I tend to take an all inclusive approach to decision making and analysis. I'm like the FBI who takes every phone call to find a missing person and observe what patterns emerge from the influx of facts. I do this rather than initially seeing how many perspectives I can dismiss (like assuming all subjective elements are irrelevant in a scenario). I attempt to include every angle possible. Depending on the nature of the problem, I will lean one way or another. I see different approaches to reasoning as different tools. I value having as many tools as possible to best survive.
If a decision is only hampered by emotional reactions and thinking, I attempt to disregard that element, and I do well enough to get decent results. If a decision benefits from this, then I use it. For example, if I have a student who starts crying out of frustration, I use supportive language to appeal to them specifically to make them feel special and strong to solve the problem of emotional crisis. On the other hand, if i am passed over for a job I really wanted, an emotional response will only wear me down, and so I distance myself from it. In that case I view myself as a tiny speck in the larger picture, realizing my personal desires have limited usefulness in building a peaceful life.