Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Emotional reasoning

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is an old article, but I keep coming across people on this site who think that emotion has no place in reasoning, and this article shows that emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning, so I thought I'd put it here as reference.

It's from Science 1997 (Feb 28, pg 1269). Here's the article in full:

"Intuition may deserve more respect than it gets these days. Although it's often dismissed along with emotion as obscuring clear, rational thought, a new study suggests that it plays a crucial role in humans' ability to make smart decisions.

Neuroscientists Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel, and Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa College of Medicine in Iowa City set out to shed light on the role of intuition and emotion in normal decision-making by studying a group of brain-damaged individuals who seem unable to make good decisions. Some drift in and out of marriages; others squander money or often offend co-workers inadvertently. On page 1293, the researchers unveil what seems to be the missing element in their decision-making. The patients lack intuition--that ability to know something without conscious reasoning--which many cognitive psychologists think may be based on memories of past emotions. "These findings are really exciting," says psychologist Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University. "Emotion apparently is not something that necessarily clouds reasoning, but rather seems to provide an essential foundation for at least some kinds of reasoning."

Psychologists have long known that when people make decisions, whether it's choosing whom to marry or which breakfast cereal to buy, they draw on more than just rational thought. Indeed, says Harvard psychologist and author Howard Gardner, the new work "fits in with an impressive heap of individual studies" showing that people rely on a variety of emotional cues--ranging from a general sense of deja vu to specific feelings like fear--when making decisions.

The Damasios are well known for their registry of more than 2000 brain-damaged patients who participate in experiments designed to unravel how the brain works by determining what goes wrong when parts are missing (Science, 18 May 1990, p. 821). For several years, they have been trying to discover why patients with lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex--the area of the brain right above the eyes--can perform well on intelligence-quotient and memory tests, but when faced with real-life decisions, they at first waffle, then make unwise choices. The same patients also display little I emotion, and the team wondered if emotional--rather than factual--memories might be missing.

To figure out what is going wrong with these patients, and, by extension, what goes right in uninjured brains, the researchers asked patients and a group of normal controls to perform a gambling task. Each subject was given $2000 and four decks of cards. They were told to turn over cards from any deck and to try to win as much money as possible. Although the subjects didn't know it, there were two types of decks. Most cards in the two "bad" decks gave the subjects a reward of $100, although a few told subjects to hand over large sums of money. Most cards in the two "good" decks, by contrast, carried rewards of only $50, but the penalty cards were less severe, too. In the long run, choosing cards from the bad decks resulted in an overall loss, while the good decks gave an overall gain. The task was "designed to resemble life," in its uncertainty, risks, and rewards, says Antonio Damasio. The players did not know when a money-losing card would arise in a deck and had no way to know when the task would end.

Previous work had shown that the brain-damaged patients were just as bad at choosing between good and bad decks as they were a life decisions. While normal subjects tended to pick from the good decks as soon as they had fumed over a large penalty card, the patients kept opting for cards from the bad decks. The earlier work further hinted that emotion played a role. During the task, the patients didn't exhibit much stress or nervousness, as measured by skin conductance response (SCR)--a sort of microsweating that accompanies changes in emotion--even after they'd fumed over several big penalty cards. By contrast, once normal players had encountered penalties, they began showing large SCRs just before choosing from a bad deck.

In the current study, the team tried to determine whether the emotional response and the card choices were based on conscious reasoning by introducing a new element into the task: They interrupted the game periodically to ask players what they thought was going on. Interestingly, the normal players began picking more often from the good decks and showing high SCRs well before they could articulate to the researchers that picking from the good decks seemed to be a better long-term strategy. And although three of the 10 normal subjects never had more than a hunch that some decks were good and some bad, they still picked more cards from the good decks and showed high SCRs before fuming over bad-deck cards.

The brain-damaged patients, on the other hand, never expressed a hunch that some decks seemed to be riskier. Further, even after they had a theory as to which decks were bad, they continued to choose from them part of the time. (When asked to explain their choices, Damasio says, the patients said they thought it was more exciting to play from the risky decks, or that one could never tell when the rules might chance.)

Although not all the results were statistically significant, the authors say the overall findings suggest that in normal people, nonconscious emotional signals may well factor into decision-making before conscious processes do. Antonio Damasio believes the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is part of a system that stores information about past rewards and punishments, and triggers the nonconscious emotional responses that normal people may register as intuition or a "hunch." Read Montague, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agrees: "Something has collected the statistics ... and starts nudging behavior all before [the subjects] know what is happening." But when that ability is gone, says Gardner, the person has no "early-warning system)' to guide their reasoning and, in the face of uncertainty, have difficulty making any choice at all.

