User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 20

  1. #1
    Systematic chaos Cenomite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    623

    Default Emotions as a valid argument

    This was sparked by this thread:
    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...emotional.html

    Many people would criticize others who argue based off of their emotions, as opposed to forming a logical argument. People may also be criticized for combining emotions and logic in an argument. This attitude seems to be especially prevalent on this forum.

    My question is: To what extent are emotions a valid source of argument? Should they be weighed equally with logic in terms of validity? Why or why not?

    Forming emotions and forming logical thoughts are both automatic responses that we experience in response to any given event. Sometimes logic is appropriate, and sometimes we need to apply emotions to fully understand a situation. Why is logic often recognized as "legitimate", while emotions are shunned and considered something that should be withheld or controlled?

    Here is an example of a situation which I believe would require emotions more than logic to understand and correctly respond to. I'm copy-pasting it from my post in the thread that I linked to up-top:
    Quote Originally Posted by Cenomite
    For example: If someone were to go to me and complain for 8 hours about their day, odds are they aren't looking for some logical help or statement. They want you to sympathize with them and see why they're so pissed, and share in their pissed-offery. I'm guessing that replying with deadpan logic in this situation (ie, "being too logical") would be equally as annoying as someone outbursting and screaming due to their personal views in a philosophical discussion (ie, "being emotional").
    I'll give my personal views on this subject as more replies come.

    Thoughts?
    The probability that I was procrastinating when I was typing this post:

    P(have big assignment due) = 0.6
    P(posting on TypoC) = 0.2
    P(having big assignment due | posting on TypoC) = 0.7

    P(posting on TypoC | having big assignment due) = .......


    Eh, I'll finish it later.

  2. #2
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,655

    Default

    From the pov of an F:

    I think they should not so much be weighed into the argument, as much as they should be acknowledged, instead of shunned. Acknowledgement goes a long way to getting them out of the way of the conversation.

    Furthermore, I'd say that both logic and emotions have their time and place.

    In your example, the way to go about it, imo, is listen to them, ask questions as to what exactly makes them feel that way, and how, acknowledge their emotions, and let them rant. Once they're past the ranting face, check if they need help with the logical part, aka working out the solution, coz often they will at that point be open to suggestions, if they haven't figured it out yet.

    The other way around, where logic is the language used to debate something, and emotions get stirred, F can be used to smoothen the ruffled feathers and get back on track. Again, acknowledgement, claryfication of what you meant and calm demeanor can do wonders. After that, you can go on with your conversation. In this example, F isn't so much what you use for the conversation, but more the auxiliary power, the enabler of the conversation. In essence, it paves the way for logic to keep going and keeping the lines of communications open.

    Then there's the dreaded mix. Where the topic being discussed has both moral issues and logical possibilities for debate. And those two get mixed up. Either you agree to keep it on one of those two, which..tends to be hard to do. Still, it gives the people who are interested in the other part of the topic the chance to bail and/or go debate their points of interest elsewhere.

    Or, you agree to debate both simultaneously, without ignoring one in favor of the other. Both approaches are bound to be interesting to debate and valuable, and in the end you can come to the inevitable comparison of what's more important in this case, and why. Most likely, if you put F vs T, you'll agree to disagree. But in the process, you will gain a lot of insights you normally wouldn't have gained if the debate turned into a mudslinging contest early on because of the fight about what's more important to take into consideration early on before both approaches have been thoroughly discussed.


    Just my 2 cents.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  3. #3
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,262

    Default

    I already had this talk with amarg.

    She agrees with me.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  4. #4
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,664

    Default

    To what extent are emotions a valid source of argument?

    That totally depends upon what an argument is about.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,409

    Default

    ^ There's a fair statement.

