Emotionally Stunted through Poker???

Ste05

The following post by MrPillowTalk in RoundTower's "Well" hit a nerve with me and I thought it'd be a good idea to start a discussion to see if other people may have experienced similar things.

MrPillowTalk wrote:

Would you consider yourself to be considerably different from when you started playing, ie do you react with a more logical viewpoint on life and less emotional involvement? As an example of what I mean, recently a close freind of mines father died, a man I knew well and liked, however when I was at the funeral and everyone was crying etc as he was very young to kick it, all I could think of whilst this was going on was how I hoped he had adequate life insurance and that his business would struggle to survive without him to run it. All in all I was quite unaffected by the whole thing much less than I thought I would be and it occured to me that the discipline of controlling my emotions for poker may have had a detrimental affect on my emotional well being, would you imagine this has happened to you?

Personally I've found myself very cold to alot of things that I would think should have had a much larger emotional impact on me. I've kind of put it down to the point in my Poker life when I finally grasped the true concept of "The Long Term" and how short term results in everything and everyday matters, not just Poker, are completely meaningless, hence my somewhat emotional detachment from alot of everyday things. I could go on for pages about this point trying to articulate it properly, but I thought I'd just see if anyone else had any thoughts on the subject before I continue.

Overall, is it good or is it bad for our emotional well being??

RedJoker

Having an emotional detachment is very useful in other fields as well such as investing. Being able to control your emotions is hugely important there too. Personally I haven't noticed much difference in myself but I never really was an emotional sort of person.

MrPillowTalk

A level of emotional unattachment is probably a big plus in poker, business and logic related disciplines.

Emotional unattachment is obviously a big negative in maintaining interpersonal relationships, poker develops your skills at understanding someone elses emotional state however stops you really having any level of empathy, you understand what someone is feeling probably better than most however you sympathise rather than empathise imo.

5starpool

I am regularly described as a heartless bástard.

Fatboydim

I would say it has very little to do with poker and a lot to do with being a man.

I would also say it has a lot to do with the way that we have become removed from death in the modern world.

A seeming lack of emotion doesn't mean that there is no emotion.

However I seriously think if you believe you are that effected by playing poker then perhaps you should find other outlets. As if nothing else you will become a very boring person.

phantom_lord

yeah, definitely. I'm generally very apathetic and detached from stuff that happens around me.

it's probably a bad thing, but i don't really care.

Ste05

I actually have alot of stuff to write about this topic, but I'm gonna wait til the morning to write about it as I want to get some more opinions first and see where the discussion leads.

Basically I kind of view it as a chicken and egg type scenario. Do we have to be emotionally stunted to succeed in the first place or does the study and playing of Poker inevitably lead to an emotional detachment that can stunt a persons emotional outlets, as good poker needs complete control over our emotions and the ability to take a major set back and seemlessly move onto the next hand, without a second thought.

I agree this also is huge in other aspects of life and I have thoughts on that too, but I'll wait til tomorrow for that post.

Doc Farrell

Fatboydim wrote:

I would say it has very little to do with poker and a lot to do with being a man.

I would also say it has a lot to do with the way that we have become removed from death in the modern world.

A seeming lack of emotion doesn't mean that there is no emotion.

However I seriously think if you believe you are that effected by playing poker then perhaps you should find other outlets. As if nothing else you will become a very boring person.

I was about to say the same in 5000 words. Poker attracts (and I'm talking about me here) people who are slightly obsessive, nerdy, intellectually arrogant and introspective. So does internet forums.

But yes, I would say that as soon as you find yourself taking the game too seriously then its probably too late for you. Its a great hobby but an awful waste of a life.

I intend to play in bigger games soon but I hope they will never take up as much time and emotion as they did a few years ago when I needed the money.

I'm not trying to tell people how to spend their money, but it is just a game and therefore one of the least constructive things you can do with your life.

