Logic vs emotion

[IndigoRose]

Under what circumstances is logic the correct tool to use to make a decision? When is emotion more correct to use to make a decision? Under what circumstances are "appeals to emotion" the correct argument?
IndigoRose

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose
Under what circumstances is logic the correct tool to use to make a decision?

always.

Quote:

When is emotion more correct to use to make a decision?

never.

Quote:

Under what circumstances are "appeals to emotion" the correct argument?

When logic dictates that doing so is in your interests. Politicians do it all the time --- mostly even.

[drkitten]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose
Under what circumstances is logic the correct tool to use to make a decision? When is emotion more correct to use to make a decision? Under what circumstances are "appeals to emotion" the correct argument?
IndigoRose

There is a quote attributed to Jonathan Swift : "you do no reason a man out of something he was not reasoned into." There's a good article in Skeptical Inquirer about the difficulty of using logic on people with regard to their (specifically) religious beliefs, but the difficulty generalizes. A lot of people I know object to gay marriage, for example, on the basis of an "ewwww"-style emotional response, against the gates of which the battering ram of reason can beat forever, without effect.

Logic is also a terrible tool for making decisions with when you either don't have enough information (and thus can't reach a decision), when some of your underlying assumptions are of questionable quality, or when you have too much information and can't sort through it all "logically." In cases like this, emotion, intuition, and reflexive judgement can be both more likely to reach a correct and timely judgement than "reason." None of the good poker players I know -- even the ones with Ph.D.'s in statistics -- use stats at the table. They just read the cards in my hands by staring into my soul. The hunch of an expert can be worth more than a thousand pages of close reasoning.

Logic, then, is only appropriate when you have the kind of information upon which it works, otherwise it's just a method of screwing up by the numbers. Emotion, of course, is also only appropriate when you have the kind of information -- usually, experience -- upon which it works. The trick is to know yourself well enough to judge between them.

I guess this means I disagree with Mr. Lister.

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by drkitten
Logic, then, is only appropriate when you have the kind of information upon which it works, otherwise it's just a method of screwing up by the numbers. Emotion, of course, is also only appropriate when you have the kind of information -- usually, experience -- upon which it works. The trick is to know yourself well enough to judge between them.

I guess this means I disagree with Mr. Lister.

I'm not so sure you do. Logically, using the logical tool requires that tool is available for use. It isn't always available.

For example: you are enjoying a nice frosty imported brew at your local pub. A drunk walks up and out of the blue takes a swing at you. Do you act instinctively or logically?

Turned out that the drunk was really trying to punch the guy behind you that was about to do you in with a broken beer bottle (you have many unseen fans and enemies, I see).

The drunk could have told you to duck but he logically concluded that verbal communication would have only enlisted a logical response --- you'd have asked, "why?"

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by drkitten
A lot of people I know object to gay marriage, for example, on the basis of an "ewwww"-style emotional response, against the gates of which the battering ram of reason can beat forever, without effect.

Not always the case. I had the "ewww" reaction for the longest time, then thought about it, and couldn't come up with any compelling reason to be against gay marriage. I see a host of legal issues that would have to be resolved (can't see it working without a nationwide standard), and it won't happen until the general public gets past its collective "ewww", but I don't see how it makes a difference to me if the two guys next door become legally obligated to each other.

So, yeah, it IS possible for reason to get past the emotions. But you have to be someone who tends to give substantially heavier weight to reason in the first place, I think, because emotions tend to short-circuit the reasoning process.

Edited to add: Spinoza wrote that only an emotion can overcome another emotion. Therefore, reason must itself become an emotion -- a powerful one -- in order that it may outweigh others. He calls this powerful emotion “the intellectual love of God,” which (since Spinoza conceived of God as being the underlying "substance" of the universe, entailing everything that exists and the laws that control it) means love of nature as well and the acceptance of or natural law. Knowledge/understanding of God/Nature is the ultimate virtue.

[T'ai Chi]

Interesting question of when to use logic and when to use emotion!

Both are appropriate, but it all depends on the situation I believe.

If a kid falls down and skins their knee, I'm not going to use logic and, knowing that it is a very minor scratch, just say it is nothing. I'm going to un-logically acknowledge the kid like the scratch is the biggest thing in the universe.

[Batman Jr.]

I've said this one time before on this message board, but I'll say it again. Every logical decision must be born of an emotional urge to be logical. Nietzsche seemed to have picked up on this when in "The Birth of Tragedy," he describes the Dyonisian foundation of the Apollinian.

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I've said this one time before on this message board, but I'll say it again. Every logical decision must be born of an emotional urge to be logical.

Why? And why isn't the reverse true - that every emotional decision must be born of a logical urge to be emotional?

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Why? And why isn't the reverse true - that every emotional decision must be born of a logical urge to be emotional?

Oh, I like that one! I think maybe it is. I can logically decide that an emotional response is appropriate, and emotionally decide that a logical response is appropriate. The decisions are usually good. I would hate have a love interest try to use logic to convince me to have a sexual relationship--that would kill it right there. On the other hand, there are aspects of it that need to be dealt with dispassionately ..."I don't care what I am feeling...if you are married, then the relationship will be friends only."
IndigoRose

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister


always .... never.

.

Are all of your decisions based on logic, or are some of them based on emotion? Chocolate vs vanilla? cat vs dog? the blonde or the brunette?
IndigoRose

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
If a kid falls down and skins their knee, I'm not going to use logic and, knowing that it is a very minor scratch, just say it is nothing. I'm going to un-logically acknowledge the kid like the scratch is the biggest thing in the universe.

Well, yes, but you'll also teach them where to find the neosporin and the bandaids, yes?

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose


Are all of your decisions based on logic, or are some of them based on emotion? Chocolate vs vanilla? cat vs dog? the blonde or the brunette?
IndigoRose

Not all of my decisions are based on logic. That wasn't what you asked. Logic is always the correct tool. Even when deciding on chocolate v vanilla.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Not all of my decisions are based on logic. That wasn't what you asked. Logic is always the correct tool. Even when deciding on chocolate v vanilla.

Logic determines personal preference?

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj


Logic determines personal preference?

No, but it should. Of course, that's just my personal preference.

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister


No, but it should. Of course, that's just my personal preference.

Why?

[Suggestologist]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Interesting question of when to use logic and when to use emotion!

Both are appropriate, but it all depends on the situation I believe.

If a kid falls down and skins their knee, I'm not going to use logic and, knowing that it is a very minor scratch, just say it is nothing. I'm going to un-logically acknowledge the kid like the scratch is the biggest thing in the universe.

Actually, the logical thing to do is to direct his attention elsewhere. In other words, distract the kid with a toy or interesting idea. Even "Mommy will kiss it and make it all better." is an appropriate distraction technique. er.. or "daddy". A person can only pay attention to so many things at once; distracting someone in pain often leads to less pain experienced. But if allowed to focus on the area that is painful, it will only get moreso.

Emotions are proprioceptive (body feelings). But then if you think about how it feels to be logical, you realize that logic also changes proprioception, and could be classified as an emotion - if someone really wanted to.

But do notice that the feeling that you're being logical is not the same thing as actually being er.. correctly logical, Veridically Logical.

[Batman Jr.]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Why? And why isn't the reverse true - that every emotional decision must be born of a logical urge to be emotional?

I've never heard of a "logical urge." Isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Compulsion by definition is emotional. Logic systemizes facts. The decision to use logic in your endeavors is a compulsion and therefore emotionally based. People use reason in an effort to get to the truth, though it must be asked why people want to get to the truth. The answer is simple: because of the natural affection the human mind has for that truth. Emotion is simply inseparable from any kind of decision we make.

A decision can be broken up into two parts: the desired consequence and the way to that consequence. The consequence desired is always contingent upon emotion; it is the path to realizing that consequence where either logic is applied or thrown by the wayside.

