Emotionally dead = dead ?

[Virtual ghost]

You're not really making a lot of sense. I know there is the language barrier, but still.

You haven't talked about emotions at all.

Are you saying that a very emotional person would have trouble accepting the conclusions you have drawn on a 'scientific' basis? So what? Since all you are presenting are doomsday scenarios, I don't see how your attitude is advantageous....
But perhaps I misunderstand.

You are right my opinions about things are not advantageous at all. But I will not throw them in garbage just because they are not advantageous.

I think you did not misunderstand.

To tell you the truth "my" conclusions are not 100% mine conclusions. I made them based on what I have learned at college. I am not one of the guys that that want to believe in something just like becaue I feel like it.
I think that my positions don't have too much to do with believing.


For emample my hydrogeology profesor says that organizing succesful global water supply in the future is quite unlikely thing to happen.


The reason why I blame emotions to some degree is that people don't pay too much attention to things. This world is full of people who think "everything will be just fine". I think that this will turn out to be a fatal mistake.

Does this make more/some sense to you ?

 

[Salomé]

But I will not throw them in garbage just because they are not advantageous.

You just haven't made a very good case for your position, 'tis all.

The reason why I blame emotions to some degree is that people don't pay too much attention to things. This world is full of people who think "everything will be just fine". I think that this will turn out to be a fatal mistake.

Does this make more/some sense to you ?

Then the problem is apathy/ignorance, not emotion.

You need to accurately define the problem before you can define a solution.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You just haven't made a very good case for your position, 'tis all.


Then the problem is apathy/ignorance, not emotion.

You need to accurately define the problem before you can define a solution.

You are right I haven't made too good case.
The problem with my position is that you can't explain it just like that.
I spend years on college and my personal thinking. It is impossible to connect all the dots just when you feel like it.
To be complety honest I don't think there is a soluotion for current global problems.
If you wish I can post you explanation of this claim which is long.


You are right problems are apathy and ignorance but from what I see in life both have their roots in certain emotions.

 

[Salomé]

You are right problems are apathy and ignorance but from what I see in life both have their roots in certain emotions.

Explain, please.

 

[ajblaise]

You are right problems are apathy and ignorance but from what I see in life both have their roots in certain emotions.

Apathy can be brought on by certain emotions, but ignorance has roots in "lacking knowledge or intelligence".

 

[Virtual ghost]

Explain, please.

Apathy can be brought on by certain emotions, but ignorance has roots in "lacking knowledge or intelligence".

That is true, if you look everything from perspective of pure theory but if you add real world data then it is not that simple.



Here is how I see it.

In my opinion it should have never happen that world population reaches todays 6.8 billion. Since we are changing environment chemically and physically and we pushed biosphere on the edge of sixth mass extinction (or fifthy if you don't count extinction in Trias period as that big).
Which is because there is too many of us.


Why that happend ?

It happened becuse people did not pay attention to this when it was time since they were buissy with other things.
One good example is the entire cold war story.
Cold war is probably the best example of how technological progress and human instincts and emotions don't go togather. The entire thing was litterally on a kindergrden level and it lasted for decades since instincts and emotions form tribal culture took over.

When tech level passes the certain point there is no more room for things like compulsive behaviour, patroitism(what is clearly emotion) or seeking pleasure at all costs.

This is one example but there are more of them in history.


I think that we have a deficit of critical think on a global scale and one of the main reasons for that is because people are designed to follow.
Plus,the entire idea that you can have too much children is somewhat counterintuitive. Unless someone manage to convinve you othewise.


You and I are somewhat special cases here since we are INTs but most people are/were really quite focused on other people and they have certain emotions and instincts toward them. They are focused on people and they are interested in making the collective stronger in every way. (number and quality) but they don't ask if the planets "infrastructure" can actually handle it since that was never an issue.

 

[Salomé]

Yeah - you're talking about values/ethics/instincts again, not emotions. Granted there are links.

I find your argument contradictory.

You are actually arguing against self-interest and for the 'greater good'.
But how does anyone have a notion of/ interest in the greater good without some kind of emotional bond with/empathy for the rest of humankind/inhabitants of the planet?

Most organisms act primarily out of self-interest. It's entirely rational. It's the engine of evolution. Self-sacrifice? Not so much.

 

[Rangler]

Do people see some emotions as more motivational than others? For example anger, fear, love motivate while sadness, happiness, depression demotivate. The standard for which is the degree to which on average they create external action.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah - you're talking about values/ethics/instincts again, not emotions. Granted there are links.

I find your argument contradictory.

You are actually arguing against self-interest and for the 'greater good'.
But how does anyone have a notion of/ interest in the greater good without some kind of emotional bond with/empathy for the rest of humankind/inhabitants of the planet?

Most organisms act primarily out of self-interest. It's entirely rational. It's the engine of evolution. Self-sacrifice? Not so much.

I think we have misundersatnding here. I am not arguing the point that all emotion are bad I am arguing that certain emotions had "fingers" in something that could turn out to be bad.

 

[Salomé]

I think we have misundersatnding here. I am not arguing the point that all emotion are bad I am arguing that certain emotions had "fingers" in something that could turn out to be bad.

Well
a) You didn't clarify that and
b) No shit!

This is one of the main reason why I am not too strong on Fi. I simply don't see the point of having many values.

And yet you have them just the same.

 

[Night]

Why that happend ?


One good example is the entire cold war story.

Cold war is probably the best example of how technological progress and human instincts and emotions don't go togather. The entire thing was litterally on a kindergrden level and it lasted for decades since instincts and emotions form tribal culture took over.

This is one example but there are more of them in history.

The Cold War was brought upon (and protected for decades) by gaps in ideology. From an evolutionary perspective, think of it as akin to resource maintenance by territorial protection. In this case, emotion was an external feature of chauvinistic national identity; if/then logic the entrails by which nationalism secured footholds and was cultivated (think of propaganda; rhetoric; jingoism -- many, many expressions of "logical" strategies offered as a way to encourage domestic/international support for East v. West political philosophy...) inside the culture of its origin.

...

From a biological perspective, instinct and logic are interwoven systems. Each and every emotion we feel has a logical hierarchy that ties to it an ancestral necessity. Logic itself is just a description of mechanical pattern.

Think of it like crayons. Different colors combine into different shades. Turquoise is green and blue. Amethyst is blue and purple. Anger is fear and guilt. Sadness is greed and fear. So on and so forth...

When you break emotion and logic into their constituent elements, it becomes apparent that there is no real delineation that divides emotion from logic. External expression of each is what makes their union seem fuzzy. People feel differently. People reason differently. This distinction is likely key to unraveling your sense of personal confusion over the intricacies that seem to divide emotion from reason. I assure you there's no legitimate opposition -- only human individuality.

At our core, we share a primer. Evolutionary biology commands it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well
a) You didn't clarify that and
b) No shit!


And yet you have them just the same.

I didn't clarify that since I was thinking that it was obvious. Arguing that poisition would be quite childlish.
I am not Bluewing.


I think you are twisting words for your own amusement. I said that I don't have many values. I didn't say that I don't have any valuesat all.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The Cold War was brought upon (and protected for decades) by gaps in ideology. From an evolutionary perspective, think of it as akin to resource maintenance by territorial protection. In this case, emotion was an external feature of chauvinistic national identity; if/then logic the entrails by which nationalism secured footholds and was cultivated (think of propaganda; rhetoric; jingoism -- many, many expressions of "logical" strategies offered as a way to encourage domestic/international support for East v. West political philosophy...) inside the culture of its origin.

...

From a biological perspective, instinct and logic are interwoven systems. Each and every emotion we feel has a logical hierarchy that ties to it an ancestral necessity. Logic itself is just a description of mechanical pattern.

Think of it like crayons. Different colors combine into different shades. Turquoise is green and blue. Amethyst is blue and purple. Anger is fear and guilt. Sadness is greed and fear. So on and so forth...

When you break emotion and logic into their constituent elements, it becomes apparent that there is no real delineation that divides emotion from logic. External expression of each is what makes their union seem fuzzy. People feel differently. People reason differently. This distinction is likely key to unraveling your sense of personal confusion over the intricacies that seem to divide emotion from reason. I assure you there's no legitimate opposition -- only human individuality.

At our core, we share a primer. Evolutionary biology commands it.

I agree with you. What you have said is on the level beneath(deeper) of what I have said. It is just that all of this look like that human mind is unadapted to current situation. That is all what I am really saying.

 

[Salomé]

I didn't clarify that since I was thinking that it was obvious. Arguing that poisition would be quite childlish.
I am not Bluewing.


I think you are twisting words for your own amusement. I said that I don't have many values. I didn't say that I don't have any valuesat all.

No need to get emotional. I was merely trying to help you see the inconsistencies in your argument. When you make bold, unsubstantiated claims you ought to be prepared to meet opposing views. I was actually genuinely interested in hearing you make your case. But you failed to do so effectively.

 

[Virtual ghost]

No need to get emotional. I was merely trying to help you see the inconsistencies in your argument. When you make bold, unsubstantiated claims you ought to be prepared to meet opposing views. I was actually genuinely interested in hearing you make your case. But you failed to do so effectively.

I was just saying that your post looked as teasing to me, that is all.



Would you care to give me the right picture? I never claimed that my point of view is 100% correct.

 

[Virtual ghost]

AO, I kinda feel sad for you, but at the same time, I understand how you are satisfied with low emotionality, because you are right, emotions do complicate things. They do stop you from doing sensible things, and if the SSRI's hadn't slowed my thought processes down, I would still probably be on them, enjoying a little more rationality perhaps, except I would have missed my happy. You are perhaps lucky, then, because you don't miss what you never had.

To be honest I am think that in a way I am lucky when it comes to this.

 

[FemMecha]

I said that I am not emotionally dead. I am not doing this because of myself I am doing this because this side of rationlity is not shown enogh here.
I have done a number of posts and threads about emotions lately so I want to close the story with this.
I don't consider myself attacked just missunderstood.

From your OP you sound like you care plenty. You mentioned not having an emotional reaction when something rather bad happens to other people, but that you attempt to solve the problem. That is caring. Specific emotional responses to situations are a means to an end. They are a way to motivate a person to action to improve the situation.

You also sound particularly coherent in your mind which is a rare, but wonderful. The main dissonance comes from how the outside world interprets you? I think to some extent the majority of people are misunderstood and pressured to fit into some norm. There might be instances where it helps to learn a few ways to communicate an emotional response to get the reaction you want from another person, but it is also important to realize outside criticism is a part of life like breathing the air. It requires balance. It might be there are certain areas you will want to learn some strategies for communicating emotion like in a relationship where you will see that verbalizing that you care about the person is simpler than allowing a miscommunication to build up which results in more complex tension that has to be talked through and resolved.

I'm of the opinion based on experience that it takes a lot to survive one's life, so having a system where you approach life in an efficient, energy saving way seems like a rather good idea. Replacing overt emotional responses with problem solving is not a bad thing. Most crises rely on the people who have the capacity to react in such a manner. It is caring as absolutely as any emotional response could be.

Edit: Self interest vs. group interest are not necessarily opposed. It has to do with the context in which you view the problem and solution. This may be fodder for another thread, but humans are not independent creatures by nature. We create interconnected, cooperative societies. When we increase our technologies, it is often in the areas of increasing communication and travel to be come further interconnected. Tasks are continually specialized into more detail making us interdependent. Not only are we not lone creatures, but we are driven to build far beyond the pack or tribe into these massive interconnected structures. There is an element of self interest and individuality that balances this, but it is not nearly as present when viewed from a distance. We are both connected and directly affected by many other individuals. To discount the well-being of others is not rational in most instances. We do not exist only as individuals. That is one layer of our beings, but we are connected and defined on many additional group levels. Self interest, when viewed from a comprehensive understanding of the "individual", includes societies of people.

 

[Virtual ghost]

From your OP you sound like you care plenty. You mentioned not having an emotional reaction when something rather bad happens to other people, but that you attempt to solve the problem. That is caring. Specific emotional responses to situations are a means to an end. They are a way to motivate a person to action to improve the situation.

You also sound particularly coherent in your mind which is a rare, but wonderful. The main dissonance comes from how the outside world interprets you? I think to some extent the majority of people are misunderstood and pressured to fit into some norm. There might be instances where it helps to learn a few ways to communicate an emotional response to get the reaction you want from another person, but it is also important to realize outside criticism is a part of life like breathing the air. It requires balance. It might be there are certain areas you will want to learn some strategies for communicating emotion like in a relationship where you will see that verbalizing that you care about the person is simpler than allowing a miscommunication to build up which results in more complex tension that has to be talked through and resolved.

I'm of the opinion based on experience that it takes a lot to survive one's life, so having a system where you approach life in an efficient, energy saving way seems like a rather good idea. Replacing overt emotional responses with problem solving is not a bad thing. Most crises rely on the people who have the capacity to react in such a manner. It is caring as absolutely as any emotional response could be.

True I care quite a lot to keep the system functioning but I don't get too excited about it. I think that panicking and paranoia will not get you far in life.

I am not 100% sure what you are saying with coherent mind thing but I you are fight my mind is coherent.


But I would not say that dissonance actually comes from the outside it comes from with in me. People around me are quite willing to accept me but I am not interested for majority of things that are ofered to me.


The thing is that as the time goes I have "drift" apart from others. Since through most of my life I was alone I have developed a picture of world that is quite different from picture that others have. So I am searching for ways to blend in more. Since it is for my own good.

 

[mortabunt]

If you want emotionally dying, that's me. *Soul coughs up blood. Picks up AK and fires into the horde of ES's.*

 

[entropie]

I googled for emotionally dead and found this:

Anyone thinking the same shit I think ?