Hip-Harpist t1_j8wfjs9 wrote
If reason is at least partially driven as a neurological function, then it would follow that an emotional brain would need to intentionally suppress that aspect of consciousness to “think clearly.”
However, humans have pre- and post-reasoning actions like anticipating and reflecting, too: if humans are emotionally responding to an argument before AND after an argument in which reason is applied, then we haven’t really separated reason from emotion yet.
The only way to mitigate this is to remove all emotion from the conversation, during as well as before and after. I find this rather disturbing as an absolute, because emotions have potential to be good drivers of instinct and direction of values. If I were a surgeon who felt nervous putting a patient on an operating table, the emotion of fear is quite valid in the reasoning to operate vs. using alternative means of treatment.
Great thoughts and discussion to be had.
JewelYin t1_j8x8g18 wrote
>If reason is at least partially driven as a neurological function, then it would follow that an emotional brain would need to intentionally suppress that aspect of consciousness to “think clearly.”
What, why? I don't follow
Manungal t1_j8xaorg wrote
Yeah, lost me in the first half.
The absence of emotion does not equal the presence of reason or vice versa.
Hip-Harpist t1_j8xf743 wrote
I might have rushed here. This first bit is where I was trying to summarize the essential debate on emotion and reasoning.
If logical reasoning is a product of the mind, and emotions are also a product of the mind, and there is a belief that emotions would disrupt reasoning, then it follows that emotions should be suppressed when one is actively applying logic to a problem.
This is especially considered where, in everyday life, people who “act on emotions” instead of logic or linear thinking are seen as impulsive or unreasonable. I don’t think that’s necessarily true, as in the case of instinctive/survival-based decisions, but that feels obvious.
Instead, I’m trying to argue that non-instantaneous decision making can take emotions into context, because outright ignoring the input of emotions is a denial of an essential part of the mind. I think emotions matter greatly as we apply reasoning to problems.
jack1509 t1_j8xhs5z wrote
I don't like to view emotions and rational thinking as if they are somehow opposite to each other or as if doing one means we are suppressing the other I think they are really interrelated to each other. Our thoughts directly influence our emotions, like you can literally think yourself to a bad mood. So I believe rational thinking plays an important role in "sorting" our emotions. I agree that emotions are "non-instaneous" and hence takes some time to manifest. That's why I think rational thinking may not instantaneously fix our mood but if practiced as a habit allows us to have greater control over our emotions over time.
Hip-Harpist t1_j8xjldd wrote
I agree with most of this, with the exception that, to an extreme, rational thinking to explain emotions can transform into immature coping mechanisms. Rationalization will “explain away” certain emotions or reactions, like when someone with extreme fear or anxiety of lightning to believe this is natural, since lightning can instantly kill you.
Likewise, “intellectualizing” is an immature mechanism where one tries to “objectively” research or study a problem, thereby depersonalizing the person from the subject. An example would be a man with pancreatic cancer avoiding his feelings on the matter by reading clinical trials, drug trials, and survival rates for his disease at the level of a doctoral candidate instead of attending to his emotional state.
But these are extremes that you certainly didn’t imply, just worth noting, and I agree that practice is needed to find a happy medium of permitting emotional recognition and using rational thinking to guide towards a good solution.
jack1509 t1_j8xmtem wrote
Yeah, very good point. Rational thinking while being in a hyper emotional state is extremely tough. I think the trick is not to rationalize every thought and emotions but rather to reach an overall state of "acceptance" that emotions can be "irrational". This is more of a practice in meditation or in stoicism that slowly gives us an ability to make rational choices while acknowledging that what we are feeling right now transcends logic and reason and the futility of having a discussion with it or indulging in it in an investigative sort of way. For example: a stoic asks himself if the anger that he is feeling adds any value to the situation at hand. He reminds himself that this rush of emotions impairs his ability to makes rational choices and it is stupid to let it control you so much. Just this reminder to yourself every time you feel anger weakens it over time.
ScienceSure t1_j8wjs42 wrote
All I can see is you have a cultivated mind. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
IAmNotAPerson6 t1_j8x9x57 wrote
They didn't really say anything lmao. It's almost literally gobbledygook still meant as reddit rationalcel cope
Hip-Harpist t1_j8xdbe0 wrote
What is your opinion on the intertwining of logic/reason and emotion? Or are you just a skeptic contrarian who won’t offer an original thought on the matter?
Tell me how you really feel.
CaptainAsshat t1_j8xb9i4 wrote
>If I were a surgeon who felt nervous putting a patient on an operating table, the emotion of fear is quite valid in the reasoning to operate
On the contrary, emotion serves as a canary in the coal mine, but you still have to know what killed the canary. It doesn't play a prominent role in the reasoning to not operate, but it does indicate that there is likely a good reason to not operate you still need to identify.