I noticed how many people looked miserable playing over the weekend, as if they were tied to the card table. If you (the gentle reader rather than Steo per se) have become that intensely preoccupied fellow then it really is time to take a break.

I do actually love the game, I just hate to see people destroying themselves emotionally and financially because of it.

oh well.... its probably a mistake writing this as only those who have been through it will agree with me. However anyone who vehemently disagrees should try to be aware of what they are really afraid of and projecting from within themselves. Enjoy the sunshine this week folks!

(man, i wish i was playing in Vegas)

David Michael

Fatboydim wrote:

I would say it has very little to do with poker and a lot to do with being a man.

I'd agree. We are as a result of our senses. I can imagine how poker will let you control your emotions but the fact remains you still feel the emotions. Being unfeeling is a different kettle of fish.

DeVore

Its has a lot to do with logic imho. The application of logic when all else is screaming at you in the chaos of a situation is a rare enough skill and a valuable one. People who scream and run around flapping their hands are fnck all use in a crisis like a car accident etc.

Personally I find emotions have their place but there is a ridiculous over-emphasis on them in modern society. We all have to be in touch with our inner selves, our inner child, our shakra's and auras. Most "emotion" is self-pitious crap anyway. "oh poor me, my daddy didnt buy me that pony/skateboard/Nikes. I'm an abuse victim with attachment issues".

I dont mean that everyone should walk around being heartless, I dont think many would describe me as that. I was certainly a lot more "emotional" (read: unstable) before entering college and studying logic etc.

If poker does this to you, perhaps its a good thing. One of the things that sets man apart from the animals is his ability to put logical choice ahead of base instinct. That, is a good thing.

DeV.

Iago

I would definitely sit in the camp of emotional detachment before poker.

It's no secret that a lot of players of games such as backgammon or chess are poker players also. It's no secret that there's a high co-orellation between people who have a background in IT or IT based subjects and that also play poker.

I've always been very emotionally detached in all aspects of my life, I've been called cold and heartless more often than I can count. It's not that I don't care, because I do, but I can and do look at things from a logical point of view and emotional outporings for the most part serve no purpose. Far better that I can analyse a situation and come up with a solution rather than getting tied up in emotional responses that muddy the water.

David Michael

DeVore wrote:

Its has a lot to do with logic imho. The application of logic when all else is screaming at you in the chaos of a situation is a rare enough skill and a valuable one. People who scream and run around flapping their hands are fnck all use in a crisis like a car accident etc.

Personally I find emotions have their place but there is a ridiculous over-emphasis on them in modern society. We all that to be in touch with our inner selves, our inner child, our shakra's and auras. Most "emotion" is self-pitious crap anyway. "oh poor me, my daddy didnt buy me that pony/skateboard/Nikes. I'm an abuse victim with attachment issues".

I dont mean that everyone should walk around being heartless, I dont think many would describe me as that I was certainly a lot more "emotional" (read: unstable) before entering college and studying logic etc.

If poker does this to you, perhaps its a good thing. One of the things that sets man apart from the animals is his ability to put logical choice ahead of base instinct. That, is a good thing.

DeV.

I take it you didn't cry when Princess Di passed on.

DeVore

One more thing... Mr PT said: As an example of what I mean, recently a close freind of mines father died, a man I knew well and liked, however when I was at the funeral and everyone was crying etc as he was very young to kick it, all I could think of whilst this was going on was how I hoped he had adequate life insurance and that his business would struggle to survive without him to run it.

The loss of a single human life is regretable and sad, as it should be. But someone during such a period needs to plan and organise the coffin, the hearse, the church, the newspaper notice etc. I have a major problem with funerals in general but frequently, too frequently people ignore the intrusive fact that life goes on. Who's going to put food on their table? What will the workers in the factory do? Grief is a natural process but if you didnt know him well, I wouldnt expect a lot of it. The fact is that Eoin's thoughts went for the practical because sh*t goes on and thats something that we all have to face.

