I have noticed that often when I am at a party, a meeting, or any event where people gather around a table—be it a coffee, dining, or conference table—there is a tendency to be more vocal if one discusses something that elicits strong emotions—and what elicits strong emotions are most often topics dealing with controversial matters, difficult situations, scary stories, and potential disasters. Complaints and negative comments have a stronger impact than positive utterances.
The tone and volume of the voice, of someone saying, “This is terrible” is louder and has more impact than “This is lovely.” So, if we want to be heard and get attention, we need to say something not only interesting, but startling. And startling is often something bad.
To wit, our newspapers sell better with stories of tsunamis, fires, epidemics and bombings. Why is this so? We need to listen to these news as a survival mechanism, just in case any of this happens to us, maybe we can be prepared better by knowing about these events. Also, there is a component of “There, but for the grace of God, go I,” with a feeling of relief that it is not happening to us.
The problem with this is the contagion effect. When I sit at a table and everyone is down on something, my own mood changes to feeling low. I have also noticed the opposite: when I make an effort to be funny and excited about a topic, the mood becomes more upbeat for everyone else too.
There is also the issue of being the different voice. We all want to fit in, be a member of, part of a group, integrated. If most of the people are negative, making the only positive comment puts us outside the group. This is more difficult for some people whose level of self-confidence or assurance of membership is not clear.
I just came across this quote from Albert Einstein, “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions.”
It takes courage to go against the tide, to be the dissenting voice. So what makes some people able to do so? I believe it is two things. First is the strength of one’s convictions, if we believe strongly in something, we will want to influence others to see our point of view, or at least to make them aware of it. Second is a level of confidence that when we state the opposite of the popular opinion, we will not be ostracized, or that we are willing to chance loosing membership in the group.
We all have what I call a default setting. Some people are usually comfortable with voicing their opinions while others are seldom if ever able to do so. We have set ways of behaving, so it is that behavior we keep reverting to no matter how dysfunctional. There is no correct way to fit all circumstances, sometimes it is better not to speak up and other times it might be better to go for it. What is problematic is to always decide one way.
These are unconscious set points and people tend to not deviate unless made conscious of that tendency and really pushed to see the inadvisability of their positions.
We form our own self-fulfilling prophesies. If you expect to hate a movie, a party, a trip—chances are you will find something amiss. The surprise will be if all goes well. Others look forward to any and all happenings and indeed make them fun events, the surprise being if it is not.
So how can we change our default settings? It is even more important to do so in a group for there is the contagion effect—a few people in a group can influence the climate from a joyful place to a boring or sad one.
If I sit with a group of depressed people it is hard to tell jokes and laugh. On the other hand, when I come in feeling down and meet with a group of fun people, my mood can change to fit the group’s. So what to do?
If it is important to you to lead the group towards a different direction, then be all means, do so. If you’re afraid of negative consequences, then go along with the majority and don’t ruffle any feathers.
You should consider what you can handle and what price you’re willing to pay for taking chances. There is no right or wrong way, it is your way. But after you have defined your usual mode of reacting, you may want to try the opposite to see if you can broaden your range of responses.
I always find it challenging and therefore exciting—and, yes, at times scary—to sample an unfamiliar way of behaving.