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

I've never heard of a "logical urge." Isn't that kind of an oxymoron? Compulsion by definition is emotional. Logic systemizes facts. The decision to use logic in your endeavors is a compulsion and therefore emotionally based. People use reason in an effort to get to the truth, though it must be asked why people want to get to the truth. The answer is simple: because of the natural affection the human mind has for that truth. Emotion is simply inseparable from any kind of decision we make.

No, it is not an oxymoron. I have come across a lot of brain damaged children who can apply deductive logic without error yet are unable to understand emotion, facial expression, humor, inuendo, etc. They have an "urge" to try to apply logic to situations where it is not appropriate. For instance, thinking that walking up to an unknown woman and proposing sex will succeed if he list the logical reasons why she should have sex with him. As most women do not like being treated like prostitutes, it does not work well.

I also disagree that logic is always used to get to the truth. All that is necessary is to use an invalid premise and logic will lead you to whatever conclusion you desire, and as far away from the truth as you wish to get.
IndigoRose

[Batman Jr.]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose
No, it is not an oxymoron. I have come across a lot of brain damaged children who can apply deductive logic without error yet are unable to understand emotion, facial expression, humor, inuendo, etc. They have an "urge" to try to apply logic to situations where it is not appropriate. For instance, thinking that walking up to an unknown woman and proposing sex will succeed if he list the logical reasons why she should have sex with him. As most women do not like being treated like prostitutes, it does not work well.

My arguments have nothing to do with understanding others' emotions, but instead only to do with experiencing emotion for oneself. An "urge" to apply logic is still fundamentally emotional even in the case you describe.

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose
I also disagree that logic is always used to get to the truth. All that is necessary is to use an invalid premise and logic will lead you to whatever conclusion you desire, and as far away from the truth as you wish to get.

I said "in an effort to get to the truth." I never made the claim that logic "always" gives you the truth. Whether or not you get to the truth using logic, your attempt to get the truth is based upon a desire to obtain that truth for yourself.

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.


I said "in an effort to get to the truth."

ok, then I will be more specific. Not everyone who uses deductive logic is making an effort to get to the truth. Sometimes they are deliberately using false premises along with logic to "prove" their own version of what they want to be true.
IndigoRose

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose


ok, then I will be more specific. Not everyone who uses deductive logic is making an effort to get to the truth. Sometimes they are deliberately using false premises along with logic to "prove" their own version of what they want to be true.
IndigoRose

The "tool problem" you cite is well known. Deductive logic only promises a true conclusion if given true premises and produced through a sound syllogism.

How does such behavior reflect on the tool? How does the behavior of some reflect on the motives of the rest? This is specious.

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

The "tool problem" you cite is well known. Deductive logic only promises a true conclusion if given true premises and produced through a sound syllogism.

How does such behavior reflect on the tool? How does the behavior of some reflect on the motives of the rest? This is specious.

It doesn't ... no more than someone using a screwdriver for a hammer would. I said that logic is not always used to get to the truth. I did not say that this was because there is some flaw in logic.

Back to my original question however... When is it the correct decision to use emotion to make a decision instead of logic? This question does not mean that logic is somehow flawed, only that it may not always be the right tool.
IndigoRose

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Under what circumstances is logic the correct tool to use to make a decision?

I would say, "Whenever time allows".

Emotions are not something to be consulted prior to making a decision -- they are the end result of a decision-making process which has already taken place. In a real-world environment, decisions must often be made based on incomplete information, and in the hostile envoronments of our ancestors, survival usually favored speed over precision. Running from a hundred lions which turn out to be imaginary is preferable to hesitating in the face of a single one which turns out to be real.

For this reason, evolution has streamlined some decision-making processes by trimming their rule sets to a minimum -- but they still operate by rules. These rules are logical, but since they are optimized for probabilistically favorable results rather than exactness, it may not always appear so. These processes also have direct access to the endocrine system, and thus are not always easily overruled; as has been pointed out, the high priority which they tend to command may render more sophisticated logic routines unavailable.

[Batman Jr.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
I would say, "Whenever time allows".

Emotions are not something to be consulted prior to making a decision -- they are the end result of a decision-making process which has already taken place. In a real-world environment, decisions must often be made based on incomplete information, and in the hostile envoronments of our ancestors, survival usually favored speed over precision. Running from a hundred lions which turn out to be imaginary is preferable to hesitating in the face of a single one which turns out to be real.

For this reason, evolution has streamlined some decision-making processes by trimming their rule sets to a minimum -- but they still operate by rules. These rules are logical, but since they are optimized for probabilistically favorable results rather than exactness, it may not always appear so. These processes also have direct access to the endocrine system, and thus are not always easily overruled; as has been pointed out, the high priority which they tend to command may render more sophisticated logic routines unavailable.

I agree.

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
I would say, "Whenever time allows".

For this reason, evolution has streamlined some decision-making processes by trimming their rule sets to a minimum -- but they still operate by rules. These rules are logical, but since they are optimized for probabilistically favorable results rather than exactness, it may not always appear so. These processes also have direct access to the endocrine system, and thus are not always easily overruled; as has been pointed out, the high priority which they tend to command may render more sophisticated logic routines unavailable.

hmmm....maybe I should reword the question....ok.... Do *you* ever make a decsion where you say, "I *feel* like doing ...whatever? Or is every decision based on some kind of logical analysis? If so, what is the logical analysis going on when you are making decisions such as vanilla vs chocolate?
IndigoRose

[Batman Jr.]

So then we're now talking about parsimonious logic as opposed to more extensive logic?

Vanilla vs. Chocolate:

I'll use my two-part-decision-making archetype:

1. I desire chocolate
2. a) If I eat chocolate, my desires will be satiated
   b) If I eat vanilla, I will not have satiated my desire
   c) Therefore, I choose the chocolate.

I guess this would be classified as parsimonious as the logical processes involved in coming to the conclusion in item 2c in the list are performed instantaneously and discreetly.

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose

hmmm....maybe I should reword the question....ok.... Do *you* ever make a decsion where you say, "I *feel* like doing ...whatever?

Of course. (Doesn't always work out all that great either, btw).

Quote:

Or is every decision based on some kind of logical analysis?

As I said above, I think even an emotional decision is based on some kind of logic, at some level. Plus, since the type of logical analysis for the type of decision you are referring to is really a cost/benefit analysis, to produce realistically viable results it must take into account possible emotional costs and benefits.

Quote:

If so, what is the logical analysis going on when you are making decisions such as vanilla vs chocolate?

I think it can get complicated. Decisions often involve competition between various sub-processes, some concerned with short-term goals, others with long-term goals, and with a lot of feedback in both directions. Vanilla vs chocolate is trivial enough to be settled by some sort of mental coin toss; ice cream vs sit-ups might be a more interesting struggle.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose
When is it the correct decision to use emotion to make a decision instead of logic? This question does not mean that logic is somehow flawed, only that it may not always be the right tool.
IndigoRose

In some ways, the question begins with a false premise. Viewed one way, it assumes one can make a wholly emotional decision, wholly devoid of logic. Viewed the other way, it assumes one can make a wholly logical decision, devoid of emotion.

To resolve this, you need to trace back to fundamentals. In deductive logic, what informs the premises?

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
So then we're now talking about parsimonious logic as opposed to more extensive logic?

Vanilla vs. Chocolate:

I'll use my two-part-decision-making archetype:[list=1][*]I desire chocolate.....

What I am talking about is making decisions based on emotion, as in "I desire chocolate."
IndigoRose

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose
When is it the correct decision to use emotion to make a decision instead of logic? This question does not mean that logic is somehow flawed, only that it may not always be the right tool.

If the logic isn't flawed, then why would you NOT want to use it?

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose


What I am talking about is making decisions based on emotion, as in "I desire chocolate."
IndigoRose

I desire chocolate, therefore...?

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
If the logic isn't flawed, then why would you NOT want to use it?

This is turning into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. I am not meaning "emotion" as some kind of "anti-logic". What I am talking about is "I desire chocolate" being used to make decisions ... maybe as opposed to "I desire chocolate and hate vanilla, but I eat vanilla because ... (let's say it has less calories)".
IndigoRose

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


I desire chocolate, therefore...?

Yes, I am talking about the "I desire chocolate" part of that, "desire" being an emotion. I am not saying that emotion prevents one from applying logic, but that the decision is based on the emotion.
IndigoRose

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose


This is turning into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. I am not meaning "emotion" as some kind of "anti-logic". What I am talking about is "I desire chocolate" being used to make decisions ... maybe as opposed to "I desire chocolate and hate vanilla, but I eat vanilla because ... (let's say it has less calories)".
IndigoRose

So what you are really talking about is using emotion to feed the premises, which is the point I've been driving at.

Deduction yields no new information, it merely uncovers the truth hidden inside things already known or assumed. We must always use something else to feed it new premises.

What you're grappling with here Antonio Damasso has dubbed Descartes' Error: Cartesian dualism. It is a false premise.

[IndigoRose]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
Of course. (Doesn't always work out all that great either, btw).
As I said above, I think even an emotional decision is based on some kind of logic, at some level. Plus, since the type of logical analysis for the type of decision you are referring to is really a cost/benefit analysis, to produce realistically viable results it must take into account possible emotional costs and benefits.
I think it can get complicated. Decisions often involve competition between various sub-processes, some concerned with short-term goals, others with long-term goals, and with a lot of feedback in both directions. Vanilla vs chocolate is trivial enough to be settled by some sort of mental coin toss; ice cream vs sit-ups might be a more interesting struggle.

This is an excelent answer. Yes, an emotional decision is not illogical. The original question was worded poorly. I am still trying to figure out a better way to word it. Maybe, how often does your logical decision making start with "I desire, therefore..", making it an emotional decision but not an illogical one.
IndigoRose

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


So what you are really talking about is using emotion to feed the premises, which is the point I've been driving at.

Deduction yields no new information, it merely uncovers the truth hidden inside things already known or assumed. We must always use something else to feed it new premises.

What you're grappling with here Antonio Damasso has dubbed Descartes' Error: Cartesian dualism. It is a false premise.

Wow! The only reason I answered "always" and "never" in my original answer was to promote the debate. It never occured to me they may have been the correct answers - in a circular sort of way.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Wow! The only reason I answered "always" and "never" in my original answer was to promote the debate. It never occured to me they may have been the correct answers - in a circular sort of way.

When confronted by a false dichotomy, "yes" is often the correct answer.

[Suggestologist]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillHoyt


When confronted by a false dichotomy, "yes" is often the correct answer.

"Both .. and" rather than "either.. or". A generic way to break out of a paradox.

[Batman Jr.]

Quote:

Originally posted by IndigoRose
This is turning into a very interesting discussion, at least for me. I am not meaning "emotion" as some kind of "anti-logic". What I am talking about is "I desire chocolate" being used to make decisions ... maybe as opposed to "I desire chocolate and hate vanilla, but I eat vanilla because ... (let's say it has less calories)".

This is still a decision driven by emotion. You just have a stronger desire to lose weight than you do to eat chocolate.

[rppa]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
If the logic isn't flawed, then why would you NOT want to use it?

That's a very important but possibly subtle point. I can think of management examples where somebody thought they were making a quantifiable decision because they assigned numbers to things and added them up. This is a way that people fool themselves into thinking they are being "objective" and "logical" and "quantitative".

The problem is that the numerical model, the scoring algorithm, and thus the logic may be deeply flawed and in fact highly subjective, or even representing the opposite of either an emotional or logical decision would be.

My preference for a dichotomy would be between "logical" and "intuitive", because intuition really stands for a decision basis that you might at first have a great deal of trouble quantifying, but if you do, it's the better and more logical basis.