Emotional logic

[Glider]

To Glider

I guess my phrase 'non emotional thinking' was a bit ambiguous. And I agree that it is almost impossible to achieve in its entirety. How about a duty to make an honest attempt to think and express ideas in a rational manner, and consciously try to avoid emotional logic in such?

Yes, of course I agree with that. I think the best way to achieve it is to acknowledge that emotion plays a part in everything we do and to deny/ignore it is risky. If people acknowledge it, the the sudden flash of anger that can happen in debate can be acknowledged for what it is and dealt with appropriately. If people don't think it can happen to the 'rational mind' then they are more likely to act on that feeling because, of course, it simply can't be emotion...it's just that I'm right!

 

Interesting idea about arousal in disaster thinking. I have tended to assume it was a kind of Messiah complex. That is : "I predict a disaster, but don't worry. I am here and all you need to do is follow my lead and all will be well." This makes disaster prediction another attempt to gain status. Do you think there may be any merit in this idea?

I suppose it depends on the type of person you're talking about.

 

In your first question, I was thinking more of the people who take the "Y'know, there's gonna be a war over this, you know that don'cha?" stance in the pub, or the "That's it, the LHC's gonnna form a black-hole and in four years the Indian Ocean's gonnna start glowing and we'll all be f***ed!" conversation.

 

I suspect that most people are familiar with this kind of person. They seem to take comfort from the prospect of disaster, but as for messianic tendencies? I'm not sure about that. They'd be hard pushed to get people to follow them to the next pub.

 

There is another kind though; those who form liitle cults based on 'end of days' predictions, but I suspect that in those people, the messiah complex came first.

 

I should say that I am just guessing here.

[Snare]

Depends on what you call a "bad" decision or "poor thinking."

 

From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense. Avoidance of risk and such.

[pioneer]

Does statistics and probability induce emotional logic? This approach to science is not fully rational since rational is based on cause and affect with a probability of 1.0. With statistics we add doubt or uncertainty and thereby introduce emotion into the analysis. For example, the buzz word "risk" is designed to create the emotion, fear. Eating X increases the risk of Y by 10%. Purely logical would say those 10 out of a 100 should worry while the other 90 should go about their business. But it doesn't work that way, with maybe 90% feeling fear even though this is illogical. This science approach depends on emotional logic to create an illogical reaction.

 

Since it is designed to generate emotional thinking, once the emotion of fear is generated, this emotion will generate further thinking. Even though logically only 10 are at risk, we need to create a law to reduce the fear in the 90 who are now thinking emotionally so we can appease the extra fear we created so they can return to reason. I am not sure is this counts as real science. Using emotion we can create that illusion. Logical science should not be generating emotional thinking. This is free market science connected to other emotional thinking affects such as sales pitches.

[SkepticLance]

The problem with statistics and other numerical evidence is that it is misused or ignored. There is no better evidence of a rational kind than hard data expressed as numbers. This includes statistical data with its pre-calculated error factors. However, we are faced with a wall of ignorance on how to use such data. I have even encountered people who say : "It's only statistics." As if that meant those numbers could be safely ignored.

[Dak]

Does statistics and probability induce emotional logic? This approach to science is not fully rational since rational is based on cause and affect with a probability of 1.0.

 

umm... no it's not.

 

Eating X increases the risk of Y by 10%. Purely logical would say those 10 out of a 100 should worry while the other 90 should go about their business. But it doesn't work that way, with maybe 90% feeling fear even though this is illogical. This science approach depends on emotional logic to create an illogical reaction.

 

umm, no. That'd depend on the original risk of Y (e.g,. if it was 30%, then a 10% increase would lead to the risk of Y being 33% for people who eat X).

 

10 out of a 100 should worry whilst the other 90 go about their buisness would presume that the 10% could be identified, which probably isn't the case.

 

if Y is bad enough, then given a 1/10 chance of Y happening if X, then i'd not call it irrational for everyone who does X to worry.