Damasio stresses that the early-warning system does not act alone. Humans, after all, are set apart from animals by their ability to reason, he says. Still, "human beings are also the sum of all their previous emotional experiences of rewards and punishments"--experiences from which we learn, it seems, whether we know it or not."
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 6:14:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:
This is an old article, but I keep coming across people on this site who think that emotion has no place in reasoning, and this article shows that emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning, so I thought I'd put it here as reference.

It's from Science 1997 (Feb 28, pg 1269). Here's the article in full:

"Intuition may deserve more respect than it gets these days. Although it's often dismissed along with emotion as obscuring clear, rational thought, a new study suggests that it plays a crucial role in humans' ability to make smart decisions.

Neuroscientists Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel, and Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa College of Medicine in Iowa City set out to shed light on the role of intuition and emotion in normal decision-making by studying a group of brain-damaged individuals who seem unable to make good decisions. Some drift in and out of marriages; others squander money or often offend co-workers inadvertently. On page 1293, the researchers unveil what seems to be the missing element in their decision-making. The patients lack intuition--that ability to know something without conscious reasoning--which many cognitive psychologists think may be based on memories of past emotions. "These findings are really exciting," says psychologist Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University. "Emotion apparently is not something that necessarily clouds reasoning, but rather seems to provide an essential foundation for at least some kinds of reasoning."

Psychologists have long known that when people make decisions, whether it's choosing whom to marry or which breakfast cereal to buy, they draw on more than just rational thought. Indeed, says Harvard psychologist and author Howard Gardner, the new work "fits in with an impressive heap of individual studies" showing that people rely on a variety of emotional cues--ranging from a general sense of deja vu to specific feelings like fear--when making decisions.

The Damasios are well known for their registry of more than 2000 brain-damaged patients who participate in experiments designed to unravel how the brain works by determining what goes wrong when parts are missing (Science, 18 May 1990, p. 821). For several years, they have been trying to discover why patients with lesions of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex--the area of the brain right above the eyes--can perform well on intelligence-quotient and memory tests, but when faced with real-life decisions, they at first waffle, then make unwise choices. The same patients also display little I emotion, and the team wondered if emotional--rather than factual--memories might be missing.

To figure out what is going wrong with these patients, and, by extension, what goes right in uninjured brains, the researchers asked patients and a group of normal controls to perform a gambling task. Each subject was given $2000 and four decks of cards. They were told to turn over cards from any deck and to try to win as much money as possible. Although the subjects didn't know it, there were two types of decks. Most cards in the two "bad" decks gave the subjects a reward of $100, although a few told subjects to hand over large sums of money. Most cards in the two "good" decks, by contrast, carried rewards of only $50, but the penalty cards were less severe, too. In the long run, choosing cards from the bad decks resulted in an overall loss, while the good decks gave an overall gain. The task was "designed to resemble life," in its uncertainty, risks, and rewards, says Antonio Damasio. The players did not know when a money-losing card would arise in a deck and had no way to know when the task would end.

Previous work had shown that the brain-damaged patients were just as bad at choosing between good and bad decks as they were a life decisions. While normal subjects tended to pick from the good decks as soon as they had fumed over a large penalty card, the patients kept opting for cards from the bad decks. The earlier work further hinted that emotion played a role. During the task, the patients didn't exhibit much stress or nervousness, as measured by skin conductance response (SCR)--a sort of microsweating that accompanies changes in emotion--even after they'd fumed over several big penalty cards. By contrast, once normal players had encountered penalties, they began showing large SCRs just before choosing from a bad deck.

In the current study, the team tried to determine whether the emotional response and the card choices were based on conscious reasoning by introducing a new element into the task: They interrupted the game periodically to ask players what they thought was going on. Interestingly, the normal players began picking more often from the good decks and showing high SCRs well before they could articulate to the researchers that picking from the good decks seemed to be a better long-term strategy. And although three of the 10 normal subjects never had more than a hunch that some decks were good and some bad, they still picked more cards from the good decks and showed high SCRs before fuming over bad-deck cards.

The brain-damaged patients, on the other hand, never expressed a hunch that some decks seemed to be riskier. Further, even after they had a theory as to which decks were bad, they continued to choose from them part of the time. (When asked to explain their choices, Damasio says, the patients said they thought it was more exciting to play from the risky decks, or that one could never tell when the rules might chance.)

Although not all the results were statistically significant, the authors say the overall findings suggest that in normal people, nonconscious emotional signals may well factor into decision-making before conscious processes do. Antonio Damasio believes the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is part of a system that stores information about past rewards and punishments, and triggers the nonconscious emotional responses that normal people may register as intuition or a "hunch." Read Montague, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agrees: "Something has collected the statistics ... and starts nudging behavior all before [the subjects] know what is happening." But when that ability is gone, says Gardner, the person has no "early-warning system)' to guide their reasoning and, in the face of uncertainty, have difficulty making any choice at all.