Or, rather, the emotion alerts you to an issue, but you are not going to cancel the surgery and go to your boss or the patient and say "I got a bad feeling about it." You are going to investigate that feeling using reason to find what the true problem is. If, after a thorough investigation involving second opinions, you find nothing to be the problem, you will likely ignore or downgrade your emotional concerns as reason and evidence take clear precedence.
A similar thing arises with your concept of emotion on either side of an argument. It is not working in the same capacity as reason, and thus, is not replacing it (though it may distract). It is useful as a time saving heuristic to mentally debrief and provide your rational mind with a "second opinion" that may catch something it missed. IMHO, this is not a necessary practice in exercising reason, but it is a good practice to engage other parts of your mind to support your reasoning systems as they are anything but infallible.
Hip-Harpist t1_j8xfgfb wrote
I agree with how you characterize emotions as a tool in the decision-making process. It is an available asset that supports reasoning, but certainly should not be the guiding compass.
otterfist t1_j8xlv3f wrote
There's a concept in dialectical behavior therapy called "radical acceptance", part of which includes consciously accepting the emotions that come up from different stimuli in order to avoid making premature/misinformed judgments about what triggered our reactions.
From my understanding, our emotional responses to different events are formed through how we've experienced our unique challenges, traumas, and successes throughout our lives, and due to this we don't have ANY control over which emotions come up from new stimuli. (E.g. a person who's lost a loved one to an unjustified police killing might experience emotions more intensely hearing about a similar incident than someone who hasn't.)
In radical acceptance, it's observing our emotions and understanding what triggers each of them that allows us to think more objectively about a given moment. Humans are pattern-seeking creatures, and emotions are kind of like our brains' means of projecting our previous experiences/bias onto new ones in order to affirm the patterns we're familiar with. Our emotions are instinctual references to our past experiences; whether we use them in our reasoning depends on whether we still understand our high-level intentions as we experience those emotions.
Hip-Harpist t1_j8xmpoo wrote
Bringing subconscious impulses into a conscious template that we can interact with is an essential skill. I agree that having a good locus of control over emotional changes can determine our own outlook on life.
Thank you for your contribution, I will look into dialectical behavior theory more.
TheAngryApologist t1_j8xe36s wrote
> …emotions have potential to be good drivers of instinct and direction of values.
So what? Wouldn’t the instincts and values of an individual determine whether or not we want them to be driven by their emotions?
There’s this idea that instincts and emotions are some sort of source of truth. They aren’t. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Emotions get in the way of truth. And instincts are just non-rational self serving reactions we have to protect our selves in some way.
This is one of the biggest problems with the human race I think. I’ll try not to get political, but we have major human rights issues at the moment and they are primarily driven by emotions. What’s really scary, is that scientists who perform studies and write papers are also subject to emotional bias.
No matter how strongly someone feels about something. No matter are sad they are about it. No matter how nice they are, we shouldn’t accept something as truth if it isn’t true. But we do it all the time and make excuses for it. And also tend to refrain from discussing it in public debate, to protect people’s feelings. It’s apsurd.
true_contrarian t1_j8xh0mi wrote
>They aren’t. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Emotions get in the way of truth.
This isn't necessarily true. Emotions can get in the way of truth but not always.
In general, emotions are more "basic" than rational thought and have faster processing time, using less information - they evolved earlier after all. In a crisis where time is a crucial factor, emotions and instincts had the potential to save an organism. However, if time is not as pressing a concern, rational thought then gains the advantage in optimally exploiting a situation. As you say, I think humans make judgement calls based on emotion despite being capable of reasoning simply because people are naturally lazy. Logical thought is more taxing, requiring more energy and time.
Hip-Harpist t1_j8xhpuw wrote
I agree that just because one is sad about a fact’s existence, the strength of the emotion will not alter reality to change that fact. Ex. Grandma has cancer, and while it’s natural to be sad, being sad won’t change it. I think that’s a healthy worldview.
At the same time, the emotional response does carry utility in arguments, but it shouldn’t be the primary means to finding solutions. I hope that wasn’t the message you received from my comment.
Continuing on the example of “grandma has cancer.” I’m a medical student who has witnessed numerous end-of-life conversations, and the emotional conflict most families struggle to grasp is the amount of suffering the patient endures. I know this is anecdotal, but the families who seem to struggle less are those who value either a cure to illness or palliative care (pain management, functional support like eating/sleeping, quality of life measures, etc.) Families and patients who identify the particular fear of suffering can make more sound/reasonable decisions.
Families who cannot firmly identify their fears or emotions will firmly grasp onto the plan of “no suffering = do every chemotherapy and surgery and radiation treatment possible.”
So I don’t advocate for the latter scenario at all. Guarding maladaptive emotions is not a productive way to reach good solutions, you are right. At the same time, in the sphere of public opinion, it is considered rude to identify other’s as emotional, but in reality this should be more tolerable. I mean, Snickers can say “you’re not you when you’re hungry” but if you or I said that in a heated debate, our cause would be lost.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments