Ration vs. Emotion.

Started by Hassan_Abdillah November 19th, 2011 2:49 PM
  • 715 views
  • 5 replies
Age 31
Male
South Asia, but then again a wayfarer is not very earthbound
Seen October 3rd, 2012
Posted August 31st, 2012
128 posts
12.4 Years
4:12 in the morning, Chemistry exam tomorrow, huge+virtually untouched syllabus. Procrastination, you win again.

Anyways, let me share some things with you guys which popped up and organized in my head not too long ago.

First, consider this: what are human actions based on? We are conscious human beings, so apparently our decisions are based on the conscious choices we make. Well what are these conscious choices based on? This is something interesting.

Let me take you guys 10 years back. You're standing inside Oak's Laboratory in Pallet. 3 pokeballs on the table, and the hardest decision of your childhood ahead of you.

Wait, why are you picking charmander? I dont know because it looks cool, has high stats comparatively and fire is a rare type.

Right there, when I asked you the reason behind your choice, you fell back on rationale, logical analysis. Apparently we think all of our choices are based on logic and ration. Some people tend to think they "listen to their hearts". Well they're lying. They wouldn't have listened to it had their not been some sort of underlying reasoning behind it.

Now let's go a bit beyond the apparent.

To make the long story short:

Spoiler:
If you accept Freud's topography of mind, much of the weight in any decision we make comes from the subconscious , a place where feelings such as, pride, desire, shame, guilt, love, fear and so on reside at. But you don't have to take his word for it. Tests show that brainscans can accurately predict which decision a person will make by interpreting the activity monitored in the subconscious. Not only can they predict the decision, they can do so before the test-subject even makes his mind up consciously. In other words, this shows that we have already made a decision before we even realize that we have decided. The conscious rationalization that follows is just trickery. Self-delusion in order to accept what we desire to accept. So clearly, we don't make our choices with our minds but rather with our hearts.


If the above seems tl;dr to you, here's a short version: our minds give us the illusion that what we do is logical, but these rationalisations, in reality, start with the conclusion in sight. This conclusion is dictated by emotions. So at the end of the day, there is no such thing as pure logical reasoning. This might be a bit- okay, a lot - scary to digest. But this is how things are. We act on emotional impulses provided by our subconscious, packed with emotions. Our mind takes up this conclusion/idea, then seeks rational justifications for it.

Few days back I started playing pokemon white, and I made a bit of progress with tepig, when I suddenly started having second thoughts about it. Something inside me said Oshawott was the better choice and I should restart the game. The more I thought about it, the more rational grounds I discovered for my second thought, my regret increased, and my gaming experience all but lost its appeal.

When I tried to restart the game however, apparently there were some problems with my emulator and I couldn't delete the save file (yeah I couldve just manually deleted the .sav file but this didnt strike me back then. Im an occasional idiot). So it seems I was "stuck" with Tepig. When this situation presented itself to me, I immediately felt relieved, the feeling of "there was nothing I couldve done to make my gaming experience any better since Im stuck with tepig anyways" surfaced. And what happened next is kinda weird. I immediately started discovering lots of reasons to prefer tepig over oshawott, the very arguments I deemed weak a while back seemed to solidify my position even more.

This presented a realization to me (Im sure you cannot relate to it because you werent there) : our rationalizations are all but illusory, at the end of the day it all falls back on the emotions we choose to prefer.

My examples suck eggs, I know. But the bottomline of it all, the superiority of our subconscious, can be extrapolated and applied in pretty much any real life scenario, from choosing worldviews (or remaining apathetic of them), to finding life partners.

Food for thought.
Asked the Liberal: "What vanity prevents you from adopting Liberal values?"
I said: "What Liberal value isn't based on vanity?"

Asked the Conservative (Republican): “Why don’t you assimilate into our culture?”
I said: “Because your culture demands assimilation”.

Said the Democrat: “The majority must rule.”
I said: “But what will rule the majority?”

Said the Neo-Conservative: “I believe we are the superior Civilization”.
I said: “That's what makes you an inferior Civilization”.

Said the Pragmatist: "Always choose the lesser of two evils".
I said: "Then your choices will always be evil".

