Spock would you.

Except he would disagree that emotions are necessary for logical though and promptly denounce your entire line of reasoning. Unfortunately, I must also disagree with you on that point. Emotion is not necessary for logic- it merely gives you a feeling of well-being afterwards. Therefore, it is not critical to the logic process itself.

...

Where do you come up with these entries?

I feel as though I must agree with Karzahni's Servant. Emotions have only hindered my logic; and to get my logic to its uppermost efficiency, I need to push all emotion aside.

Otherwise, in reference to your entry's picture; I love fractal geometry.

Argy

Perhaps I didn't explain well enough -- what I mean is, you need to have a positive attitude towards logic to begin with, if you're going to be logical. Enjoying the process and especially being able to enjoy it when you're proven wrong (a rare skill it seems, unfortunately) too.

So basically emotion has a place before logic, alongside it, and after it. But not part of it.

And I would agree with you, Argetlam, that ideally it wouldn't be needed alongside it either -- yes, it's more efficient to push it away totally. I am saying this for the benefit of those who find that difficult or even repulsive -- you can still be logical and emotional at the same time if you do it right.

And even there, you are actually doing something emotionally -- you're having a positive attitude towards the idea of pushing emotions totally away from the thought process, because you desire emotionally the benefits that gets. There too, emotion is needed to even start that process or motivate it.

I'd compare this to something said by a Coast Guard helicopter pilot said on the Discovery show "After the Catch" (as in, after "Deadliest Catch" which is about Alaskan Crab fishing in the dangerous Bering Sea). When there's an emergency, you compartmentalize -- you push all emotion out and you just concentrate on doing the job. Or at least she does, but that's the way it's done.

But that doesn't emotion has no place -- after all, she does that for emotional reasons. The person who's in danger needs a cool head to save their life. She does that so at the end of the day, the person can live on. Someone with no emotional regard for life would not be able to carry out that job; would not be able to compartmentalize their emotions and thought processes.

It is in my opinion that my opinion is right and your opinion is wrong about my opinion being wrong and your opinion being right.

-Omi

Fascinating, Omi.

Have you ever considered writing a book, Bones?

With any question, you try to put into mind multiple possibilities, analyzing them to see which makes the most sense.

I already try to do that though and scarily enough, I do it consciously. When I'm not absolutely sure about something, I type down every probable/possible answer to the problem with my reasoning behind each one. That means that I'm more likely to have picked the right one. I suppose it's like betting on all of the horses at a race.

Bones, you just broadened my horizon.

Bring us back to the light!

First of all, you happen to be doing it wrong:

Second of all, you do not actually need a cool head- if you lack emotions altogether, then you would not panic/therefore do not need a cool head, as you would have no concern/panic/anything.

When I'm not absolutely sure about something, I type down every probable/possible answer to the problem with my reasoning behind each one.

Especially on important things, that's a good method, I think.

-----------

One thing about logic is that it's a process -- and the answer we get from that process -- that (if it's real logic) makes sense, cause logic makes sense: That's the point of it, after all. Emotion does NOT always make sense; sometimes it's not even the emotion we'd like to feel at the time, if we could choose.

Emotions are more of a reflexive, automatic response. Logic is more deliberate. A choice, rather than a reflexive thing.

Hm. That's all I can really type up now.

But logic can and does influence emotions. Let's say, uh, during WW II someone in Nazi Germany had logically decided Hitler was an evil psychopath. Thus he would be happy to have Hitler defeated.

So logic and emotion are not entirely disconnected or opposites. They influence each other. And both are an important part of being human.

----------------

I think -- correct me if your experience is otherwise -- that if you say you try to be logical, people think, if only for a second, that you're like a Vulcan from Star Trek: You dislike and/or try to flatten all emotion in favor of cold logic.

Does your experience support that? I'd be happy to be wrong. Of course.

-?

Ooooh I see a Taste Discrimination Fallacy:

it takes the right attitude to begin with

Who says the attitude you are talking about is right?

Seriously though, nice entry! That 'Confidence Trap' is something that will make you seem right and be confident at first, but the more you cling to it (if you are wrong), the more you will be proven wrong and the less you will be confident. In the end you'll be making a fool of yourself while you're defending your instinctual first answer, because you think this will bring your confidence back eventually. So in a sense, the Confidence Trap can be a paradox as you fall for it because it makes you feel confident, but in the end it will take all of your confidence away.

By the way, I think a big flaw that leads to the Confidence Trap is again confusing ("thought-")opinion with personal taste. The great factor that gives you confidence here is the idea of 'being someone', as in the fourth 'need' of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, so you'll have to have something in yourself which you can depend upon and look at thinking 'There, I'm not a ghost, I'm actually something'.

The problem is that if you depend on fallible opinions you block yourself from seeing their fallibility, while if you depend on (infallible) personal taste, you can never be wrong so you don't have to worry about seeing the fallibility. The trick would be knowing your own tastes and knowing how they are changing (because they may).

Another, harder way would be to just be confident for the sake of it. The problem here is that you can't depend on anything, but if you manage to keep it up it can be better than depending on taste, as you don't have to worry about your tastes changing.

And I find it interesting you mentioned the Life-or-Death issue in this entry (I.E. in relation to this subject). I won't respond to it here as it's obviously not allowed, but I thought I'd just mention it now and respond later off-BZP.

I'd compare this to something said by a Coast Guard helicopter pilot said on the Discovery show "After the Catch" (as in, after "Deadliest Catch" which is about Alaskan Crab fishing in the dangerous Bering Sea). When there's an emergency, you compartmentalize -- you push all emotion out and you just concentrate on doing the job. Or at least she does, but that's the way it's done.

 

But that doesn't emotion has no place -- after all, she does that for emotional reasons. The person who's in danger needs a cool head to save their life. She does that so at the end of the day, the person can live on. Someone with no emotional regard for life would not be able to carry out that job; would not be able to compartmentalize their emotions and thought processes.

One more clarification I forgot -- you might notice I talked about "faster logic" under the "feelings" part. That's not really emotions -- emotions are simple chemicals -- that means using the smaller (thus faster) core area of the brain to think fast, as opposed to the much slower forward area that we normally "think" with. When you ride a bike, walk, type pilot a rescue helicopter, or whatever (assuming you're experienced enough), you're most often using this type of "feeling." This is actually in essence the part of your brain where emotion and logic literally blend.

That's the subconscious, in normal language. (Or part of it. )

If you study logic (with your conscious), you can train your own subconscious to basically do logic faster. Emotions do get into the mix here, but if you train yourself well, it can actually be more efficient than pure conscious logic, simply because you can react faster. You can hear an argument and instantly "feel" that something's off with it, for example. You could call it intuition perhaps.

I think normal people actually do this in a lot of ways that I have never been able to do. I've mentioned before that I seem to have some kind of mental condition that makes me think more slowly than most people -- I think it's because for whatever reason my conscious controls more of what I do than for most people who use their subconscious more. It's an allocation thing -- it's good for me in some ways because it helps me analyze better. Part of the reason I'm a logician. But in fastpaced dangerous situations it's bad for me, and it stinks for in-person communication.

So it's actually sortof a learning curve for me that I try to learn how to do that. "Normal people" usually don't know as much about valid logic, though, so consciously or subconciously they make mistakes like Ad Populum. When they learn about that fallacy, they might consciously know the majority isn't always right, but subconsciously they might still feel that the majority is automatically right, and in real life situations "go with the flow," because they haven't trained their subconscious to "feel" that the majority is sometimes (sometimes) wrong.

If they had, then in that case, "feeling" mixed into emotion would be more efficient, not less. All about whether you train your "feelings" to be logical or you leave them in their default illogical ways. (Of course, we can usually already feel a lot of basics about logic; otherwise we wouldn't be able to interpret what our senses tell us about our surroundings; i.e. if you see a shape in front of you, you know it means there's an object there (or... an illusion...).)

Anyways. To clarify.

With any question, you try to put into mind multiple possibilities, analyzing them to see which makes the most sense.

 

I already try to do that though and scarily enough, I do it consciously. When I'm not absolutely sure about something, I type down every probable/possible answer to the problem with my reasoning behind each one. That means that I'm more likely to have picked the right one. I suppose it's like betting on all of the horses at a race.

Sortof. More like researching or following all the horses, studying the course, and making an "educated guess" on a single horse, because you do sort of "pick" one. And how big a bet you make would depend on how sure you are. For example, there are some ideas about reality I believe, but I'm sure about maybe 55%, but one thing I'm sure about 99%. I always keep a 1% possibility that I could be wrong in mind, especially in discussion, because logically it IS possible to be wrong.

When I'm not absolutely sure about something, I type down every probable/possible answer to the problem with my reasoning behind each one.

 

Especially on important things, that's a good method, I think.

 

-----------

 

One thing about logic is that it's a process -- and the answer we get from that process -- that (if it's real logic) makes sense, cause logic makes sense: That's the point of it, after all. Emotion does NOT always make sense; sometimes it's not even the emotion we'd like to feel at the time, if we could choose.

 

Emotions are more of a reflexive, automatic response. Logic is more deliberate. A choice, rather than a reflexive thing.

 

Hm. That's all I can really type up now.

 

But logic can and does influence emotions. Let's say, uh, during WW II someone in Nazi Germany had logically decided Hitler was an evil psychopath. Thus he would be happy to have Hitler defeated.

 

So logic and emotion are not entirely disconnected or opposites. They influence each other. And both are an important part of being human.

 

----------------

 

I think -- correct me if your experience is otherwise -- that if you say you try to be logical, people think, if only for a second, that you're like a Vulcan from Star Trek: You dislike and/or try to flatten all emotion in favor of cold logic.

 

Does your experience support that? I'd be happy to be wrong. Of course.

 

 

-?

That's actually part of why I brought up what I did about feelings. Yes, people falsely assume that all the time. In fact, some have gone to such an extreme that they actually accuse me of not really being a logician just because I use emoticons lol. And express emotion in my posts. (Of course, I do unfortunately use the wrong emotions sometimes and sure, it affects my logic when I make that mistake. That's a hugo learning curve too and logic is a hugo help sorting out what situations should be matched with what emotions.)

In this entry I alluded to a past entry where in fact in one of the replies, someone actually thought I was arguing that emotion was bad. That was the "Why I Do What I Do" entry, Important Entries listlink.

And that's my point about Spock and ST vulcans. Unfortunately the writers planted (or watered, really) a horrible misconception that humans are "emotional" and only some alien or robots are "logical." They talked again and again about this as if it was a dichotomy. It's not at all; it's just that illogic and misplaced emotions are harmful. (So there's a bad side in both categories.)

In their defense, they didn't really know as much as we know now at the time about emotions and brain function, though. But yeah, a lot of people actually defend their illogic as "human", and others think emotion is wrong, etc. etc. It's a tangled mess out there, lol.

Ooooh I see a Taste Discrimination Fallacy:

it takes the right attitude to begin with

Who says the attitude you are talking about is right?

Oez noez!

Eet Eez the zamorzorz! Or whateverzorz!

Seriously though, nice entry! That 'Confidence Trap' is something that will make you seem right and be confident at first, but the more you cling to it (if you are wrong), the more you will be proven wrong and the less you will be confident. In the end you'll be making a fool of yourself while you're defending your instinctual first answer, because you think this will bring your confidence back eventually. So in a sense, the Confidence Trap can be a paradox as you fall for it because it makes you feel confident, but in the end it will take all of your confidence away.

 

By the way, I think a big flaw that leads to the Confidence Trap is again confusing ("thought-")opinion with personal taste. The great factor that gives you confidence here is the idea of 'being someone', as in the fourth 'need' of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, so you'll have to have something in yourself which you can depend upon and look at thinking 'There, I'm not a ghost, I'm actually something'.

 

The problem is that if you depend on fallible opinions you block yourself from seeing their fallibility, while if you depend on (infallible) personal taste, you can never be wrong so you don't have to worry about seeing the fallibility. The trick would be knowing your own tastes and knowing how they are changing (because they may).

 

Another, harder way would be to just be confident for the sake of it. The problem here is that you can't depend on anything, but if you manage to keep it up it can be better than depending on taste, as you don't have to worry about your tastes changing.

 

And I find it interesting you mentioned the Life-or-Death issue in this entry (I.E. in relation to this subject). I won't respond to it here as it's obviously not allowed, but I thought I'd just mention it now and respond later off-BZP.

Indeed, all very well said. Truth, as they'd say in Dune.

Yeah. I hesitate to even allude to that issue, since it is so touchy and complex and all that (and since it's not allowed here, heh). Though of course, there are many life-and-death issues, many we can talk about. Like recently when a certain-someone-who-shall-not-be-named stopped a certain car in the middle of midspeed oncoming traffic because heshe was talking on the cellphone... and had to be reminded to switch their brain on as it were. (I'm not talking about me. ) That person wasn't thinking of possibilities at that moment -- like is it possible that this road we're crossing might have actual traffic on it? (Answer -- daily double -- I mean, yes.) This can save your life in any number of ways.