Damasio stresses that the early-warning system does not act alone. Humans, after all, are set apart from animals by their ability to reason, he says. Still, "human beings are also the sum of all their previous emotional experiences of rewards and punishments"--experiences from which we learn, it seems, whether we know it or not."

Rross,

What are some of the implications you are forwarding?

That logic has limits? That logic is incomplete? That a Western view of human potentiality is somewhat handicapped?

Perhaps, Goleman's EQ deserves merit? Dr. Betty Edwards deserves a fresh look?

Or that human beings are at their core irrational?

Pretty fascinating stuff. Let us know your take.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 6:39:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 6:14:10 AM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Rross,

What are some of the implications you are forwarding?

That logic has limits? That logic is incomplete? That a Western view of human potentiality is somewhat handicapped?

Perhaps, Goleman's EQ deserves merit? Dr. Betty Edwards deserves a fresh look?

Or that human beings are at their core irrational?

Pretty fascinating stuff. Let us know your take.

No, I just want to point out that logic alone is insufficient for making good decisions. That an emotion element is essential. That's all.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 6:40:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:

Neuroscientists Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel, and Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa College of Medicine in Iowa City set out to shed light on the role of intuition and emotion in normal decision-making by studying a group of brain-damaged individuals who seem unable to make good decisions. Some drift in and out of marriages; others squander money or often offend co-workers inadvertently. On page 1293, the researchers unveil what seems to be the missing element in their decision-making. The patients lack intuition--that ability to know something without conscious reasoning--which many cognitive psychologists think may be based on memories of past emotions. "These findings are really exciting," says psychologist Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University. "Emotion apparently is not something that necessarily clouds reasoning, but rather seems to provide an essential foundation for at least some kinds of reasoning."

Well, it would be rather premature for me to dismiss a 1000+ paper off hand, but as far as the analysis on this section specifically, the reasoning is flawed...it assumes that marriages and work-place interactions are bedrocks of reasonable interaction...they are not. If anything, those situations are anything BUT reasonable, so of course intuition would play a greater role in determining a successful outcome than a reasonable approach.

I see this in the stock market a lot too. There are plenty of stocks with much, much better financials than others, but, for example, if one simply had a "gut feeling" on Apple when Jobs took over, they would have had a much, much better performing portfolio than Microsoft, which has perennially made gobs of cash.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 6:46:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 6:40:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:

Neuroscientists Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel, and Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa College of Medicine in Iowa City set out to shed light on the role of intuition and emotion in normal decision-making by studying a group of brain-damaged individuals who seem unable to make good decisions. Some drift in and out of marriages; others squander money or often offend co-workers inadvertently. On page 1293, the researchers unveil what seems to be the missing element in their decision-making. The patients lack intuition--that ability to know something without conscious reasoning--which many cognitive psychologists think may be based on memories of past emotions. "These findings are really exciting," says psychologist Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University. "Emotion apparently is not something that necessarily clouds reasoning, but rather seems to provide an essential foundation for at least some kinds of reasoning."

Well, it would be rather premature for me to dismiss a 1000+ paper off hand, but as far as the analysis on this section specifically, the reasoning is flawed...it assumes that marriages and work-place interactions are bedrocks of reasonable interaction...they are not. If anything, those situations are anything BUT reasonable, so of course intuition would play a greater role in determining a successful outcome than a reasonable approach.

I see this in the stock market a lot too. There are plenty of stocks with much, much better financials than others, but, for example, if one simply had a "gut feeling" on Apple when Jobs took over, they would have had a much, much better performing portfolio than Microsoft, which has perennially made gobs of cash.

So you think logic would be sufficient in a reasonable situation. What kind of situation would that be, though?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 6:59:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 6:46:15 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:40:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:

Neuroscientists Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel, and Antonio Damasio of the University of Iowa College of Medicine in Iowa City set out to shed light on the role of intuition and emotion in normal decision-making by studying a group of brain-damaged individuals who seem unable to make good decisions. Some drift in and out of marriages; others squander money or often offend co-workers inadvertently. On page 1293, the researchers unveil what seems to be the missing element in their decision-making. The patients lack intuition--that ability to know something without conscious reasoning--which many cognitive psychologists think may be based on memories of past emotions. "These findings are really exciting," says psychologist Stephen Kosslyn of Harvard University. "Emotion apparently is not something that necessarily clouds reasoning, but rather seems to provide an essential foundation for at least some kinds of reasoning."

Well, it would be rather premature for me to dismiss a 1000+ paper off hand, but as far as the analysis on this section specifically, the reasoning is flawed...it assumes that marriages and work-place interactions are bedrocks of reasonable interaction...they are not. If anything, those situations are anything BUT reasonable, so of course intuition would play a greater role in determining a successful outcome than a reasonable approach.

I see this in the stock market a lot too. There are plenty of stocks with much, much better financials than others, but, for example, if one simply had a "gut feeling" on Apple when Jobs took over, they would have had a much, much better performing portfolio than Microsoft, which has perennially made gobs of cash.

So you think logic would be sufficient in a reasonable situation. What kind of situation would that be, though?

The idea is that you can discern causal relationships, which are logical relationships.

We really don't know much about "why" people fall in love, for example.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 7:04:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 6:59:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:46:15 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:40:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:

Well, it would be rather premature for me to dismiss a 1000+ paper off hand, but as far as the analysis on this section specifically, the reasoning is flawed...it assumes that marriages and work-place interactions are bedrocks of reasonable interaction...they are not. If anything, those situations are anything BUT reasonable, so of course intuition would play a greater role in determining a successful outcome than a reasonable approach.

I see this in the stock market a lot too. There are plenty of stocks with much, much better financials than others, but, for example, if one simply had a "gut feeling" on Apple when Jobs took over, they would have had a much, much better performing portfolio than Microsoft, which has perennially made gobs of cash.

So you think logic would be sufficient in a reasonable situation. What kind of situation would that be, though?

The idea is that you can discern causal relationships, which are logical relationships.

Yes but the study showed that emotion and intuition helped people respond to patterns of good and back luck in a pack of cards, better than logic alone. That's inferring statistical patterns. That's reasonable.

We really don't know much about "why" people fall in love, for example.

I don't anyway, that's for sure.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 7:14:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 7:04:15 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:59:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:46:15 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:40:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:

Well, it would be rather premature for me to dismiss a 1000+ paper off hand, but as far as the analysis on this section specifically, the reasoning is flawed...it assumes that marriages and work-place interactions are bedrocks of reasonable interaction...they are not. If anything, those situations are anything BUT reasonable, so of course intuition would play a greater role in determining a successful outcome than a reasonable approach.

I see this in the stock market a lot too. There are plenty of stocks with much, much better financials than others, but, for example, if one simply had a "gut feeling" on Apple when Jobs took over, they would have had a much, much better performing portfolio than Microsoft, which has perennially made gobs of cash.

So you think logic would be sufficient in a reasonable situation. What kind of situation would that be, though?

The idea is that you can discern causal relationships, which are logical relationships.

Yes but the study showed that emotion and intuition helped people respond to patterns of good and back luck in a pack of cards, better than logic alone. That's inferring statistical patterns. That's reasonable.

A problem may be in how a "bad deck" is defined. What the study seems to show is that severe penalties cause an emotional response...but what if the rewards were actually enough to compensate for such penalties? Wouldn't such a deck be "better", and wouldn't those who reacted on emotion to bad results become inhibited from making the "right" choice?

We really don't know much about "why" people fall in love, for example.

I don't anyway, that's for sure.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 8:13:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 7:14:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 7:04:15 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:59:04 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:46:15 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:40:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:

Well, it would be rather premature for me to dismiss a 1000+ paper off hand, but as far as the analysis on this section specifically, the reasoning is flawed...it assumes that marriages and work-place interactions are bedrocks of reasonable interaction...they are not. If anything, those situations are anything BUT reasonable, so of course intuition would play a greater role in determining a successful outcome than a reasonable approach.

I see this in the stock market a lot too. There are plenty of stocks with much, much better financials than others, but, for example, if one simply had a "gut feeling" on Apple when Jobs took over, they would have had a much, much better performing portfolio than Microsoft, which has perennially made gobs of cash.

So you think logic would be sufficient in a reasonable situation. What kind of situation would that be, though?

The idea is that you can discern causal relationships, which are logical relationships.

Yes but the study showed that emotion and intuition helped people respond to patterns of good and back luck in a pack of cards, better than logic alone. That's inferring statistical patterns. That's reasonable.

A problem may be in how a "bad deck" is defined. What the study seems to show is that severe penalties cause an emotional response...but what if the rewards were actually enough to compensate for such penalties? Wouldn't such a deck be "better", and wouldn't those who reacted on emotion to bad results become inhibited from making the "right" choice?

Yes, that would be a good follow up study.

I don't think it would work like that, because there's an emotional response to good events too. It'd be interesting to test it, though.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 10:38:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:
This is an old article, but I keep coming across people on this site who think that emotion :has no place in reasoning, and this article shows that emotion is ESSENTIAL for :reasoning, so I thought I'd put it here as reference.