DeV.
ps: No, I didnt cry for Diana. I dont see emotion itself as a bad thing by the way, just when its given free reign over your faculties.

Goodluck2me

5starpool wrote:

I am regularly described as a hairless bástard.

FYP


In my opinion it is more of an asset than a detriment to be emotionally detached, if you can see the overall picture, that at the end of the day "its just s game of cards" it helps, a bad beat is so insignificant in the big scheme of things that it should barely bother you at all. Serious player can see that, and oftne bodes success.
outside of poker it helps to be able to think clearly in spots where other panics, like an unusual situation when driving or comin to the scene of an accident. I guess it doesnt apply to relationships in the sense that each one is supposed to be the be all and end all, but if you look at if from the other side and say well if this is the person youll spend your life with then one fight/mistake is insignificant. so therefore it should be helpful rather than detrimental.

Jam-Fly

Here's one of Daniel Negreanu's blogs which is pretty relevant here I think

I think I must have been 19 years old when my dog died. He was an old dog and pretty sick so it didn't really come as a shock, but still that was a significant loss considering the fact that I'd been close with Lucky for almost 13 years.
I remember when I got the news like it was yesterday. I was in the shower and my father came in screaming, "Lucky's dead! He's dead!" My dad was totally broken down. He looked as though he didn't want to go on.
My brother's reaction was eerily similar. He actually punched holes through his bedroon wall. My brother is a big guy and can do a lot of damage when he loses it.
So I see my brother broken down, my father a crying mess... so why then did I not cry? I loved my dog just as much as they did, but for some reason I was unable to access my emotions? Well here's why:

By that time I'd already been playing poker on a daily basis and I was getting better and better. My knowledge base was steadily growing, my reading ability was improving, and MOST importantly my emotional control was becoming more stable.

So as I was getting better and better at hiding my emotions I think that ability spilled over to my personal life and had a negative effect on me. It basically numbed my heart, and that's not something I wanted as a by-product of being a good poker player.

Being conscious of it helped obviously. I realized I guess, that I didn't need to be that much of a "hard ass" to become a great poker player and in time I was back to normal for the most part.

Looking back at that time is really bizarre. I don't know if any of you have gone through or are going through anything like that right now, but if you are you need to recognize it now.

In my columns I always re-iterate the fact that emotional stability is important at the poker table. I want to make it clear to you all though, that it's "ok" to cry when your dog dies. And it's "ok" to feel great about meeting a new girl. Keep your cool at the tables, but for heaven's sakes don't numb your heart.

Macspower

daniel negaeanu " don't numb your heart"

I think I'm ok so far... the river still makes me cry :rolleyes:

interesting thread BTW

NeoSlicerZ

Most definately in the emotionally detached before poker..

I was about to say the same in 5000 words. Poker attracts (and I'm talking about me here) people who are slightly obsessive, nerdy, intellectually arrogant and introspective. So does internet forums.

...this really, really fits me all too well. Thankfully I'm getting slightly better at hiding it... o.o

MrPillowTalk

Personally I find it more disturbing that they dont lock the bathroom door and walk in on each other in the shower in the Negreanu house than the fact he didnt cry when his dog died

opr

Ste05 wrote:

Personally I've found myself very cold to alot of things that I would think should have had a much larger emotional impact on me. I've kind of put it down to the point in my Poker life when I finally grasped the true concept of "The Long Term" and how short term results in everything and everyday matters little

This is something that really strikes a cord with me. The way i think towards alot of stuff in my life has changed as a result of poker and i am not sure its in a good way.

I write more on this tommorow but need some sleep at the minute.

Opr

bell_boy

5starpool wrote:

I am regularly described as a heartless bástard.

And that's by people who like you

El Stuntman

I'd be more worried about the physical implications myself....

Hippo

DeVore wrote:

Its has a lot to do with logic imho. The application of logic when all else is screaming at you in the chaos of a situation is a rare enough skill and a valuable one. People who scream and run around flapping their hands are fnck all use in a crisis like a car accident etc.

Personally I find emotions have their place but there is a ridiculous over-emphasis on them in modern society. We all have to be in touch with our inner selves, our inner child, our shakra's and auras. Most "emotion" is self-pitious crap anyway. "oh poor me, my daddy didnt buy me that pony/skateboard/Nikes. I'm an abuse victim with attachment issues".

I dont mean that everyone should walk around being heartless, I dont think many would describe me as that. I was certainly a lot more "emotional" (read: unstable) before entering college and studying logic etc.

If poker does this to you, perhaps its a good thing. One of the things that sets man apart from the animals is his ability to put logical choice ahead of base instinct. That, is a good thing.

DeV.

Of course poker encourages logical thinking; an emotional poker player is never going to be a good one. However I think you have to be careful how far into 'real life' you extend the priciple of purely, or even mainly, logical action. Your emotions are, or should be, a vital part of your psychological make up precisely because you have so little control over them. The ability to feel and then process your emotions,and then act appropriately is not only healthy, it's profoundly human.

While it's true that the ability to 'put logical choice ahead of base instinct' is one of the things that set man apart from the animals, so is the experiencing of feeling an emotion. To take an extreme example, of course you need someone clear-headed at the scene of an accident, someone who can take control and act rationally. It's unrealistic however to expect someone who's
nearest and dearest is trapped in the wreckage to act nice and detached about it, neither should they be able to! I apologise or any rambling here, a result of constant work interruptions. In a nutshell, any activity that encourages rational logical thinking and is practised an extreme amount of the time (as is probably fair to say of many poker players) will surely affect that person's responses in their lives outside of that activity. That is not a healthy thing. That is acting like a robot.

5starpool

bell_boy wrote:

And that's by people who like you

Cheers Laurence

marius

Hippo wrote:

To take an extreme example, of course you need someone clear-headed at the scene of an accident, someone who can take control and act rationally. It's unrealistic however to expect someone who's
nearest and dearest is trapped in the wreckage to act nice and detached about it,

qft

Hippo wrote:

neither should they be able to! .

not sure about this bit, if they can they can - if they can't they can't, there is no right or wrong way to deal with something like this or to feel about something like this.



I think that people like 'us' tend to try to analyse everything we are feeling etc. as it is a big part of the emotional control required to be a good player. I think that 'emotionally healthy' people are able to just feel without thinking about it - and to be totally ok with doing this and the results of doing this.

The only time you should ever worry about this, is when you are actively trying to suppress the way you are feeling about something or trying to pretend to yourself that you are not feeling something. Having a 'logical' response to someones death as normal as having a very emotional response. Neither are right or wrong imo.

Hippo

[/QUOTE]
I think that people like 'us' tend to try to analyse everything we are feeling etc. as it is a big part of the emotional control required to be a good player. I think that 'emotionally healthy' people are able to just feel without thinking about it - and to be totally ok with doing this and the results of doing this.

The only time you should ever worry about this, is when you are actively trying to suppress the way you are feeling about something or trying to pretend to yourself that you are not feeling something. Having a 'logical' response to someones death as normal as having a very emotional response. Neither are right or wrong imo.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't really disagree with any of this, and I think you put it more cogently than I did. I was arguing with Devore's rather extreme (it seemed to me) views on the dangers of acknowledging or responding to one's emotions at all.

marius

Hippo wrote:

I wouldn't really disagree with any of this, and I think you put it more cogently than I did. I was arguing with Devore's rather extreme (it seemed to me) views on the dangers of acknowledging or responding to one's emotions at all.

Hippo - I was pretty much agreeing with what you said - the last bit of my post was a general thing - not actually aimed at your post...

I think that Dev is right and wrong, he is deffo correct to say that there is a lot of BS out there with regards to people being told they should be emotionally reacting to things and that they are emotionally stunted if they are not in touch with their inner child etc. I think he is totally wrong when he says

Dev wrote:

Most "emotion" is self-pitious crap anyway. "oh poor me, my daddy didnt buy me that pony/skateboard/Nikes. I'm an abuse victim with attachment issues".

