There is a fundamental conceptual collapse happening in some of the reviews of Rusty Ruins the Fort and Other Important Things:

THIS is the Impulse Intelligence process: emotion → emotional reaction → impulse → behavior

THIS is the collapse: emotion = emotional reaction = impulse = behavior


That is precisely the distinction the book is asking the reader to recognize.

An emotion is not the same thing as the reaction it produces. An emotional reaction is not necessarily an impulse. An impulse is not the same thing as the behavior that ultimately follows.

They can be connected without being identical.

And once those distinctions are collapsed, the Flickerlings are easily misread.

A reviewer sees an emotional event, sees a Flickerling respond, and concludes:

Flickerling = emotion.

But that isn’t the framework the book presents.

The Flickerlings exist to make the activity occurring between an event and a person’s eventual behavior visible. They can represent thoughts, interpretations, impulses, urges, warnings, memories, competing reactions, and other internal responses.

That is why the book says:

“thoughts, emotions, and impulses can compete for attention in the same moment.”

The word “and” matters.

Thoughts are not emotions.

Emotions are not impulses.

Impulses are not behavior.

They can all occur within the same moment, interact with one another, compete for attention, and influence what happens next.

That is the entire point.

So when a review describes the Flickerlings as though they are simply a collection of emotions and then criticizes the book for having “too many emotions,” the reviewer has collapsed the very distinctions the book is attempting to make visible.

The issue isn’t that the reviewer disagrees with the framework.

The issue is that the framework appears to have been changed before it was evaluated.

The process is not the collapse.

The distinction is the point.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog