I doubt that you'll ever have a very scientific description of what an emotion is, and how it's different from a reason.
That being said, I don't think that we're doomed to be merely apes in trowsers. The fact that I've made decisions that I didn't want to make based on arguments for why I should do it seem like pretty good evidence for me.
But that many people act more like animals than human beings is hardly surprising. All of us do it at some time, at least.
I think the science on that particular question doesn't give a particularly simple or complete answer. Human beings balance a whole LOT of different interests, some of them competing, and when you try to talk about politics, you inevitably end up mixing in personal needs with policy opinions and so forth.
But the real main problem is the potentially faulty setting up of the emotions and reason as being opposites. Oftentimes, emotions ARE in fact rational responses and strategies that support our interests quite effectively, even if we don't sit down and figure this out consciously in every instance. Economists have a heck of a lot to say about this, because they are in the business of figuring out why certain behavior is "rational" even if many people think it's just crazy and emotional, and they have countless examples of cases in which it turns out that both are in concert.
If you go to a doctor and ask him to fix a broken arm, you have a 99% chance of getting a successful and permanent fix. If you walk into a doctors office and ask him to fix your bipolar syndrome, your chances of a sucessful and permanent fix drop below 10%.
Our understanding of how the human mind works is pretty much at the bloodletting and leeches stage. Science is an inefficient tool for figuring out how just one mind works - using it to figure out how millions of minds interact in a complex political system is just way beyond our abilities. Reading tea leaves or just plain guesswork based on past experience is probably more exact.
If we use those methods, and if we ignore all 'scientific' research publised by partisan media outlets like Newsweek and the New York Times we'll be way ahead of the game.
My own view on this is that I live in Chicago and the folks revving up the crowds here are Democrats and they aren't using appeals to reason.
LOL Yeah, no kidding.
Anyways, reason is only a tool; we can use it discover E=MC^2 or to get laid or to establish a Stalinist dictatorship. Emotions (or more correctly, biochemical hormone-driven reactions) drive reason to accomplish emotional goals, be they love or compassion or hate or horniness or the will to power.
In the end what matters is principles, through which we can use reason to harness emotional drives in positive ways, e.g. through liberal capitalist democracy.
I like Vic's point: "Oftentimes, emotions ARE in fact rational responses and strategies that support our interests quite effectively, even if we don't sit down and figure this out consciously in every instance."
Let me just raise the prospect of filtering this discussion through the lens of the male / female cerebral divide!
"Our understanding of how the human mind works is pretty much at the bloodletting and leeches stage."
Oh, I disagree on that. With the mind, we're pretty much at the stage we are with a lot of diseases: we have a pretty decent idea of how it works in a general sense and some of the good specifics, but what we don't have are any good means by which to change or fix things: a lot of the problems are on a cellular and genetic level that we have only very clumsy ways of dealing with (drugs are our best tools, but they are inherently very clumsy even at getting towards simple problems.)
As an engineer and a manager of engineers, this is a topic that is very near and dear to me (does that make it emotional?). The first lesson I preach to every new engineer wannabe is that emotions must be removed from the decision making process. It is simply impossible to design a plane or a bridge or a circuit with emotions.
I’ve seen dozens of careers derailed when the person would not (or could not?) accept that fact. Design and development engineering is an inherently self-proving field. Either your designs work, or they don’t. If they don’t, you don’t have a job very long. I’m sure software guys like Martin see this too.
Whether we are “hard wired” to be ruled by our emotions or not, I can’t say. I suspect some of us are, and some aren’t. Maybe its like left handedness or sexual preference. But obviously, some of us can learn to set our emotions aside, at least for some of the time.
I suspect there are some folks who can’t do it, or at least have a much harder time doing it. And I don’t think it’s related to what we commonly refer to as “IQ”. I’ve met some highly intelligent people who can’t seem to override their emotions in cases where it would obviously be to their advantage to do so.
And as Ron alluded, I suspect there is a real difference to this effect that’s related to sex. In 20 years, I have worked with maybe a dozen female engineers, versus literally thousands of males. And in all honesty, I would only call one or two of those females “good engineers”. I don’t know why it works that way, exactly. If I did, I could probably make a fortune off that knowledge. But I suspect it may be because it’s harder for females to override their emotional autopilots.
The first lesson I preach to every new engineer wannabe is that emotions must be removed from the decision making process. It is simply impossible to design a plane or a bridge or a circuit with emotions.
...
Design and development engineering is an inherently self-proving field. Either your designs work, or they don’t. If they don’t, you don’t have a job very long. I’m sure software guys like Martin see this too.
I would qualify to this extent: emotions should be removed from the decision making process, but are entirely legitimate in the goal-setting process.
And since goals affect decisions, decisions wll seldom be emotion-free; but the course should always be emotion => goal => reason => design => reason => correction => reason => correction ... And sometimes emotion will jump into the correction process, because goals will change.
In 20 years, I have worked with maybe a dozen female engineers, versus literally thousands of males. And in all honesty, I would only call one or two of those females “good engineers”. I don’t know why it works that way, exactly. If I did, I could probably make a fortune off that knowledge. But I suspect it may be because it’s harder for females to override their emotional autopilots.
I don’t know why it works that way, exactly. If I did, I could probably make a fortune off that knowledge. But I suspect it may be because it’s harder for females to override their emotional autopilots.
Men, always looking to start a fight. Good thing cooler female minds prevail.
I'm not sure the assumption that emotion rules is completely correct. There has been a lot of work in how facts are gathered, communications occur, and decisions are made. Meyers Briggs Type Indicators (lots of online tests and material) measure aspects of personality that gauge your comfort zone and how you communicate, gather information, and make decisions. It's kind of open source, with online tests and lots of information. There is another fairly new concept called Process Communications Methodolgy that isn't quite as open source, but maybe more useful (in terms of figurign out how to sell an argument or position). PCM is kind of an extension of transactional analysis, which looks at interaction styles. PCM also considers how different types of people operate under stress, and appeals to emotion are fudnamentally somone applying stress, either expressing a threat in some way or getting sympathy for somone else's threating situation.
I'm not a psychologist, I'm an engineer, and the descriptions of the two systems are based on what I understand -- I may not be using correct terminology.
In both systems, there is a scale of emotion and perceptionl; it's not just one or the other.
I think a lot of human behavior is, actually, hardwired, but that the hardwiring can be changed by life experiences. Emotions can be either an outcome of reflexes, of rational thought, or a combination of the two. Emotions can serve to make the rewiring easier, harder, faster, or simply prevent it. But hardwiring errors can also lead to emotional dysfunction.
I think it a huge mistake to think that humans are either rational or emotional, either totally hardwired or software-upgrades only. They are all of the above in different ways, at different times, in response to different environmental stimuli, all acting on a basic set of hardware.
I think that medical science (writ broadly) isn't very far along in determining just how the body and the mind work. In large part this is due to the fact that most people cannot even ask the right questions just now. We're still in a situation that puts too much emphasis on culture and conditioning to explain behavior. The suggestion that behavior might be hardware related is as uncomfortable to the majority as Darwin's deprecation of divine special creation was to his contemporaries.
I'm sure that we'll get there eventually. Progress is being made in specific areas of medicine, biology, genetics, etc., but it's not being well-integrated just yet. I am confident too, though, that the integration won't be happening in my lifetime.
But I suspect it may be because it’s harder for females to override their emotional autopilots
I don't think so. Women are just as good at being intellectually honest in my experience as a programmer, which is a function of emotional maturity. They just lack the hardwiring for spatial analysis and math -- and men generally make lousy mothers, which is a much more important job, evolutionarily speaking. Nature specializes for a reason.
And frankly, I'm a bit hurt my mitochondrial DNA gets discarded.
6.29.2007 10:48pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
That being said, I don't think that we're doomed to be merely apes in trowsers. The fact that I've made decisions that I didn't want to make based on arguments for why I should do it seem like pretty good evidence for me.
But that many people act more like animals than human beings is hardly surprising. All of us do it at some time, at least.
But the real main problem is the potentially faulty setting up of the emotions and reason as being opposites. Oftentimes, emotions ARE in fact rational responses and strategies that support our interests quite effectively, even if we don't sit down and figure this out consciously in every instance. Economists have a heck of a lot to say about this, because they are in the business of figuring out why certain behavior is "rational" even if many people think it's just crazy and emotional, and they have countless examples of cases in which it turns out that both are in concert.
Our understanding of how the human mind works is pretty much at the bloodletting and leeches stage. Science is an inefficient tool for figuring out how just one mind works - using it to figure out how millions of minds interact in a complex political system is just way beyond our abilities. Reading tea leaves or just plain guesswork based on past experience is probably more exact.
If we use those methods, and if we ignore all 'scientific' research publised by partisan media outlets like Newsweek and the New York Times we'll be way ahead of the game.
LOL Yeah, no kidding.
Anyways, reason is only a tool; we can use it discover E=MC^2 or to get laid or to establish a Stalinist dictatorship. Emotions (or more correctly, biochemical hormone-driven reactions) drive reason to accomplish emotional goals, be they love or compassion or hate or horniness or the will to power.
In the end what matters is principles, through which we can use reason to harness emotional drives in positive ways, e.g. through liberal capitalist democracy.
Let me just raise the prospect of filtering this discussion through the lens of the male / female cerebral divide!
Oh, I disagree on that. With the mind, we're pretty much at the stage we are with a lot of diseases: we have a pretty decent idea of how it works in a general sense and some of the good specifics, but what we don't have are any good means by which to change or fix things: a lot of the problems are on a cellular and genetic level that we have only very clumsy ways of dealing with (drugs are our best tools, but they are inherently very clumsy even at getting towards simple problems.)
I’ve seen dozens of careers derailed when the person would not (or could not?) accept that fact. Design and development engineering is an inherently self-proving field. Either your designs work, or they don’t. If they don’t, you don’t have a job very long. I’m sure software guys like Martin see this too.
Whether we are “hard wired” to be ruled by our emotions or not, I can’t say. I suspect some of us are, and some aren’t. Maybe its like left handedness or sexual preference. But obviously, some of us can learn to set our emotions aside, at least for some of the time.
I suspect there are some folks who can’t do it, or at least have a much harder time doing it. And I don’t think it’s related to what we commonly refer to as “IQ”. I’ve met some highly intelligent people who can’t seem to override their emotions in cases where it would obviously be to their advantage to do so.
And as Ron alluded, I suspect there is a real difference to this effect that’s related to sex. In 20 years, I have worked with maybe a dozen female engineers, versus literally thousands of males. And in all honesty, I would only call one or two of those females “good engineers”. I don’t know why it works that way, exactly. If I did, I could probably make a fortune off that knowledge. But I suspect it may be because it’s harder for females to override their emotional autopilots.
I would qualify to this extent: emotions should be removed from the decision making process, but are entirely legitimate in the goal-setting process.
And since goals affect decisions, decisions wll seldom be emotion-free; but the course should always be emotion => goal => reason => design => reason => correction => reason => correction ... And sometimes emotion will jump into the correction process, because goals will change.
OK, I'm going to duck now...
And there’s no need to duck.
After all, this is a reasoned, emotion free discussion…..
Men, always looking to start a fight. Good thing cooler female minds prevail.
I'm not a psychologist, I'm an engineer, and the descriptions of the two systems are based on what I understand -- I may not be using correct terminology.
In both systems, there is a scale of emotion and perceptionl; it's not just one or the other.
I think it a huge mistake to think that humans are either rational or emotional, either totally hardwired or software-upgrades only. They are all of the above in different ways, at different times, in response to different environmental stimuli, all acting on a basic set of hardware.
I think that medical science (writ broadly) isn't very far along in determining just how the body and the mind work. In large part this is due to the fact that most people cannot even ask the right questions just now. We're still in a situation that puts too much emphasis on culture and conditioning to explain behavior. The suggestion that behavior might be hardware related is as uncomfortable to the majority as Darwin's deprecation of divine special creation was to his contemporaries.
I'm sure that we'll get there eventually. Progress is being made in specific areas of medicine, biology, genetics, etc., but it's not being well-integrated just yet. I am confident too, though, that the integration won't be happening in my lifetime.
I think we believe the same think, John, we just say it differently. If something is hardwired, it can't be changed—that's definitional.
I don't think so. Women are just as good at being intellectually honest in my experience as a programmer, which is a function of emotional maturity. They just lack the hardwiring for spatial analysis and math -- and men generally make lousy mothers, which is a much more important job, evolutionarily speaking. Nature specializes for a reason.
And frankly, I'm a bit hurt my mitochondrial DNA gets discarded.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.