[NT] The separation between emotion and rationality is a myth.

[Aleksei]

^ but why do we concider it necessary?

Erm, because without it we could not achieve our goal. The point here is that people sometimes make choices that go against their feelings because they believe said choices lead to the outcome they're looking for. Essentially, an attitude that the ends justify the means is a rational one.

 

[yvonne]

OP:

First I'm throwing MBTI into the wind and talking about humans in general. I'm willing to bet that many people don't have the slightest idea what T/F preferences actually mean. (ref: Psychological Types: Jung)

It is not possible to be involved in any issue without some emotive response. I speak in the neurological context. If you have zero emotive response, it would not enter your consciousness, therefore you would not have the mental activations to engage an issue and summon your cognitive faculties. If there is no emotive response, then you are indifferent to it and it would appear it would have never existed.

Illustrative thought: How many steps does it take for you to get to the bathroom? Do you know for sure? Did you really count? Why not? (less OCD).

Rationalization is not synonymous with truth. It is at best an opinion or a belief. If rationalization was indeed truth, there would be no need for peer reviewed journals at all.

This, along with "I'm more rational than you" is a delusion and a logical fallacy. Specifically that of 'begging the question' or petitio principii.

While it's not possible to remove emotions from an argument, there are tools to make a strong case. You start with a rationalization, then you work to remove all the objections and you arrive at some sort of truth.

All decisions contain emotions, regardless of what that person believes. Even psychopaths
All decision involve moral/ethics if it interacts with another human, regardless if it's wise.

To make decisions that are clean, rational, and unemotional is a misnomer. In most cases, what they really mean to say that the decisions are without empathy.

yes, thank you. do you mind if i quote you elsewhere?

 

[yvonne]

Erm, because without it we could not achieve our goal. The point here is that people sometimes make choices that go against their feelings because they believe said choices lead to the outcome they're looking for. Essentially, an attitude that the ends justify the means is a rational one.

it is just your preference. you prefer to disregard a certain emotion in the moment, because you think that by doing that you will reach a goal, which will satisfy you more in the end. this doesn't mean you don't concider your feelings at all.

 

[erm]

Please prove the number of Mersenne primes with your emotions alone.

In that context I think the idea is if you remove the emotions you no longer have a proof.

So, if you take the human away from the equation, it's no longer a proof, as proofs are a system of human understanding. You take the emotions away from a human and it's no longer a human, as it appears (according to the thread) that emotions are at the root of all high-end cognitive activities.

It ultimately comes down to the idea that rationality without emotions is not a coherent one. Like the idea of shape without volume. It can be talked about, but doesn't really apply to reality.

Old Related Thread: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...ics/20311-do-emotions-impair-rationality.html

I agree with the concept that is provided within the context of this topic.

An F, being totally emotional, would be in their own perspective, acting rationally. Thus, emotion and rationality are not mutually exclusive, from a single perspective.

That which makes the rational NT's, rational. Is that we try not to rely on incomplete information and variables. And go only on that which we know to be true.

The seperation of rationals and non-rationals, has nothing to do with being emotional or not emotional. Rather, it has to do with how we reach our conclusions and descisions.

Rationals see problems in everything, non rationals take many things for granted. Both may take the same course of action, but only the rational would be aware of it.

So what defines rationality in NT's, is not the fact that we are more rational than others per se. But that we define ourselves by using rational factors to the best of our ability while making descisions, consciously.

So, whilest everyone can be considered rational from their perspective. NT Rationals are the ones that do so proactively.

Rationale I can see as a reference to the style NT's supposedly think and communicate with. Rational I'd see as either conscious thought, or intelligent thought, which is most similar to how you are using the word.

Rationality is even vaguer than MBTI types, I don't know how one would come to your conclusion in the first place. But there's problems outside of that.

Notably that rationality is a much more nurtured than natural behaviour, which goes against some foundations of MBTI. Outside of that, it's hard to see rationality as a preference, which is what cognitive functions supposedly are, as being or becoming rational usually involves going strongly against one's own natural preferences. Even further outside of that, it's hard to see a dichotomy between non-NT functions and rationality.

All decision involve moral/ethics if it interacts with another human, regardless if it's wise.

I'd make two points here.

