lucky” silver dollar that his mother had given him. Other combat soldiers have told me they always carried into combat a “lucky something,” such as a small photo of their sweetheart, a protective charm, a small Bible, or a religious medal. Some have told me they always said a certain prayer when they entered battle. One combat veteran told me that he and his three infantry squad buddies tore a dollar bill into four equal parts with each person taking a part which was always carried into battle. All these talismans that were carried into combat, were each symbolic of relationships that had met well their basic emotional need which might remind us of small children closely carrying their comforting “blankies,” or favorite stuffed toy animals wherever they go. What these children want carried with them are predicate-equated with relationships, and parts of relationships, that have met well their basic emotional need. Special relationships, and the very personal things the soldiers carried into battle, were also unconsciously predicate-equated, and because of this, keeping those things close to them could meet better their basic emotional need. Having a well met basic emotional need, these soldiers felt less fear of combat, perceived less stress, and were more confident and optimistic of any combat outcome. Combat soldiers would then later attribute their good fortune in not having been killed, wounded, or a psychiatric casualty, to these symbolic things they carried with them that were predicate-equated with what had met well their basic emotional need in the past, including any prayer. But their feeling before battle of being well protected from harm, and that accompanying optimistic feeling that everything will be all right, came from that increased emotional strength they had, which had recently arisen from a more well-met basic emotional need. It’s the more well-met basic emotional need that provided the emotional strength for combat. Whatever else these soldiers might have given as a reason for emotionally doing so well in combat could have been more of a deception, even if it might have sounded very believable.
If we enhance the build-up of our emotional strength by engaging more in re-occurring group talking, under the guise of some reality reason to get together on a regular basis with friends, we too can contend better with any frustration of our basic emotional need. Our continuing to engage in re-occurring group talking can meet more of our basic emotional need when our basic emotional need is continually being frustrated by the circumstances of our reality. We see this substantiated best with soldiers contending with the immense stress of continued combat who have opportunity for extended talking on the squad level, as opposed to soldiers who don’t have opportunity for such talking because of the circumstances of their combat. A wounded soldier contends better with his wound when he has opportunity to talk with a buddy. Combat circumstances can greatly vary in presenting opportunities for soldiers to sit around and talk. When there’s no time for talk, and more intense combat, we can expect higher psychiatric casualty rates. With a better met basic emotional need from opportunities to talk with a group of friends, and less stored anger, we, like combat soldiers, can handle better any immense sudden frustration of our basic emotional need that might come about as a very recognizable major traumatic event. Just as importantly, we can cope much better with the stress and anxiety that might come about more as a result of unrecognized unconscious “part”-oriented frustrations of our basic emotional need, the accumulated amount of which might easily surpass that about which a person might have to cope from a single recognizable major traumatic event. Perhaps this
