The influence of emotions on logic

This looks to be a wild spin off of the topic but I couldn't in good conscience not respond.

And on that note, where do you file religious faith? The skeptical atheist will say it's an appeal to the emotions...fear of dying perhaps, or religious rapture. But it surely is not LOGICAL. But in many cases, it's simply taught to people growing up, presented as absolute fact and truth. I believe that the moon landing happened, and the Holocaust happened, and I would not in a million years deny those things...yet I have not observed personally, any actual material evidence of them.

Each of us has made many choices of what we accept to be TRUE.

The powerful wizard proposition (God) is a claim that requires the existence of all manner of magics and super powers, none of which have ever been remotely supported by reality. This type of extraordinary claim requires extraordinary support to consider.

A trip to the moon and a massive war causing untold casualties requires no magical thinking and no extraordinary support to entertain.

Trying to equate belief in the existence of a super wizard and the existence of a huge catastrophic war is confused, at best.

Similarly, most people believe in some kind of God. With no evidence. But they hold it as fact.

Yes, the masses believe in gods, ghosts, evil spirits, bad deeds come back to haunt, reincarnation... the list goes on.
 
This looks to be a wild spin off of the topic but I couldn't in good conscience not respond.



The powerful wizard proposition (God) is a claim that requires the existence of all manner of magics and super powers, none of which have ever been remotely supported by reality. This type of extraordinary claim requires extraordinary support to consider.

A trip to the moon and a massive war causing untold casualties requires no magical thinking and no extraordinary support to entertain.

Trying to equate belief in the existence of a super wizard and the existence of a huge catastrophic war is confused, at best.



Yes, the masses believe in gods, ghosts, evil spirits, bad deeds come back to haunt, reincarnation... the list goes on.

Says you.

How many religious devout have you persuaded that you're right and they're wrong?

Frankly...it doesn't make any damn sense TO ME, to believe in the teachings of your major religious institution, and I think that most of them were made up just to control people. But I know plenty of faithful who won't hear it.

I've also met moon landing deniers, climate change deniers, and Holocaust deniers, and 9-11 skeptics, and people who think all kinds of flat earth nonsense.

And yet I have not ever managed to throw so much logic at them, that they ceased in their beliefs and came to my side. People usually just dig in their heels.

Which again goes back to my saying that we've all got this mix of mental stuff that makes up our own perspective, including things that we have accepted as FACT which therefore make up a significant portion of our LOGIC but others would argue with. No perfect consensus, and no objective truth, only what YOU have decided (or what I, or anyone has) is the set of stuff we have heard, read, seen, been taught etc and we've decided to believe, much of which we don't have first hand boots-on-the-ground experience to back up. How is logic always superior when it can so easily be swayed by what we learn and are told?

Think about countries with seriously restricted media, think of China, and what do you suppose the typical Chinese citizen who hears only the voices of the state sanctioned media believes to be TRUE LOGICAL FACT about, oh, say, America?

You figure you're so well informed your truth is superior to theirs? You figure you have a pretty good handle on what is logical and what isn't? And maybe other people ought to pay more attention to what you have to say? Who in the hell do you think you are? Who are ANY of us to be so full of ourselves? (Sorry, again, I am doing that thing, sounds like I'm attacking you, I'm trying to attack the idea that ANY INDIVIDUAL PERSON has the right to the whole "Scoff, scoff, of course what I believe is more logical than some silly religious stuff" --I don't believe it either, but I know better than to try and apply my thinking to anyone else's experience of life and their bubble and perspective... Religion isn't logical to me, but I know it's logical to others. I don't feel that I'm superior to them and get to tell them that they are ridiculous. Even if maybe I think so.)

So when I say that emotion, logic, belief, etc are all mental processes and maybe one (especially "logic") is not so superior as to be beyond reproach, this is why I say that. Everything that goes on in a human's mind can be questioned. But we must use the tools we have. All of 'em.
 
Last edited:
For me, there's the faith thing. Me, I'm not much on faith/belief -- there's reasonable trust, & then there's verifiable fact.

I've never been to Manhattan. There's all sorts of stories about the place, & I know some people who say they've been there, but I've never seen it myself, so who knows? Some would say that I have "faith" in the existence of Manhattan.

I'm Wiccan, & have been for 35+ years. I "believe" in the various deities & tenets in an as-if-true sense, not as if they're immediate in the same way as (say) gravity.
 
I'm reminded of a quote from Men in Black:

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet.

"Logic" (and again, the presumption of its inherent superiority) is based on the premise that we know what we know. That our facts carry their own truth in the objective and verifiable sense. But again, there have ALWAYS been so many times that people were so, so sure that they KNEW something was true. Even times where "everybody knew"...and yet.

I mean you have to operate with the assumptions that certain things are basically true, each of us does have to carry our own accepted set of factual realities in order to function. But I think that when we have the luxury of really THINKING about these things, we've got to question what we think we know.

Again to the matter of our emotions... So, sometimes our emotions are not logical. My personal best example has been my feelings about my guy and his love of pretty celebrity women, and his love of porn, and why that makes me feel diminished and unhappy and insecure. That is an emotional response. It does not play nice with my logical reality, with other factual information that I have accepted, with my carefully considered ethics or morals. It's just a persistent feeling that I struggle with. I've tried to use logic and talk myself out of it. That hasn't really worked. Though recently I did stumble upon what I'm calling (in my own self-therapy internal lexicon) a "key idea" ...a different way of looking at a situation that helped it be less upsetting to me. And using logic, I have tracked down why this emotion persists and what button is being pushed and where the likely origins of those triggers lie.

As Epione said, this is using logic, with awareness of emotion, and trying to be responsible. (Hence, I do agree in certain situations, and was not contradicting!)

The irresponsible thing to do in that situation, would have been to take that icky feeling, and yell at my lover and tell him to stop looking at other women because it is wrong, it's a mild form of cheating, and it hurts me. Using my own emotions to dictate a system of supposed moral/ethical rules that I expect somebody else to adhere to so that I don't have to deal with my own stuff. Yeah, no. I know damn well how uncool that is. I have heard mono, married men tell me that they are not "allowed" to look at porn, and I don't agree with someone treating someone else that way. Now, if the husband decided he did not want to look at it anymore, and made an undertaking of his own, then that is different. I know a man who has sworn it off because he believes it rewires the brain. But that is HIS choice. Not some woman saying, "You're not allowed."

So when I see that, I see it as someone letting their emotion call the shots and make the rules, and justifying it with convoluted logic after the fact.

But at the same time, I can point to 100 other instances where an emotional response was appropriate, or saved a person's ass, or was the right response for the situation somehow. Where it complimented logic and again was just another tool in the box. Mainly I think that letting emotion direct action should be reserved for emergencies when possible, but we do tend to get swept up in the moment sometimes and act impulsively. And it can be the stuff that regrets are made of...or not.
 
After I read this thread I decided to think on it a bit before I responded. So I come back and I see Spork posted this:

Which again goes back to my saying that we've all got this mix of mental stuff that makes up our own perspective, including things that we have accepted as FACT which therefore make up a significant portion of our LOGIC but others would argue with.

So that's pretty much my thoughts on this. There is no such thing as pure logic. A person's logic is based on what they know, what they think they know, what they don't know, and any experiences they've had. Emotions play into that as well. And a person's sense of logic also affects their emotions.

Yes, there are truths out there, but everybody sees them in a different perspective.
 
There is no such thing as pure logic. A person's logic is based on what they know, what they think they know, what they don't know, and any experiences they've had.
I haven't read the entire thread, I just wanted to share in case you or someone else is interested in a bit of philosophy around this topic
https://www.actualized.org/articles/the-ultimate-model-of-human-knowledge
It's a long-ish video, he starts with a story of personal discovery and goes on explaining a model of beliefs and how virtually non of what we "know" can be justified. (I recommend listening to the whole video, but more hardcore philosophy starts at ~20:50.)
He's a very ... logical ... guy, and will tell you exactly why logic is not enough :)
 
I posted something in a different thread about cognitive biases that probably deserves to be here instead. The practical aspect of understanding cognitive biases (mentioned in post#4 in this thread) is that it helps with communication (important in polyamory!). This improved communication may also help to get people to listen to our well-meaning advice instead of running away from the forums never to be seen again.

Here's what I wrote in the other thread:

I think that people tend to agree with something emotionally, then hunt around for logical reasons that prop up that belief. I once read of an experiment that put two cooked chickens in front of two groups of people. One chicken was scrawny whilst the other fat. I forget the exact things the people were told, but the specifics don't matter for this retelling. The first group was told that the fat one was given medications and injections and remained illness-free whilst the scrawny one was all natural. The second group were told the opposite - said that the fat one was all natural whilst the scrawny one was given medications and injections and remained illness-free. Everyone went to eat the fat chicken but their reasons were different. The first group said that a healthy chicken was more important than a natural chicken, whilst the second group said the opposite. The authors of the experiment concluded that we make emotional decisions (choosing to avoid the scrawny chicken) then strive to make logical reasons to justify our claim.

The experiment probably extends to anyone in the throes of emotional bias, including those with bad-ass NRE (don't make any big decisions whilst in NRE!), casually racist statements from some people, anti-vaccinators, climate change deniers extending all the way to everyday things where we favour attractive-looking people, marketing susceptibility, reading articles with nicely laid-out headings, and so forth.

As I have seen in the last several dozen entries, there are a lot of ways to interpret the title of this thread. To me, this interpretation - the impact of emotional bias on logic as I have described above, is the one that interests me.

What do you guys think?
 
I think the decision to pick the meatier chicken is a logical one, not emotional. I think the emotions come into play when one is asked to justify their decision.

Of course, I'm not a psychologist. My educational background is in engineering.
 
I do also think that it is...natural, maybe?...to do the thing of using "attempted logic" (which really just amounts to justification) in order to prop up one's "right" to not only have an emotion, but to expect other people to contort themselves around that emotion, and that gets into some bad behavior. (Remember that I still think you need to have that behavior component in there...)

I feel, I think, I say, I do.

Different things.

I've been trying VERY HARD, and it is often put about in poly, kink, and other "self aware" relating discussions, to realize that just because I feel a feel, does NOT mean that I get to make it somebody else's responsibility to do anything about it. In less functional relationships of my past, I was constantly expected to modify my behavior to spare my partner from dealing with difficult emotions. This comes up constantly here, as people cope with jealousy and other things.

In my blog I talk about how I have an emotion of being threatened by my partner's interest in "fantasy" women. I have not ever, and will never, ask or expect him to try and change to spare me this feeling. Instead, I've picked it apart as best I could, and having logicked it to death and looked at all of the "reasons" I feel it, now I'm trying to just...let it be. Stop overthinking it. I'm looking for a more "zen" approach, let the feeling or the thought happen, and then let it go. We'll see how that works.

We have someone in our community who, when she feels threatened by someone, looks for reasons to build a case that they are a bad person, and should be outcast from the community (put away from her, where she'll never have to see them.) She might have some good points sometimes, but when you see this judgment being applied unfairly to ONLY her own personal enemies from her personal life, it's too easy to knock it over. I, too, have struggled with this bias.

Person A, whom I like, did a thing that I don't like. I am more likely to try and forgive them. I don't want to condemn them.

Person B, whom I dislike, did a thing that I don't like. I am more likely to vocally condemn them, and may go so far as to use their action as justification for the fact that I don't like them, "proof" that my feelings were "right."

I'm sure that this falls under one or several of the list of cognitive biases, but I don't feel like consulting the wiki right now.

But again, I still believe the most important thing is to try and be respectful and responsible in our words and actions, the parts that affect others, REGARDLESS of what we think, or how we feel, or what biases are shaping any of that.
 
I don't there's much of question that emotions influence logic or decisions .....Madison avenue spends billions a yr trying to influence you.

Also I think it's very very personality driven. To me it sometime seems people make all/ most of there decisions from an emotional basis. Others seen super logical and robotic like. One might say cold.

Another factor I think needs to be addressed is the importance of the matter under consideration. Seeing a movie that might not be your cup of tea ( wasting a few hrs spending time with your spouse or gf ) vs making relationship decisions under the influence of NRE To me the weight of the matter under consideration makes a huge difference.
 
I am not sure I understand the original question because it was kind of spread out over several posts. So I'm trying to piece it together in a way I can understand. If I get it wrong, please correct me ok?

I've been wondering about what impact our emotions have on our logic for a while now.

What impact do you feel decisions made whilst being emotional have after you have dropped from the emotional high (or recovered from the emotional low)?

I understand this as

When you make decisions when in an emotional state? After you have come down from the emotional high or recovered from emotional low... what influence or impact does that decision have?​

Short answer? It has the influence or impact I choose to let it have. Because I don't have to stick with a decision made under duress/while I was impaired. I can change my mind. I'm not locked into it.

Equivalently, how often are our logical processes hijacked in this manner when we are emotionally sober, if the logical process was started whilst emotionally heightened?

That's where I get confused with what you are asking. Are you talking about emotional flooding? Or maybe amygdala hijack? Or cognitive dissonance or cognitive distortions? All the above? Something else? :confused:

What you are after seemed to clear up a bit more for me when you summarized in post 18. But not entirely.

“I am not used to having my emotions sway me in this manner, but exploring polyamory has me flying emotionally all over the place and I was hoping others who have been through this before could help me make sense of this new aspect of myself.”

So you chose to explore polyamory and now you are experiencing way more stimulus and way more emotions.

Like... new to thing. "Wow. I didn't know polyamory was intense relating! Is this just at the start or is it always like this? "

Or like emotional flooding? "Wow. I am getting overwhelmed by emotions a lot. I need to find ways to cope with my emotional management."

Or something else? :confused:

Could you please be willing to clarify?

Imagine a decision or a fact that you would under normal circumstances only partially agree with, but may become more agreeable to if you were under the influence of drugs or alcohol or just a strong emotional state. If you verbalize your agreement whilst in that state, do you then tend to agree with it more even when you're out of that emotional state?

I avoid making decisions when in an emotional state if I can help it. Sometimes it cannot be helped – decisions have to be made quickly in a crisis sometimes or there is no time too think too deep. If I see a car coming with my kid in the street? I am yelling for my kid to get out of the way while racing to try to snatch them away.

I am REACTING emotionally to a perceived danger to my child. I am not RESPONDING -- thoughtfully weighing out pros and cons and the impact of my choices on others.

Anyone who has seriously thought whether they should stay or leave a long term relationship will know what I mean - one day you think "I can stay" and another day you think "I should leave" - nothing has changed from day to day, merely emotions swaying your thoughts one way or another.

To me? Feelings ensue after behavior. Either thinking behavior or action behavior.

In your break up example? To me, it is not emotions swaying my thoughts one way or the other. It's my thoughts swaying the emotions around. I have to get clear in my thoughts before new feelings can ensue. What has been changing from day to day is my thinking behavior.

If I am experiencing internal conflict and trying to decide whether or not to break up? And one day I am thinking “I should leave”? That is a thought that inspires a certain range of emotions. The next day I think “I should stay” and that inspires another set of emotions. If I keep on ping-ponging with making my ultimate decision, I will stay in the internal conflict emotional soup.

The solution to internal conflict is to finally decide something. Doesn't matter which choice. Let's say it is “I am going to break up.” There is initial relief. Because the mental ping-ponging part of it has stopped, and then the emotions are not being churned up. My thinking behavior has only one radio channel now, rather than competing thought channels giving mixed signals. But that is not the end of the story.

Next there is aligning my action behaviors to that decision. If in my thinking behavior, I decide I am breaking up with you? I do not go on a date with you or share sex with you. Breaking up means holding myself apart from you. Not engaging in more new activities with you. If my action behaviors do not align with my decision? I choose to go on more dates with you?

I plunge myself into a new emotional soup. Because now I have created a new competing channel. My thinking channel is saying “I am breaking up” but my action channel is saying “We are dating” and then my emotions get confusing mixed signals again. If this feels unpleasant to me and I want to be out of emotional soup? I have to align my thinking behaviors and my action behaviors.

I either change my mind about breaking up with you and decide to stay. In which case my action behaviors of going out on dates with you harmonizes rather than clashes. So hopefully in time I feel better.

Or I stick with my decision and align my action behaviors to the decision to break up. I stop participating in more dates with you so my thinking behavior and action behaviors line up that way. And in time I hopefully feel better.

I think that people tend to agree with something emotionally, then hunt around for logical reasons that prop up that belief.

Some people do that. My Alzheimer Dad does this. He jumps to a conclusion and then seeks evidence to "support" this. Or he uses emotional reasoning like "I feel attacked. That means you are attacking me!" and he rages at us. He justifies his actions like "I am defending myself!" when really if he attacks first he is the aggressor.

You can read about some cognitive distortions here. You don't have to be a mental health patient to be doing wonky thinking. Some people have never been taught how to think about their own thinking process or do critical thinking. I know I do wonky thinking when I am having a panic attack. That's why I avoid making decisions when in an emotional state.

The practical impact of this would be:

a) to be aware that such bias exists in our cognitive thinking and to consciously attempt to compensate for it.

b) avoid voicing things out loud during times of heightened emotions so as to avoid compounding the bias (IE avoid arguments when angry, avoid major decisions whilst in NRE, avoid voicing life-changing statements whilst very happy or very sad).

c) Deliberately use this to engage in positive communication when feeling happy so as to bias topics with happy emotions. That way, when emotions return to normal, bias remains, but the bias is a positive bias.

I'm not sure how to help you make this list because I don't know what this list is for.

Like... are you trying to make a list to help you make better choices? Become a better communicator? Do conflict resolution effectively? Cope with emotional flooding?

If this is about decision making...Me? I am ok with broad principles rather than a list. A long time ago my mom told me this:

  • Some decisions are made with the heart. But be careful because “heart only” decisions can sometimes lead to self harming behavior because they lack logic. (Ex: “I know he gets drunk and hits me...but I loooooooove him!” kind of situations.)

  • Some decisions are made with the head. But be careful because head only decisions sometimes lack compassion. (Ex: When people want to go by letter of the law in all situations rather the the spirit of the law and those it is most supposed to protect. In some states, a rapist can sue for visitation or custody of a child conceived during the assault. Now what?)

  • But the best decisions are usually head and heart together. Try to use both together if possible.

That sounded like good advice at a the time and decades later I still use it. Maybe that helps you some. The amount of influence you want to let your emotions or your logic have on your decisions? It is up to you. And it depends on the situation at hand.

GL!
Galagirl
 
Last edited:
Back
Top