In the pursuit of not letting my own emotions and tendency towards avoidance of potential conflict or failure rule my actions I had the notion that no person is well served by being much more self conscious than a golden retriever. That is, their feelings remain in the moment, and then they move on.
This got me running with a few other dog metaphors that have served me well. For instance, I consider my own emotions, instincts, and drives as if they were also 'dogs'. Different dogs with different dispositions. Some fearful, running to hide at the drop of a hat. Others willful, jumping up on the table to grab the steak even though there will be hell or hangover to pay for later. Still others coiled, tense, and ready to bite.
The question is, is the measure of a (hu)man, the sum of their dogs? I would opine that the better measure is in the ability of their master to keep them on leashes of the right length, and to perhaps, if possible, train them to sit and shake when it is needed in order to act as the person that you really wish to be. Just like training a dog or strengthening ones grip on their leash it takes consistent, deliberate, exercise and it will not happen with any amount of wishful thinking or un-acted-upon research into bettering ones' self.
Stoicism seems to be a bit of a cliche of late, but I can say that it found me at the right time, and that it's brought a lot of value as a non-doctrinal system of perspective for ones' place in the universe and how to best leverage the one thing that you can actually hope to control, yourself.
I'll allow myself a feeling of pride when I reach the point that a surprise verbal assault leaves me not with an hour of bruised ego, red face, and bristling nape, but with the same neutral irritation as when the ornery dog of a negligent owner barks and growls at me in passing. After all, what's the difference if the persons belligerence has as little to teach me as the dog's? Would I vow vengeance on the dog to protect my honor? Lie awake at night wondering what I did wrong? Of course not. It proves nothing and I have better things to do.