But I wasn't taking this too seriously - I felt he was going over the top intentionally to try to emphasise his point - I could be wrong..:D

Dev - If you are serious I think it is a bit ott, there is nothing wrong at all with being emotional, logic is certainly one of the things that seperates us from the animals and the ability to not react to everything using your basest feelings, but suppression of all emotion is just as bad as having an emotional over-reaction to everything.

Suppression of emotion makes little baby jesus cry - FACT

Tar.Aldarion

I don't believe playing poker has changed me at all. I'm still slightly obsessive and intellectually arrogant. I can see how people think controlling their oput bursts after bad beats etc helps them.
I know friends fathers like that, know them well and like them. I don't imagine I would grieve too much unless the person that died was quite close. In this case, i wouldn't mind too much that the person had died.
I don't think poker affects our emotional 'wellbeing' too much, and empathy levels shouldn't be raised or lowered too much, but all I have to go on is me.

BrokenArrows

People who play poker long term are more likely to be able to bottle up their emotions. This is not an after affect of playing poker but they play poker because they can be detached.

The people who shout and break down after a bad beat and spend huge ammouns of time complaining are the ones who are not going to be playing poker long term. But those who can shrug it off after a short period of time will play long term.

As the OP said he didnt feel that bad at a funeral. Well ive never felt much at funerals either. I would find my mind wandering to other topics. But i was always like that, not just since ive been playing poker.

Mr.Plough

El Stuntman wrote:

I'd be more worried about the physical implications myself....

same.

AmarilloFats

Crying/laughing are only physical manifestations of emotions.
If you dont have tear ducts/tongue/have quadriplegia you can still be emotional.

"Suddenly you will find yourself living in an altogether different world, infinitely removed from the world of the people around you, for everything that others hold dear, everything they are crying their hearts out for - honour, power, acceptance, approval, security, wealth - is seen for the stinking garbage that it is. It disgusts and nauseates." Antoney de Mello

No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions - he had money, too. "Margaret Thatcher "

NickyOD

The one and only way an emotional detatchment from poker can help you is through tilt control, but if you have a passion for the game then you cannot play without emotion and if you do then your game is unlikely to ever improve.

hotspur

If I were describing the psychological characteristics most suitable for being a successful poker player I would include - being a psychopath. A psychopath has no empathy for others, is a cold, calculating, and manipulative liar who is utterly selfish. Pretty good poker player wouldn't you say?

Also people seem to get confused about logic and emotion. Being logical in no way implies a lack of emotionality. Logic is an intellectual understanding of theoretical relationships and is something which can be taught. How one behaves may then be informed by logic to make correct decisions, but it doesn't mean that the person isn't experiencing the same strength of emotion as anyone else. People make attributions based on behaviour about the kind of person one is, but just because someone is acting logically it doesn't mean they aren't emotional. Maybe poker players are confused about this - feeling emotion about poker is fine, acting based on it is wrong.

Anyway logic is no great trick, 1/3rd of people reach the cognitive stage of formal operational thinking as described by Piaget in which they reach the stage of being capable of logical thought, and you deveop it in your teens. That's why 16-18 year olds act like they know everything - they are enamoured of the omnipotence of logic which they have newly acquired, they think they can know anything by applying logical thought to it. That often continues throughout undergraduate level, but hopefully as the person matures both intellectually and as a person they will come to see logic as something very basic and a mere background to developing values and philosophical beliefs.

I would say that most poker players who are unemotional were that way to begin with. But what I think poker can do is inculate in players the need to be philosophical about the vicissitudes of life due to an understanding of probability. A more prosaic way of saying that is : realising sh1t happens! The people who react most negatively to something bad happening to them, such as mugging or violence, are people who hold a "just world" view, that is they think that the world is a fair place. A poker player knows that everything is just a matter of probabilty and chance. If they get mugged their life view is not shattered, it's just something lousy that happened that was pretty unlikely but possible. That philosophy doesn't affect one's emotional reaction at the very time of it, but it will affect subsequent emotional reaction and psychological handling of it.