1: You always interact with the human that is yourself. Making a significant distinction between oneself and another human is actually very difficult to do.
2: That's only one of the common definitions of morality. Another one is simply "how to live life" or "what decisions to make". Leading all decisions to be ethical/moral ones.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I was reading this thread of 'what do you like about feelers' and one complaint is that there is a tendency to not be logical in arguments, make emotional appeals, or base their decisions on their emotions.

So heres a question: Do you think its possible to actually step away/remove ourselves from 'emotions' when looking at an issue?

This line: "I am being more rational than you" - may be an illusion for your rationality is just a set of learned ways of interacting that appear to lack emotion, HOWEVER! are not all decisions/arguments ultimately moral and emotional ones?

TO put it in a strong way: I think people are fooling themselves if they think in life they are making 'clean' decisions, 'unemotional' arguments, or undertaking entire 'rational' courses of action.

There is no such thing as an 'emotional argument'. An argument is a collection of premises that lead to a conclusion. If the argument is deductively valid and the premises are true, the conclusion must also be. An argument could be about issues that are emotionally loaded or issues that are completely dispassionate; that truly is irrelevant. Truth-preserving arguments are based on true premises and have deductive validity.

No, its not impossible to make a truth-preserving argument when dealing with an emotional issue; nor is a sentimental person incapable of making such arguments. However, having strong personal biases or emotional committment to certain views or being in a sentimental mind-state create difficulties for people to make such arguments.

This is the most important point of my post. Arguments of emotional people or arguments that deal with sentiment arousing issues are not meritless by definition. However, a person who fails to attain a high degree of detachment simply robs himself of the necessary resources to make a truth-preserving argument. Complete detachment is not possible and it is undesirable to attain the highest degree possible; as I said a merely high degree is necessary. An excessively high degree of detachment can rob a person out of the interest in the issue that he or she is pursuing.

A failure to detach may make it too difficult for a person to reason clearly, but too high of a degree of detachment precludes a person having the requisite motivation to do so. Emoting is an inextricable part of sound reasoning and one should not attempt to minimize their impact as much as possible. However, if not restricted, this part of our cognition poses a pronounced hindrance to a person who seeks to construct truth-preserving arguments.

 

[erm]

There is no such thing as an 'emotional argument'.

They'd just said there is no such thing as an unemotional one.

The idea being that emotions will always, somehow, be involved. Not that the abstract definition of an argument, which by definition does not contain emotion, involved emotions. Not abstract thought, but actual reality.
I could throw the ontological argument for god, or anything defined as existing, your way if we gave any credence to abstract thought alone.

But onto the more important question. Why do emotions have a good probability of impairing rationality? The whole post and you haven't answered that.

I can only speak from my own experience, where emotions lead me to my most rational moments, and continue to do so. Where the majority of the time they occur, they either assist, or have no noticeable effect on my rationality.

Not wanting to accept a certain truth, which I have also experienced many times, does hinder rationality, but is just one emotion in a myriad of them. You could see it as many emotions and it would still be dwarfed by the ocean that is the rest.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Rationale I can see as a reference to the style NT's supposedly think and communicate with. Rational I'd see as either conscious thought, or intelligent thought, which is most similar to how you are using the word.

Rationality is even vaguer than MBTI types, I don't know how one would come to your conclusion in the first place. But there's problems outside of that.

Notably that rationality is a much more nurtured than natural behaviour, which goes against some foundations of MBTI. Outside of that, it's hard to see rationality as a preference, which is what cognitive functions supposedly are, as being or becoming rational usually involves going strongly against one's own natural preferences. Even further outside of that, it's hard to see a dichotomy between non-NT functions and rationality.

If you wish to see rationality as an absolute, rather than a subjective interpretation based within our perception. Then yeah, I can see where you're coming from.



My view of rationality, is that it exists within everyone equally, and it is different for everyone. Ultimatly, society brands everything that has a positive outcome and is explainable as rational. Still, each individual has their own view on what is a postive outcome and what is explainable.

I could have stopped there, but since this is an MBTI forum, I also explained that the rationality within NT's is nothing more than proactive thought behaviour, rather than instinctual or emotional behaviour. Even though all three could be seen as rational in certain situations.

To use a crude stereotypical example.

For a feeler, comforting a person that's emotionally hurt by saying "Everything is going to be alright." is rational behaviour. A thinker would digress, and think that that approach is void and meaningless. And that different action should be taken in order to battle the pain, and think that is rational.

So in that sense, like I said, I agree with the concept of the OP's post. Emotional and Rational are not seperated.

 

[erm]

Ah, I don't disagree with that.

I was really only targeting this:-

That which makes the rational NT's, rational. Is that we try not to rely on incomplete information and variables. And go only on that which we know to be true.

Which I thought fitted into the definition of rational I was using before.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I was really only targeting this:-

-That which makes the rational NT's, rational. Is that we try not to rely on incomplete information and variables. And go only on that which we know to be true.-

Which I thought fitted into the definition of rational I was using before.

I definatly could've phrased that better. This would've been a better way of phrasing it I suppose.

That which makes the NT's rational in the sense that MBTI brands NT's as rationals, is that we try not to rely on our instincts and emotions, and prefer to use what we know instead.

 

[Aleksei]

it is just your preference. you prefer to disregard a certain emotion in the moment, because you think that by doing that you will reach a goal, which will satisfy you more in the end.

That was my point.

I would agree to the extent that it is altogether impossible to separate motivations and goals from emotions. There is no inherent meaning to our lives, thus there is no such thing as a rational goal: We pick an outcome we desire because we like it better than the alternative. Beyond that, however, it is indeed possible to be rational and objective in making a choice, which is most evident when we make a choice we don't like because we consider it necessary.

Motivations are never rational. Actions can be.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

They'd just said there is no such thing as an unemotional one.

The idea being that emotions will always, somehow, be involved. Not that the abstract definition of an argument, which by definition does not contain emotion, involved emotions. Not abstract thought, but actual reality.
I could throw the ontological argument for god, or anything defined as existing, your way if we gave any credence to abstract thought alone.

But onto the more important question. Why do emotions have a good probability of impairing rationality? The whole post and you haven't answered that.

I can only speak from my own experience, where emotions lead me to my most rational moments, and continue to do so. Where the majority of the time they occur, they either assist, or have no noticeable effect on my rationality.

Not wanting to accept a certain truth, which I have also experienced many times, does hinder rationality, but is just one emotion in a myriad of them. You could see it as many emotions and it would still be dwarfed by the ocean that is the rest.

You're confusing argument with the arguer. I said there are no emotional arguments, not that there are no emotional arguers. An argument is simply a set of a concepts where certain terms do or do not entail a true conclusion about the world. Emotion pertains strictly to the arguer and not the argument, an argument can only be as emotional as the Pythagorean theorem or Einstein's relativity theory. No doubt the creators of these concepts experienced some kind of emotions when creating them, but this does not suggest that the concepts contain emotions by definition. When someone is making an 'emotional appeal', they aren't making an 'emotional argument' but merely trying to pass a bad argument off for a good one. That does not happen in all cases, as truth-preserving arguments can have emotional appeals, however, arguers who purposefully try to make emotional appeals often do so to conceal the inadequacy of their arguments.

I don't think that you've understood the theme of my post, possibly read less than a few lines as your reply was tangentially relevant at best.

 

[erm]

You're confusing argument with the arguer. I said there are no emotional arguments, not that there are no emotional arguers. An argument is simply a set of a concepts where certain terms do or do not entail a true conclusion about the world. Emotion pertains strictly to the arguer and not the argument, an argument can only be as emotional as the Pythagorean theorem or Einstein's relativity theory. No doubt the creators of these concepts experienced some kind of emotions when creating them, but this does not suggest that the concepts contain emotions by definition.

And I was just saying you were using a different definition of argument to the OP and the thread topic in general, one which conveniently lacks emotion by definition, and is very abstract.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

And I was just saying you were using a different definition of argument to the OP, one which conveniently lacks emotion by definition, and is very abstract.

Its not just my definition, it is the standard definition. The salient claims of the OP rests on a confusion regarding the definition of an argument. Emotional appeals have nothing to do with the nature of the argument itself, they are strictly a matter of how people react to arguments. One is free to become indignant at a number 5 instead of a rationale in favor of permissibility of infanticide, but people do not do so. They do the vice versa because of their evolved nature and social conditioning. There is nothing about number 5 that forces people to be calm or apathetic, nor is there anything about an argument in favor of infanticide that infuriates listeners.

 

[ThatGirl]

The separation between emotion and rationality is a myth.

No it is not.

 

[erm]

Its not just my definition, it is the standard definition. Emotional appeals have nothing to do with the nature of the argument, they are strictly a matter of how people react to them. One is free to become indignant at a number 5 instead of an argument in favor of infanticide, but people do not do so. They do the vice versa because of their evolved nature and social conditioning. There is nothing about number 5 that forces people to be calm or apathetic, nor is there anything about an argument in favor of infanticide that infuriates listeners.

I doubt anyone in this thread would disagree that an abstract understanding or argument doesn't contain emotion in its definition. The abstract definition of a fist fight does not contain emotion in it either.

It's in reality, secondary properties and such, where emotion and rationality are being connected. Not strict definitions and focused concepts.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It's in reality, secondary properties and such, where emotion and rationality are being connected. Not strict definitions and focused concepts.

As I said, in most situations, people benefit from a high degree of detachment by avoiding hindrances to their arguments and staying motivated to make good arguments. A great scarcity of emotional involvement leads to motivation problems and over-involvement clouds one's judgment.

 

[erm]

As I said, in most situations, people benefit from a high degree of detachment by avoiding hindrances to their arguments and staying motivated to make good arguments. A great scarcity of emotional involvement leads to motivation problems and over-involvement clouds one's judgment.

And again I ask why.

How being detached avoids hindrances and clears judgement, how one looses motivation when too detached, etcetera.

I'd understand if there were difficulties in explaining, as I face such in explaining my own view.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

And again I ask why.

How being detached avoids hindrances and clears judgement,..

People as a general rule are guided by their affections. They gravitate towards activities that seem pleasant and shun those that seem unpleasant. The more pleasant it seems, the more they will be inclined to attract it. The more unpleasant it seems, the stronger their instinct will be to avoid it. So the intensity of the emotion evoked by the activity determines how much a person will want to attract or avoid it.

If one is experiencing strong emotions, he may be distracted from the argument because these emotions will make him attract or repel a number of ideas implicit in an argument or make it difficult for him to focus on the argument at hand. For instance, somebody who is suffering from an intense headache won't be able to focus on an argument, the same could be said about someone who has just had a traumatic experience such as being shot at it or death of a loved one.

By the same token, a person who has a vehement hatred of abortion will strongly attract arguments that purport to discourage the practice and shun those that support it.

,

I'd understand if there were difficulties in explaining, as I face such in explaining my own view.

Only emotions can motivate people to act. Yes, I acknowledge that some people do what they do because they think its rational for them to do so or because they are supposed to as they can find a 'rule in the book' that says that they should do what they intend to. However, the people in question would not be able to choose that course of action if they subtly did not see anything attractive about the action they have in mind. Essentially, the conception boils down to the ultimate principle of human behavior that Jeremy Bentham propounded, all behavior is guided by a pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

 

[erm]

People as a general rule are guided by their affections. They gravitate towards activities that seem pleasant and shun those that seem unpleasant. The more pleasant it seems, the more they will be inclined to attract it. The more unpleasant it seems, the stronger their instinct will be to avoid it. So the intensity of the emotion evoked by the activity determines how much a person will want to attract or avoid it.

If one is experiencing strong emotions, he may be distracted from the argument because these emotions will make him attract or repel a number of ideas implicit in an argument or make it difficult for him to focus on the argument at hand. For instance, somebody who is suffering from an intense headache won't be able to focus on an argument, the same could be said about someone who has just had a traumatic experience such as being shot at it or death of a loved one.

By the same token, a person who has a vehement hatred of abortion will strongly attract arguments that purport to discourage the practice and shun those that support it.

Most those examples you give are valid (I would nitpick at the headache and the shooting one), but I agreed that some emotions do hinder rationality.

It's the huge amount of other emotions that aren't being focused on which concern me. You allude to these here:-

Only emotions can motivate people to act.

So all rationality, so to speak, is a result of emotions. Along with the wealth of emotions that may or may not have noticeable effect on rationality one way or the other.

So, to bring it back to the original point, when you speak of emotional detachment and such around debates, I would agree that detachment from certain emotions is beneficial for rationality, but not the majority of them.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I would agree that detachment from certain emotions is beneficial for rationality, but not the majority of them.

Some emotions are beneficial to rational thought, such as for example optimism or contentment. However, a lack of detachment from these emotions will lead a person to focus on them excessively which will hinder the reasoning process. The stronger the emotion, the more likely it is to command a person's attention, the only way to avoid this problem is by lessening the sentiment or detaching from it. The trouble here is not that the emotion in itself is detrimental to rationality, but merely that if it becomes very strong, it will distract a person from thinking rationally.