I'm able to make sense of some of my character in relation to how actual events occurred. For instance, I consider how I was my mother's strong support system whilst my father was at war. He was often away on call up from the time I was born.
So I learned to see the ability to have the correct emotional response to every situation as a matter of life and death. I consider emotions very, very important -- but also, and above all, the non-expression of emotions if someone looks like they are flaking out. I can distance myself very, very quickly when that happens -- and always do so. I don't experience my emotions, using that method -- but, above all, this is an act of charity, trying to prevent another person from experiencing their negative emotions.
So, stoicism is very deep in me, and it is also deep in Mike, who must have learned the same technique when he was five and his father died, crossing a road.
We both consider emotional management very important because it limits the damage that we could have caused our parents if we had not had strict control over our emotions.
I'm suited for a crisis -- as is Mike. But I'm not suited for everyday situations. If a child cries, and it is not a matter of life and death, that doesn't interest me. I'll wait until it is one, or I'll let someone else take care of it. I don't have a subtle variation of emotional nurturing patterns. It's kind of boring. But life and death issues pull me in.
To understand this is important, because I know I just react to emotional input differently from people who were not brought up in similarly pressing circumstances. I don't diagnose myself as having a problem I ought to set out to fix. Rather, I see myself as having the capacity to adapt to extreme circumstances, but not to those where subtle and measured responses are required. I have a character, not a pathology.
And, I think that is useful to know.