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
It's not that it's tl;dr, it's that you're not explaining it well. Not to offend you or anything, but it's kind of like reading a PHI 101 paper from a C student; you might want to try and be more clear about what you're saying.

What I think you're trying to say is that we build up logical arguments around decisions that are ultimately based on emotions. That might be true initially, but it's not to say that we can't later come to a different conclusion based on a logical analysis of the topic at hand. I might have a "gut feeling" about a topic, but if someone presents a reasonable argument as to why I'm wrong, I have no problems changing my position.

For example, my "gut feeling" is always to do no harm to anything that can feel pain. I feel emotional pain when other things feel pain, so my "gut feeling" was that harming anything that feels pain is wrong. However, after considering the question for many years, I've come to a different conclusion. It's wrong to do harm to anything that is capable of rational thought or valued by someone capable of rational thought (prioritizing the first over the second). Past that, it's best not to do harm to anything without reason. While I still feel pain if I see anything suffer, I'm no longer bothered by it on an intellectual level if there's some justification for it (e.g., killing animals for food or in self-defense). This is a position that I've come to purely on a logical basis with no (or at the very least, minimal) emotional influences.

On a somewhat related note, the study you cited actually goes on to say that it couldn't account for last minute changes of opinion.
Age 31
Male
South Asia, but then again a wayfarer is not very earthbound
Seen October 3rd, 2012
Posted August 31st, 2012
128 posts
12.4 Years
It's not that it's tl;dr, it's that you're not explaining it well. Not to offend you or anything, but it's kind of like reading a PHI 101 paper from a C student; you might want to try and be more clear about what you're saying.
It was 4 in the morning, give me a break.


What I think you're trying to say is that we build up logical arguments around decisions that are ultimately based on emotions. That might be true initially, but it's not to say that we can't later come to a different conclusion based on a logical analysis of the topic at hand. I might have a "gut feeling" about a topic, but if someone presents a reasonable argument as to why I'm wrong, I have no problems changing my position.
I dont think the input of reasonable arguments is very relevant here. What's being talked about is how logic works in our mind as opposed to the content on which it operates. Data is unbiased, so is logic (at least on paper), but emotions aren't; and since human decisions are clouded with emotions, there is no such thing as an absolutely prejudice/bias-free decision. These biases, as stated in the earlier post, have their roots in the emotional subconscious.

This is not to say, however, that these biases are set in stone. They can be subject to change. But this change doesn't come from logical analysis, rather from the ways of the heart. That's all I'm saying.

I myself have changed my opinion on many things (arguably bigger than choice of pokemon) when I find some new argument or never-before seen data. This is not to say emotions are left out in these scenarios, rather it is the subconscious itself which makes sense of this data. Crudely put, it's not logic that makes us understand the truth of things, rather the emotions make things appear logical to us.

I'm struggling with the burden of proof to hand you or any other proponent against this, because we cannot really detect our emotional leanings (which is why it is called the SUBconscious). So using personal experiences, or logical considerations, or both, by themselves cannot be used to figure out the mechanism of how heart works in unison with the mind. So apologies there.

I found the following in an article. The article in itself isn't relevant to this discussion, but the following excerpt is.