You seem to have misunderstood the article. It only says that according to some statistically significant results(it seems to imply that most of them were not significant), it seems that " non-conscious emotional signals may well factor into decision-making before conscious elements." But that doesn't make "non-conscious emotional signals" the basis of "conscious elements" at all, and so you are wrong when you say that "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." This claim is actually contrasted in the article when it says that emotional signals might sweep in before conscious elements, and so the article treats them both as two different aspects, not one that is the basis of the other, contrary to what you suggest when you say that "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning."

I can't seem to find any academic source which says that ""emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." If you argue that reason comes from emotion, then you have provided a subjective and unfounded basis for reason, which means that the reasoning itself that you use to show that "emotion is from reason" is flawed and unreliable.

The best argument against that would be to adopt a Kantian approach that goes against the notion of "pure reason." But I don't think you have done so in your forum posts, at least.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 4:12:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 10:38:22 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/9/2014 5:46:02 AM, rross wrote:
This is an old article, but I keep coming across people on this site who think that emotion :has no place in reasoning, and this article shows that emotion is ESSENTIAL for :reasoning, so I thought I'd put it here as reference.

You seem to have misunderstood the article. It only says that according to some statistically significant results(it seems to imply that most of them were not significant),

The sample size was small because the subjects in the control group were patients with a very specific type of brain damage. But the overall pattern of results was significant.

it seems that " non-conscious emotional signals may well factor into decision-making before conscious elements." But that doesn't make "non-conscious emotional signals" the basis of "conscious elements" at all, and so you are wrong when you say that "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." This claim is actually contrasted in the article when it says that emotional signals might sweep in before conscious elements, and so the article treats them both as two different aspects, not one that is the basis of the other, contrary to what you suggest when you say that "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning."

I can't seem to find any academic source which says that ""emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." If you argue that reason comes from emotion, then you have provided a subjective and unfounded basis for reason, which means that the reasoning itself that you use to show that "emotion is from reason" is flawed and unreliable.

The study shows that humans can reliably assess statistical frequency and likelihood of desirable and undesirable events prior to conscious processing, and that this happens via what we call emotion and intuition.

Given that we live in a world full of uncertainty and tendencies, and given that our emotions can record patterns without us necessarily being consciously aware of it, then it is reasonable to rely partly on intuition and emotions when making decisions.

When emotion and intuition are removed from the process - as these experiments show - subjects can no longer assess frequency and make decisions as well as those subjects who do use emotion and intuition as part of their decision-making. Therefore, emotion is essential to good decision-making.

The best argument against that would be to adopt a Kantian approach that goes against the notion of "pure reason." But I don't think you have done so in your forum posts, at least.

No, because I've never read anything by Kant. that would be why. Do you recommend it?
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 4:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Therefore, emotion is essential to good decision-making.

In the previous post, you said "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." Do you define "reasoning" as good decision-making? From my perspective, those seem like two different things although they could be consequential.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 4:39:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 4:30:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Therefore, emotion is essential to good decision-making.

In the previous post, you said "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." Do you define "reasoning" as good decision-making? From my perspective, those seem like two different things although they could be consequential.

So what would you say is the difference between decision-making and reasoning?
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2014 4:47:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 4:39:56 PM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:30:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Therefore, emotion is essential to good decision-making.

In the previous post, you said "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." Do you define "reasoning" as good decision-making? From my perspective, those seem like two different things although they could be consequential.

So what would you say is the difference between decision-making and reasoning?

By "reasoning", we are talking about "logical reasoning" and not "emotional reasoning", since you yourself contrasted reasoning with emotion, and said emotion is essential to reasoning. Therefore, decision-making doesn't have to involve logical reasoning. I can have "on-the-fly," intuitive decision-making.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 3:54:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 4:47:26 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:39:56 PM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:30:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Therefore, emotion is essential to good decision-making.

In the previous post, you said "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." Do you define "reasoning" as good decision-making? From my perspective, those seem like two different things although they could be consequential.

So what would you say is the difference between decision-making and reasoning?

By "reasoning", we are talking about "logical reasoning" and not "emotional reasoning", since you yourself contrasted reasoning with emotion, and said emotion is essential to reasoning. Therefore, decision-making doesn't have to involve logical reasoning. I can have "on-the-fly," intuitive decision-making.

Saying one thing is essential to another is not really contrasting them. But anyway, if you define "logical reasoning" (as some do) as reasoning in the absence of emotion, then of course my statement wouldn't be true.