This has nothing to do with logic at all, it has to do with not being surprised by things that happen because we constantly assess likelihoods, constantly experience unlikely events, and disappointments at them. I have found myself reacting to some things with the mental response "standard" But I'd quit tomorrow if I thought it was making me emotionally unreactive in a way that mattered. I would suggest that anyone who feels that it is is probably misattributing it to playing poker itself rather than their lifestyle in which they play poker. Like an alcoholic's problem is not merely an effect of drinking. The truth is that poker, as a highly immersive activity, is apt to be used by some people to retreat from life and other people, and *that* can affects one emotionally.

The above waste of time can be attributed to my sitting here with a cold too sick to do anything constructive. *cough*

sikes

outstanding.

Ste05

Excellent post as always Hotspur, I was hoping you'd have a view on the topic. The fourth paragraph in particular I think explained my thinking quite well.

Lazare

Excellent post Hotspur.
I find myself saying 'standard' a lot too in everyday situations

It's a good point you made about poker players understanding and accepting probability in life in general. A recent example of this was a discussion I had with some friends about that girl that went missing in Portugal. My friends were saying they'd be a little worried about going for a holiday there, and tourism in that area will suffer because of that attitude by people. Whereas the likelyhood of a similar incident happening to their children is so far remote. I argued that saying you won't go to Portugal because a child went missing, is akin to saying you're going to France because someone there won the Euromillions.

For me, I think poker has changed for the better how I react to and feel about everyday situations.

Wombatman

Super post hotspur. I now feel it is acceptable for me to weep for up to five minuets when my aces are cracked, but for no longer.

Vamos

Great post hotspur. I read a post in Chris Fargis blog and it explained burnout in poker due to the emotional stress involved, which has some relavancy here. The better you can handle the negative "pangs" the better player you'll be.

Here is part of the post taken from here http://twentyoneoutstwice.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-i-hate-poker.html

"Anyway there's a section in this book (at the end of Chapter 3) that's about how people react to positive and negative events in their lives. The main idea of the piece is that negative "pangs," as the author Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls them, are felt more strongly by people than positive ones.
An estimate in the text states that negative events are thought to be as high as 2.5 times stronger than positive ones. Taleb says that traders who examine their positions too frequently burn out because of the emotional defecit brought on by the imbalance in the way we feel positive and negative events.
Even an excellent trader has less than a 50.2% chance of success in any given minute. The rate only increases to 54% if results are examined daily, but goes all the way to 93% if we look yearly."

opr

I wish you posted more Hotspur. Really great post.

Opr

DeVore

Hippo, at the scene of an accident I would expect people who are close relatives to be highly emotional. However I disagree that they SHOULD be.

They are distressed because someone they love is in mortal danger. They would like for them to be ok.

X = probability of the loved one being ok if the relative is highly emotional.
Y = probability of the loved one being ok if the relative is cool headed and logical

Y > X

Since the outcome "loved one is ok" is the single vector for success here, clearly being cool headed is better then being emotional. Most emergency response people will tell you that the first thing they do on the scene of an accident is try to calm everything down.


Also, you say: I was arguing with Devore's rather extreme (it seemed to me) views on the dangers of acknowledging or responding to one's emotions at all.

I'm not sure where I said that. I think emotions need to be in the mix but they are a part of the whole, they dont run the show on their own. Passion is one thing, I can be very passionate about some topics, but I also force myself to realise that I am no longer as rational as before. I allow myself anger and pasion in small doses rather then binging on them and overdosing.
Sometimes they can be harnessed to provide impetus for action "I feel so angry about X that I am going to do something about it". But the point arrives where cooler heads need to prevail.

DeV.