But then, why do some people believe in one view, while others believe In a different view? Or, if all views are rational, depending on which angle you're looking from, then what determines the “right” angle? Well, this angle, this method of seeing the world and everything in it. It is a combinations of concepts and ideas of how the universe is like, all loosely connected to one another. A sum of premises, axioms and semantic definitions of words, that will be decisive in determining which theories you find rational. This is a paradigm, a chaotic and dynamic world-view. A cobweb of thoughts. Dynamic, because you can break a connection here, and make a new one there. And chaotic, because there's no real beginning or end, and nothing is concrete. But how do we form this world-view? There are so many premises to be chosen from, in so many issues. So many axioms, so many different definitions for so many different words. It's very plausible that considering the number of variables, there are more unique paradigms to be formed then there are people in the world. We can't possible work out all possible variations and permutations. Let alone comparing them to see which one, if any of them, is the most accurate view of the world. And so, the human mind does what it always does when it's facing a problem to big to work out. It falls back on emotions. Our emotions are our guide in choosing which premise, which definition of a word we associate things with. Of course, a part of this is also conditioned and even taught cognitively in school. But still a lot of our views are formed based on our emotions. Small things, which seem innocent and insignificant at first. But then, you're trying to wrap your head around complex questions such as religion, and philosophy and morality and ethics, and suddenly these small things, all of them combined, they matter. They matter a lot. If you've ever had a long debate or argument with somebody, you might have noticed after a while that at the ground of this argument, was that you both had different definitions and ideas of the very concepts you were arguing about. And so cognitively, it seems as though you're approaching these issues in a rational way. But it only seems so because you chose your bias a long time ago, the emotional influence is already set and you have forgotten. You're taking it for granted. It is subconsciously set, much like a stage. And now all that is left is for your cognitive, conscious part of the mind to “play” out the rationalizations that have been pre-determined by this stage of your own making. Yes, there might be exceptions in this, sometimes people might not do what is rational. Sometimes an urge or emotion can grow overwhelming enough to overwrite this set stage. But such events are rare. In most day-to day choices we make, the stage is inevitable......If we do set our own “mental stage”; by which only one world view is rational. And if this stage is determined by our emotions, then which emotions do we allow to get the upper hand? Our urges, our fears, our needs, our shame, our instincts, our conscience? Perhaps you've heard somebody once say something similar to: “Well I can't believe, I'm simply not able to because it doesn't seem true, and I would just be lying to myself."
Asked the Liberal: "What vanity prevents you from adopting Liberal values?"
I said: "What Liberal value isn't based on vanity?"

Asked the Conservative (Republican): “Why don’t you assimilate into our culture?”
I said: “Because your culture demands assimilation”.

Said the Democrat: “The majority must rule.”
I said: “But what will rule the majority?”

Said the Neo-Conservative: “I believe we are the superior Civilization”.
I said: “That's what makes you an inferior Civilization”.

Said the Pragmatist: "Always choose the lesser of two evils".
I said: "Then your choices will always be evil".

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen

Age 32
Male
Michigan
Seen February 19th, 2023
Posted April 30th, 2021
4,307 posts
14.2 Years
I have to disagree. I believe that humans are capable of thinking and making decisions without being slaves to our emotions. Heck, sociopaths completely lack emotional capability to begin with and yet they're able to form opinions on various topics.

Like I said, I think that emotions merely play part in the initial reaction. People are still able to make decisions that differ or even conflict with their emotional response.
Age 31
Male
South Asia, but then again a wayfarer is not very earthbound
Seen October 3rd, 2012
Posted August 31st, 2012
128 posts
12.4 Years
I have to disagree. I believe that humans are capable of thinking and making decisions without being slaves to our emotions. Heck, sociopaths completely lack emotional capability to begin with and yet they're able to form opinions on various topics.
You know what, I've pondered a bit on the issue, and I think you have a point. This is not to say my original post is totally without substance. I think there is truth to both sides: human thoughts aren't completely dominated by emotion or ration. As for the degree to which the two of them work, that's why I am left clueless as of yet.
Asked the Liberal: "What vanity prevents you from adopting Liberal values?"
I said: "What Liberal value isn't based on vanity?"

Asked the Conservative (Republican): “Why don’t you assimilate into our culture?”
I said: “Because your culture demands assimilation”.

Said the Democrat: “The majority must rule.”
I said: “But what will rule the majority?”

Said the Neo-Conservative: “I believe we are the superior Civilization”.
I said: “That's what makes you an inferior Civilization”.

Said the Pragmatist: "Always choose the lesser of two evils".
I said: "Then your choices will always be evil".

Dawn

Queen of Magical Girls

She/Her
East Coast, USA
Seen 20 Hours Ago
Posted December 13th, 2022
4,594 posts
14.7 Years
This is just one way of thinking about things. A lot of people just don't do this. o-o It all depends on the person.
Don't let your guard down
just 'cause we're cute!

We'll eat you right up!
Post Templates
[1] Hisui Legends