At their best negative emotions tell us when things are not right, they sound alarm bells that warn and protect us. At their worst the alarms never stop ringing and trap us in repeating cycles of fear, anger, sadness or negativity.

Negative emotions have their place, however the issue many of us face is learning how to keep them there.

Quick question. As you mentioned, negative emotions are information about our lives and our environment. Given this, and the appropriate context/severity, would it perhaps be better to strive to eliminate the specific negative emotion entirely? Alternatively, could there be times when harboring the negative emotions (essentially letting them drive you) could actually be beneficial to a situation?

-Marc

This was a very helpful article. Most often we associate negative emotions with the affects and negative consequences that they often bring. Instead we should appreciate the emotions and use them constructively. In reading the article, one question came to mind. Is it possible that increasing positive emotions after experiencing negative can hinder us from exploring the whole “iceburg”? In other words, can the increased positive emotions serve as a cover up for our negative emotions?

Thank you!

What do you think is a good way to open up a conversation with a family member about this subject? More specifically, I am close to my sister emotionally but not in proximity. We have not been around each other often for years so much of the growth that I have gained is not always something that affects her growth positive way. I would love to discuss with her the notion that “negative” is not synonymous with “bad” as I feel that the slight change in perspective is not just semantics, but essential to a healthy outlook.

Of course this isn’t therapy (LOL) but I thought any opinion of yours may help shed some objectivity on the situation. When I have big ideas like this, I tend to sound a little “out there” or a little too “peace on earth”-ish when I intend to sound intelligent : ) Thanks again for your contribution!

Jenn Veit

First, let’s start with the numbers and their properties. The ratio, for the public, is 3:1. For scientists is 2.901315789. You cannot ask people to try for 2.901315789 for every negative. 3 to 1 is good enough. Some people say that my number is unreal. It depends on what kind of reality we are talking about. When I work with teams and code their P/N ratio I use a counting device in my ipod so that I can do this under the table, trying to interfere the least with the team interacion process. At the end I look at my numerator (positivity) and denominator (negativity). Those numbers are always integers, of course. But their ratio, most of the time is not! It’s rather rare to find an integer. So which are more real: the fractions or the integers? Funny enough, the “real” numbers in math comprise both the integers and the fractions. And because we are deling with a nonlinear process (all complex human interaction is nonlinear) we need as many decimals as those numerators and denominators can generate. Remember what happened to Lorenz when he tried to put less decimal than he got at the beginning? That is call sensitivity to initial conditions and we have to respect it if we want to find our way in the laberyth of human interaction.

Second, I didn’t discover a 3 to zero ratio. Or a 2.901315789 to zero ratio, to be precise. There was a 1 in that denominator. A big 1 which, among others things makes division posible. That 1 is not something we want to get rid of. This is the 1 you’re talking about in your excellent article, Dave. Life requires nonlinear control. Our hearts do, our brain does. Nonlinear control can only be achieved with an adequate proportion of positive to negative feedback. You take away the negative feedback and the system goes to a limit cycle losing its complexity; energy is not renovated, it becomes stale. You take away the positive feedback and the system goes to a fixed-point attractor; energy is exhausted. The power of PP lies in undertanding and helping people to use this proportion. Preaching the positive in detriment of the negative is not good even for robots. If you want them to achieve complex tasks they will need both positive and negative feedback. Probably, a 3 to 1 ratio if we want them to flourish.

Also, from Barbara Fredrickson’s and Marcial Losada’s work, we know that a ratio of positive to negative emotions of 1:1 or less is extremely counterproductive for an individual, couple, or team. When positives to negatives run around 2:1, the individual, couple, or team languishes. Only at 3:1 or higher does the broadening of thought and building of resources associated with positive emotions create flourishing. Focusing on challenging pessimistic thinking can be one way of improving the positivity ratio. So can mindfulness meditation, exercise, doing the Three Good Things exercise, etc.