Kalach
Filthy Apes!
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,310
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
Feelings are much more fallible than logic.
They are? What if one is very good at identifying them?
Feelings come and go, sure, but in an irrational way?
Feelings are much more fallible than logic.
You confuse rational with having a positive effect on relative reproductive rates.I think Fear as in Flight or fight response is pretty rational. I think Love as in mother/child bond is logical too.
You confuse rational with having a positive effect on relative reproductive rates.
You're basically telling us that any life form exhibiting a behavior of any sort is rational and can self program it's computations patterns through metacognition.
wow
Well, in cave dwelling days I would have thought that larger numbers of surviving offspring ensure the survival of our species. Any mechanism that promotes this is surely a logical move (of course when veiwed in those circumstances).
So yes, Eck, a behaviour that has positive benefits for it's population in some shape or form is logical in context to the situation.
You are of course taking the piss out of me, so I'm gonna shutup now.
P.S. When you put it like that, it sounds simplistic, but if was that simple how come basic computer programmes can't do it? If I had a computer programme that did just that at work I'd be out of job.
NT's like myself only think emotions are bad when they conflict with rational decisions. I believe better results can usually be obtained when we let the brain rule the heart.
Cooperation with others is what allowed us to dominate our world. Nature equipped us with compassion in order to promote cooperation. When we look at the big picture, it is rational to help the victim as long as the risks are reasonable. It increases the likelihood that I will receive help should I become the victim.
From the perspective of self interest, leniency here is not necessarily irrational. If I ended up on trial, allowing the courts to exercise compassion would increase the likelihood that I will get a second chance. It's all based on the cost/benefit analysis.
In this example, suppose you let the rapist off easy simple because he's a handsome hunk. This would be a clear example where emotions caused a bad decision since it increases the danger to yourself.
Feelings are much more fallible than logic.
Feelings are much more fallible than logic.
settle petal, I took it more in the context of adaption and learning, which is also a part of the evolution of biological systems, as in behaviour. You saw one thing, I saw another (admittly I took a mighty big intuitive leap too.) Seriously a computer program that learned and adapted within context of it's peremeters would make mint in my industry. That's all....different angles.?
I'm not sure that you understand how evolution of biological systems actually works : \. You'd never say that otherwise.
Computers are not self replicating, computers don't mutate, computers don't have to share limited ressources, computers are not able to collect ressources and even if they could, computers weren't left alone for billions of years.
This has nothing to do with reason.
It's like calling the grand canyon rational because of the sheer relative scale of it in both space and time compared to human life span and size. Doesn't make any sense.
If by chance, one among many individual is, thanks to his genetic code and the resulting phenotype, is statistically more likely to reproduce and transmit his\her own relative advantage to his\her kids, then, after xx generations the advantageous mutation will have replaced the 'old version' of the code. Simple maths, large numbers of individuals and generations in a biosphere with limited ressources.
nope. this is true all the time.Actually, so are you, my little carebear. This might be true for you, but doesn't mean it's necessarily true for others, or for that matter on each subject.
and for those of you who can't make cohesive sense of night's verbose assessment, i'll translate.Although offered in jest, your critique has teeth.
Quartering the MBTI into continental subgroups (SJ; SP; NF; NT) makes sense until oppositional/subjective language was introduced (ironically) probably as a means to add clarifying depth to the temperament summaries.
Instead of providing process-enhancing detail, the descriptions introduce artificial terms of implied value (Mastermind v. Mechanic). It's only natural that, from here, folks unfamiliar with the non-hierarchical nature of the MBTI would necessarily presume quality of mind/behavior against type.
In the end, applying these labels (versus simply offering an itemized breakdown of observed trait preference) distorts the MBTI into a 'tiered' (semi-competitive) framework.
maybe.ama said:Ahh but, sweety, that wasn't what I was referring to. Call it irrational all you want, what I was referring to is the 'higher degree of efficiency'. This is not true for everyone. Others are more efficient using the 'irrational' road.
It's like calling the grand canyon rational because of the sheer relative scale of it in both space and time compared to human life span and size. Doesn't make any sense.
Emotions can be considered rational responses
+1I don't think emotions are either rational or irrational; I think they're more arational. If that's a word.
If someone gets a nice present for their birthday, then they feel loved. That emotion logically follows.
If someone stays in an abusive relationship because they are convinced the other party really loves them, then their feelings of loyalty don't logically follow.
Emotions are purely biological and, in my opinion, only happen to coincide with rationality or irrationality. I don't think this means emotions aren't valuable, though. They motivate, they color life. I think they're just as valuable as thought, just in a very different way.
Go INTJsEmotions can interfere with logical thinking. However, on a basic biochemical level, they can be understood in a logical manner.
What am I throwing out?