But if intuition based on emotion allowed us to make better decisions, it would be logical to include it in your reasoning, right?
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:20:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 3:54:57 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:47:26 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:39:56 PM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:30:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Therefore, emotion is essential to good decision-making.

In the previous post, you said "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." Do you define "reasoning" as good decision-making? From my perspective, those seem like two different things although they could be consequential.

So what would you say is the difference between decision-making and reasoning?

By "reasoning", we are talking about "logical reasoning" and not "emotional reasoning", since you yourself contrasted reasoning with emotion, and said emotion is essential to reasoning. Therefore, decision-making doesn't have to involve logical reasoning. I can have "on-the-fly," intuitive decision-making.

Saying one thing is essential to another is not really contrasting them. But anyway, if you define "logical reasoning" (as some do) as reasoning in the absence of emotion, then of course my statement wouldn't be true.

But if intuition based on emotion allowed us to make better decisions, it would be logical to include it in your reasoning, right?

What do you mean by "intuition based on emotion?" Can you give examples?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:28:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do love these topics of discussion, but I'm going to have to go contrary to the whole "emotional reasoning" bit here, or at least to allowing it to be referred to as such. It's not that it's really emotional, in my opinion, but that it's a sort of base reasoning, incredible calculation that we're all capable of, that happens in all of us all the time, but can't properly be represented by the monologue or "reasoner" due to complexity, and so is relayed to the "rational mind" in different ways - it's down to the sort of calculations that keep you walking in a straight line, to bring it home, the calculations there necessarily astounding, clearly demonstrating some connection of that will that we all know so well to some marvelously calculating machinery (though for the moment you are free to argue that that's only one way).

These findings actually seem to indicate to me a disconnect between the will and the hugely calculating....well, rest of us, rather than some fault in "emotional memory". Ever heard it said that the truth comes out when you're drunk? Explains pretty well these people being noted to offend their colleagues, no? Let that sit in your head a moment.

Continuing: That this marvelously calculating rest of us (which I'll refer to as "the calculating marvel" from now on) plays its part as regards the sensory is rather well-known in certain circles, and I'm surprised that these neuroscientists are going with "emotional memory" here, to be honest, so childish a conception as that is. I mean the body is known to prepare itself for dangers long before the conscious mind becomes aware of those dangers (unless you're speaking in terms of feelings of uneasiness or such), and not down to a simplistic "once burned, twice shy" mechanic, but huge unconscious calculation as regards one's circumstances (I'm thinking these neuroscientists just lost themselves in the similarity between putting one's hand on a rigged deck and putting one's hand on a hot stove).

In my opinion the results of this experiment would actually more accurately be put down to something along the lines of that which brings about hyperventilation or tunnel vision, to some disconnect caused between the rational mind and the calculating marvel, disallowing an easy street operation, necessitating the concentration of the calculating marvel on aspects of human being that are simply more important for survival than something trivial like that test (or, rather, that test as a subsection of a much larger area that these people are now paying much less attention to).

In conclusion, you should trust your gut, but if your gut tells you that emotions are something irrational, it's wrong, they're more like to intuition, they're just secondary to the rational. And then let's not trust your gut too much either, it has a tendency to be slow to catch up with the rational mind as regards what your person wants. Also, I like to drink. I can't quite remember what I was getting at about being drunk earlier. Probably something to do with the calculating marvel and the part it plays in motor systems, alcohol bringing wobbliness... oh, Ockham's Razor! Emotions go crazy, legs literally shut down. There you go. It's all the same thing.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 7:42:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Actually, you can't really say emotion is a product of reason because emotion is what we all live for, but it is still programmed by reason for the most part and thusly secondary to it.....while also being the reason for reason. It's a f*cking paradox! F*ck!!

Man we are one cool f*cking thing, no? Especially me.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 1:42:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 6:39:17 AM, rross wrote:

No, I just want to point out that logic alone is insufficient for making good decisions. That an emotion element is essential. That's all.

Spock forbid!
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 9:28:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 7:33:18 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Pfft, I wasn't thinking about where I was going there at all, but you guys get the drift.

I do get the drift, I think, for everything you said except the alcohol-related part. My relationship with alcohol is more like a friend I catch up with sometimes rather the intense sort of thing you seem to have with it.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 9:33:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 9:28:31 PM, rross wrote:
At 3/10/2014 7:33:18 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Pfft, I wasn't thinking about where I was going there at all, but you guys get the drift.

I do get the drift, I think, for everything you said except the alcohol-related part. My relationship with alcohol is more like a friend I catch up with sometimes rather the intense sort of thing you seem to have with it.

