so, since this posted in the "inspired by actualism" seciton, allow me to interpret via whatever actualdlfjhadsljfhl i think i know/have practiced.
ignoring is to acknowledge and then set aside, yep. and going further with the possible reason people are having trouble with suppression, dissociation, not really reducing impacts of emotions that you've touched on here:
eis:
if a person is ruminating and dwelling on some negative thought or feeling, it is clear that their attitude towards the thing is not dispassionate, but is fueling it. However, even the act of actively attending to something ("going and looking at it") fuels it, and so a countermeasure to that, a way to remove the fuel, is to withdraw from the active act of attention.
emotion pops up, sticks around for however long, might stick around longer if there's a ton of proliferation or diving deep into it. the unrefined practitioner starts investigating the emotion *while* it is still present. proliferate, proliferate, maximize, delusion, head spin, emotion deepens and changes course, turns into something else, one loses track of what initial emotion was.
the refined practitioner treats it like this... emotion pops up, is not entertained, goes away. important: it goes away (on its own). *then* the line of questioning begins as to what belief, idea, identity thing brought it up in the first place. the mind at this point, after the emotion has gone away (it's best to wait til back at ee or pce... even neutral gets scant results), is clear and sensible and can reason objectively (without the delusional tailspin that would have occurred had investigation started in the midst of the emotion). memory structures/thought processes related to emotions can then be broken down - dispassion for the emotion, and untangling of the proliferation. voila!
i know this second version might seem really simple and obvious... but i'm guessing alot of people are still doing the first version.