  6. #6
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    If the argument is about relationship and friendship matters, then emotions should always come first.
    If someone says to you,
    "when you said/did/ whatever, it made me feel uncomfortable." Then that in itself is a valid argument in itself. No logic will change the way that someone feels. And using those as arguments does indeed move the discussion forward, because then you need to use some logic to find ways of solving the problem. Or if you are miserable about your job, then that is probably a valid enough argument to leave your job. I always think that people should think about the reasons that they are feeling a certain way before making harsh decisions.

    Like, "I'm miserable about my job because-"
    I don't get enough pay, my boss hates me, etc. And when those things are unchangeable then you should make your mostly feeling-based decision.
    Most of the time I find that logic is necessary to MOST arguments, though. Even if you use feelings as part of it, you need REASONS to back it up.

    Often times, arguments can be had using logic alone.
    I rarely find an argument that could be argued using feeling alone.

  7. #7
    Systematic chaos Cenomite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    623

    Default

    (Edited this a lot to clarify the original post in-general)

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    That totally depends upon what an argument is about.
    Could you give examples of argument topics where the answer to that question would differ, as well as reasons why emotions should be more or less valid in those situations? (Seems like a fair statement, as Jaguar said, but I'm curious as to what your exact views are)

    I know that in some situations, such as discussing Math, emotions aren't of any relevance. I'm more talking about arguments that mix "gut feelings" or morality with logic. I probably should have clarified that in the original post.

    Here is an example situation in which my original post would apply: I have two friends who were arguing about whether or not a device that would max out human potential should be implanted in everyone's head if it was invented. One was arguing no, since it takes away individuality and would cause emotional distress to people. My other friend claimed that this didn't matter, and the correct decision should be to move forward and keep progressing the human race.

    So, in that situation for example, to what extent was the first guy valid in making that point? My friend feels that it should not be allowed, but his argument doesn't necessarily apply mainly logic, but a more interpersonal way of looking at things. Why or why not was the first guy valid in saying no to the device based off of his feelings and interpersonal means of forming his opinion?
    The probability that I was procrastinating when I was typing this post:

    P(have big assignment due) = 0.6
    P(posting on TypoC) = 0.2
    P(having big assignment due | posting on TypoC) = 0.7

    P(posting on TypoC | having big assignment due) = .......


    Eh, I'll finish it later.

  8. #8
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    I would have left out the emotional distress part since taking away something important to another person, e.g. individual liberty, indicates and presumes unpleasantness.

  9. #9
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    if the argument involves pure fact then logic alone will provide an answer.

    If the argument involves pure emo, then Fe or Fi are likely the better solution.

    If it is in the middle-say troubleshooting people induced problems on a technical piece of instrumentation, then some combination should be applied. Logic alone will fail.

  10. #10
    Systematic chaos Cenomite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ne-Monster View Post
    If the argument involves pure emo, then Fe or Fi are likely the better solution.
    As long as the argument is centered on an emotional issue, then couldn't you treat others emotional responses like a logical pattern, and find the best solution using that pattern? Are using actual emotions really needed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ne-Monster View Post
    If it is in the middle-say troubleshooting people induced problems on a technical piece of instrumentation, then some combination should be applied. Logic alone will fail.
    Why? Do we really require emotions to provide a good answer? Why/why not?

    EDIT: I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with you, I'm just trying to pull more information out of people.
    The probability that I was procrastinating when I was typing this post:

    P(have big assignment due) = 0.6
    P(posting on TypoC) = 0.2
    P(having big assignment due | posting on TypoC) = 0.7

    P(posting on TypoC | having big assignment due) = .......


    Eh, I'll finish it later.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTJ] Expressing emotions properly as an INTJ
    By goodgrief in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-06-2010, 11:13 AM
  2. [MBTItm] Why Do Thinkers See Emoting and Thinking as Dichotomous Processes?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-26-2008, 09:30 PM
  3. Avatars As Communicators of Emotion
    By Usehername in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-20-2008, 12:58 AM
  4. present an argument as to why you are your type
    By Grayscale in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 09:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO