Is it good to act opposite to the emotions?

One of the concepts of DBT (dialectic behavioural therapy) is that it is possible to make the emotions follow the actions. In other words, if you do not feel very well, you should act as if you felt awesome, and soon you will feel just great. Is it always true?

Having tried this concept several times, all I can say is that it does work well when the reason of the discomfort is transient, internal, and perhaps when one is overreacting. For example, you send an email to your friend, and he does not reply, you feel disappointed, you start thinking that perhaps something happened - perhaps you annoyed your friend with what you have written, or perhaps he or she is seriously ill, etc. In such situation it is good to act as if nothing happened, and just wait - rather than turning the situation into a state of highest emergency, and applying unnecessary rescue strategies that disrupt the appropriate course of action.

But what if your friend never replies your emails on time, and this is driving you crazy? What if you feel emotionally drained by your  job? If you worry about your teenage children because they engage in the stuff that you would prefer them to stay away from? Shall you keep acting as if your friend were the best person in the world, treating you with most respect? Or shall you act as if you had your dream job? Or as if you children were most sensible in the world?

Probably not. Obviously, acting impulsively on the spur of emotion may (and probably will) be inappropriate. You will not just rebuke your friend, or yell at your boss, or ground your children forever. But in the long term you need to do something about it. It makes sense to listen to your emotions. And either you need to adjust your expectation, or change the relationship where you can, or have a serious conversation with the other party, or take some other actions to solve the problem. Action opposite to your persistent emotions probably will not help.