I'm not sure what the part about alcohol had to do with anything either, maybe just that I was reminded that I like to drink... Hey, I'm Irish.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 9:34:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It only stands to reason that one's decisions are affected by all aspects of their personality, which includes a capacity for empathy. I am not surprised by this finding in the least.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 9:39:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 9:33:10 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 3/10/2014 9:28:31 PM, rross wrote:
At 3/10/2014 7:33:18 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Pfft, I wasn't thinking about where I was going there at all, but you guys get the drift.

I do get the drift, I think, for everything you said except the alcohol-related part. My relationship with alcohol is more like a friend I catch up with sometimes rather the intense sort of thing you seem to have with it.

I'm not sure what the part about alcohol had to do with anything either, maybe just that I was reminded that I like to drink... Hey, I'm Irish.

=)
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2014 9:56:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 7:20:09 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/10/2014 3:54:57 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:47:26 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:39:56 PM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 4:30:52 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Therefore, emotion is essential to good decision-making.

In the previous post, you said "emotion is ESSENTIAL for reasoning." Do you define "reasoning" as good decision-making? From my perspective, those seem like two different things although they could be consequential.

So what would you say is the difference between decision-making and reasoning?

By "reasoning", we are talking about "logical reasoning" and not "emotional reasoning", since you yourself contrasted reasoning with emotion, and said emotion is essential to reasoning. Therefore, decision-making doesn't have to involve logical reasoning. I can have "on-the-fly," intuitive decision-making.

Saying one thing is essential to another is not really contrasting them. But anyway, if you define "logical reasoning" (as some do) as reasoning in the absence of emotion, then of course my statement wouldn't be true.

But if intuition based on emotion allowed us to make better decisions, it would be logical to include it in your reasoning, right?

What do you mean by "intuition based on emotion?" Can you give examples?
I just mean from the study in the OP. We can form emotional memories that aren't conscious but they present themselves to our conscious as intuition. So for example, with the cards, people might say they had a "feeling" for or against a particular pile.

Or, the other day I read an account of a fire lieutenant who was standing in a burning house, and everything seemed pretty standard, when suddenly he had a really bad feeling and he ordered his team out of the house and a few seconds later it collapsed. He was unable to articulate why he had the feeling. It seemed totally irrational, but later the analysis suggested that it was something to do with a fire burning in the basement, which lead to the small fire in the kitchen having peculiar qualities.

The psychologist who studied this concluded that it was his experience with fires that led to this reaction, even though it was not a conscious decision-making process.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2014 12:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/9/2014 6:39:17 AM, rross wrote:
At 3/9/2014 6:14:10 AM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Rross,

What are some of the implications you are forwarding?

That logic has limits? That logic is incomplete? That a Western view of human potentiality is somewhat handicapped?

Perhaps, Goleman's EQ deserves merit? Dr. Betty Edwards deserves a fresh look?

Or that human beings are at their core irrational?

Pretty fascinating stuff. Let us know your take.

No, I just want to point out that logic alone is insufficient for making good decisions. That an emotion element is essential. That's all.

This article most certainly doesn't prove that. All it shows is that people with brain damage seem to make bad choices.

The title of this thread is analogous to "Dry Water."
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 7:15:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think that the important thing to take away from this is that emotion isn't a flaw, it's not some vestigial thing to be disposed of, it has an important purpose. It acts as a sort of mental shortcut. We've learned to recognize certain patterns, and various emotions are tied to them due to experience. We learn to fear things that hurt us, to distrust patterns which are flighty in their reliability, and to like things which give us pleasure. Without these shortcuts we wouldn't be able to deal with day to day tasks. So the people without any emotional capacity were reduced to the point of children learning not to touch the stove for the first time, while the emotionally capable were armed with years of experience-driven programming.

That being said, logic should still be considered superior to emotion because, while emotion is essential it is not foolproof, and logic has the capacity to correct its more insidious errors and, in doing so, to further refine its accuracy and utility. Emotion, on the other hand, can never 'correct' sound reasoning.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 9:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 9:56:26 PM, rross wrote:
Or, the other day I read an account of a fire lieutenant who was standing in a burning house, and everything seemed pretty standard, when suddenly he had a really bad feeling and he ordered his team out of the house and a few seconds later it collapsed. He was unable to articulate why he had the feeling. It seemed totally irrational, but later the analysis suggested that it was something to do with a fire burning in the basement, which lead to the small fire in the kitchen having peculiar qualities.

The psychologist who studied this concluded that it was his experience with fires that led to this reaction, even though it was not a conscious decision-making process.

The Fool: This is just classical conditioning, where previous experiences, have made the lieutenant, hypersensitive, to fire like symptoms.

The key information which is missing is how many times, do fire lieutenants make false calls, in such situations. Without that RATIO, It doesn't tell us, much.