 

Since it is designed to generate emotional thinking, once the emotion of fear is generated, this emotion will generate further thinking. Even though logically only 10 are at risk, we need to create a law to reduce the fear in the 90 who are now thinking emotionally so we can appease the extra fear we created so they can return to reason. I am not sure is this counts as real science.

 

I am not a scientist, however i'm absolutely sure that it does not count as real science.

[dichotomy]

Does statistics and probability induce emotional logic?.

 

 

I’d think it would be a two edged sword. They both put us on the path towards logical thought. Statistics and probability allow us to drive with at least part of our windscreens defrosted. It’s better than driving with a window that is completely frosted up.

 

The average age of death for a western male is about 75. Does this generally produce polluted logic or rational acceptance? To me it produces a rational acceptance of my probable fate, with the currently known information. Someone in their 20s might find this comforting, whilst someone in their 60s might find it fear inducing. If anything, stats and probability are very handy tools for accumulating harder evidence and facts. And like any tool, their effectiveness depends on how they are used. A politician could use statistics to generate fear or happiness, depending on what outcome they are hoping to trigger.

[pioneer]

Maybe my example was not exactly accurate with respect to numbers. But when you add uncertainty to anything, the reaction is often emotional. In the science world of probability and chaos the level of emotional thinking will always be higher than in a logical science world based on cause and effect. This extra proportion of emotional reasoning adds to the rational thinking to create a hybrid type of thought. It is no longer the singular path of reason that each can derive independently. It become diverse and often come down to emotion deciding which train of thought you wish to accept.

 

If a=b and b=c than a=c, there is only path that everyone will derive. But if a has a finite possibility of not equally b and b has a finite possibility of not equally c, then when it comes to comparing a to c, one group says a>c and the other a<c, with both offering proof that they are correct. It comes down to emotional appeal like he dresses nicer or his slides are more colorful.

 

The age of enlightenment was a movement away from emotional thinking where emotional bias ruled the day. Like emotion, nature was viewed as a turbulent spectrum of phenomena without any real logical order. This was because emotion was leading thought such that thought reflected the ebb and flow of emotion. The god explanation was settling to the heart, more than the mind, and was intended to unify emotion so emotional thinking would unify. Logic is more cold blooded, trying to factor out subjectivity and emotion, allowing thought without feeling. The result was objectivity.

 

This reached a peak around the time of Einstein when physics decided to shift from pure logic into an orientation of statistics via quantum mechanics. In gambling casinos, there is an intellectual way to improve the odds of winning but emotion still rules. Everyone is trying for that euphoric feeling that comes from winning the jackpot. Science took a few steps backwards adding emotion to reason. It is no longer cool logic but warm fuzzy logic. Now anything is possible since uncertainty accommodates the ebb and the flow of emotion. Emotional thinking which often fixates on the long shot due to fear or desire. For example, the theory of relative instinct for humans can accommodate any emotion. It is designed around warm fuzzy science and not cool logic. Cool logic may hurt feelings or narrow the amount of possible feelings. If you limit the feelings you also limit the range of emotional science.

[Glider]

Yeah...and any time you want to provide some support for any of that crap, it'd be really peachy.

[pioneer]

Emotional science requires resources because it is empirical. Whereas logical science can use logic which is free. With emotional science, money and resource value is part of the equation since the brain is not important, since a blind fold is better. If I provided a correlation that isn't even based on logic you would be fine.

 

In the middle ages, their own version of chaos ruled nature. Logic was not acceptable either. Everyone expected ghosts and spirits to create uncertainty. Logic tried to eliminate this uncertainty and was seen as a threat. All that uncertainty gave credence to the spirit theory of reality. Now only the spirit of chaos rules the darkness.

[Dak]

What, exactly, do you mean by 'emotional science'?

 

Your next post had better make sense, by the way.

[dichotomy]

There seems to be some pulsating hostile amygdalas being triggered by pioneer.