The Tracker's Journal: What Exactly Is a "Faux" Feeling?

One of the unexpected gifts of writing a book is the feedback that makes you think harder about what you thought you already knew.

I've been working on Tracking Triggers: From Reactivity to Responsiveness, and a thoughtful reader recently pushed back on something fundamental: my framing of "faux feelings."

Her response was direct: "By your definition, all feelings are subjective, processed emotions, which inherently implies a level of subjective judgment, regardless of what the subjective feeling is. Whether the feeling is 'I feel sad' or 'I feel disrespected,' the cognitive and bodily experience of this feeling is just as real to the person, ergo the feeling seems to me to be just as real."

She's right. And her feedback sent me back through the manuscript with fresh eyes.

The Problem with My Original Framing

In my original draft, I had written things like:

"They're not emotions; they're not feelings; they're conclusions. Judgments dressed up as feelings."

"These sound like emotional honesty, but they're conclusions that keep you locked in the narrative of what someone else did to you."

"Each one masks genuine feelings and points to unmet needs."

The language implied that faux feelings are somehow fake, that the experience behind them isn't real, that they're deceptions the mind plays on itself. Words like "masks," "disguises," and "judgments dressed up as feelings" all suggested that something false was happening.

But that contradicts my own logic. If all feelings are subjective, processed experience, then the experience behind "I feel disrespected" is just as real as the experience behind "I feel sad." The sensation in your body, the charge in your mind, is not fake or imagined. Calling one experience "genuine" while treating another as "faux" doesn't hold.

What the Feedback Revealed

The reader understood exactly what I was trying to say: that some feeling-words are shaped more by our past experiences and unconscious filters than by what's happening in the moment. That's an important distinction. But my framing was locating the problem in the experience itself, when the real issue is in the language.

The term "faux feelings" comes from Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication work. He identified a category of words that sound like feelings but actually contain interpretations about another person's actions or intent. "Disrespected," "betrayed," "ignored," "controlled." These words don't just name an internal state. They imply a narrative about what someone did to you.

The experience is real. The word choice determines where your attention goes.

A Revised Framing

I've kept the term "faux feelings," but I've completely reframed what makes them "faux." The distinction is now linguistic, not experiential.

Here's how I now define it:

Faux feelings are feeling-words that embed interpretations about another person's intent. They don't just name an internal state; they imply a narrative about what someone did to you. The experience behind these words is fully real. What makes them "faux" is that the language points outward rather than inward.

The key distinction: "I feel hurt" points inward, toward your own experience. "I feel disrespected" points outward, toward someone else's actions, motives, or character. Both arise from real experience. But they lead in different directions: one toward your own feelings and needs, the other toward the story of what was done to you.

What This Shift Accomplishes

This reframing does several things.

It validates the experience. When you say "I feel disrespected," something real is happening in your body and mind. That's not fake, and it's not wrong.

It locates the issue in the language, not the person. The problem isn't that you're having the wrong experience. The problem is that certain words carry extra cargo: an interpretation of someone else's intent.

It makes the work directional, not corrective. The goal isn't to replace a "fake" feeling with a "real" one. The goal is to turn attention inward, from what was done to you toward what's alive in you.

It honors both dimensions. The external event may warrant a response. And your reaction reveals something that requires your compassionate attention. Both can be true.

The Invitation

If you've been using "faux feelings" to mean fake feelings, that's understandable. My original framing invited that reading. But I'm inviting you to try a different frame.

Instead of asking "Is this a real feeling or a faux one?" (which judges validity), try asking "Where is this feeling-word pointing my attention?" (which notices direction).

"I feel disrespected" points outward. What happens if you turn inward? What feeling lives beneath the interpretation? What need is asking to be seen?

That's where the real tracking begins.