Type I thinking:
The Fool: On any rate, this is known as Type I thinking.
It's intuitional, and so fast. But at the price of high rate of errors.
This system is associated with, the primitive, and archaic base of the brain. The same part we share with lizards, even.
This type of thinking is beneficial, when there's no time to think, particularly in ""better to be safe than sorry" circumstances, where false positives, don't have a substantial negative impact.


On Emotions


The Fool: That is, emotions are what push, and or pull us in one direction or another.
They are more, the motivation and momentum, behind rationalizing.

You be the judge:
The Fool:Just think to yourself, how you feel when you're afraid, when you're angry, when you care, and when you're sad.

For when we are afraid, are we not "generally" motivated avoid and or escape?
And when we are angry, are we not "generally" motivated to attack and/or harm?
When we care about something or someone, are we not generally motivated to help, and/or improve that which we care about?
And when we are de-pressed or sad do we not, lose our sense of fortitude, do these emotions not, inhibit self-positive motivations?

I am sure most people, have had at least one experience, where their over enthusiasm, led them to, nonsensical assumptions and conclusions. And perhaps beliefs even.

Biases
The Fool: That being said, emotions are also the cause of "biases."
As too much push or pull in one direction, or oneself direction results in imbalance.
For we are much more likely to make errors, when we are angry, and even more when we are very angry.
And the higher the magnitude of a particular emotion, the higher the rate of error in reason.

I would even bet, that errors in judgments increase exponentially in relation to the magnitude of these particular emotions.

But I'm broke.
<(80)
Perhaps next time.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 9:31:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/10/2014 9:56:26 PM, rross wrote:

Rationality:
The Fool: On the other hand, the term rationality, stems from ratiocination, stems from simply, RATIO as in 1:1
And so to think rationally may be thought of, as keeping a balance, between emotions, their directions, and between beliefs and fact.
Un-coincidentally, that which is logical, has a 1 to 1 ratio.

Recall
"The key information which is missing is how many times, do fire lieutenants make false calls, in such situations. Without that ----RATIO----, It doesn't tell us, much."

If you understand this, then you may understand how it may be possible to come to a rational understanding by experiencing the same thing, with extreme but contrasting emotions, from one, time to the next.
Each contrasting emotion may cancel out, the other, a leading to an unbiased judgment.

For we may experience something, when in a good mood, and that very same thing in a bad mood, we can then learn better to not attribute, the positive or negative mood to that thing in question. But to ourselves.

Types II Thinking
Types II thinking consist of more rational thinking"

This system, is most beneficial in situations where "time is on your side" and/or errors are quite costly. It's closely associated with the prefrontal cortex, which is of course the latest development of the brain, and is that which distinguishes us, as the rational animal, from all other animals.

It is particularly involved with inhibiting impulses, Intuition and so synonymously emotional reactions.
Thus giving us the ability to keep our cool, when it is otherwise uncool to do so.

It's more associated with rationality, it helps us distinguish which emotions are appropriate for what circumstance.
For example it's irrational to be "upset" at your computer, and to smash it, to make it better.

It gives us the courage, to only be as fearful, as justified by the facts, as opposed to breaking down in a panic which would result in type I thinking, in a situation, where an error can result in severe injury.

It enables us to withhold instant gratification for a better and richer, gratification.
For example waiting till you get to the washroom to take a dump as opposed to your pants.
And to not suckle your dog.
<(XD)

Drawing contrasts
The Fool: For I draw many things, but if there's one thing I like to draw it's contrasts.

Ma Monkey: How cheesy".what the hell is going on here?!

The Fool: Now Pure type 1 is impossible, but if it wasn't it would consist of all action and no contemplation, that is No thinking, where extreme type II thinking, would result in, constant contemplation but no actions.

A cheap analogy can be made between thinking (Activist, or Subjectivists) versus an analytical philosopher.
Perhaps a bias one.
<(8O)

One being, more emotional, and one being more rational.
There's no perfect, disjunct, but rather a gradient, to and fro.

<(89)

Or here's another analogy to emotion and logic.
Think of emotions as, the motivation, behind the rationality.
If we had no emotions, there'd be nothing meaningful to rationalize about..

Think of reasoning, as emotions plus, rationality.

Note the contrast, between my use of the word, reason and rationality.

For I use the word, reason, to include emotions, and rationality.
That is the combination, but do not confuse emotions for being rational.

Oh ya, I love you Guys. Especially Clown bear and Noumena..
And even badger.

Ma Monkey: Imposter!!!!!

The Fool: I love lamp!!

Ma Monkey: I love lawn"

The Fool: Me too even.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL