REALITY VERSUS FEEL GOOD

@Brandon9000,

Brandon, you are my friend too. But frankly my dear, I think you protest too much. I have long made my peace with people who believe differently than I do in matters of religion, spirituality, and faith, none of which I see as one and the same. I neither need nor require you to believe as I do about any of those things and I accept that you disagree with me and that's okay. It has no emotional impact on me because I KNOW you have no means of proving your point of view to me any more than I have any means whastsoever of proving my point of view to you. Therefore you can't GIVE me an answer in matters of religion. You can only state your belief that is based on nothing more than that which you have come to believe and perhaps something of your thought processes that brought you to that point. But in a court of law, for instance, you would come up empty as having any evidence to back your claims. As would I.

I have read a LOT of the author of that quote, however, and I feel I am pretty certain he is speaking of that which can be dealt with objectively and with some degree of certainty. So I think the analogy I used in my response to Foofie is far closer to his intent than any matters of religion.

And you of course can and probably will disagree, but that's the way I see it just the same.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Was the statement emotionally unsatisfying to you? If so why? How would you word it to be emotionally satisfying to you?

No, the original quote wasn't emotionally unsatisfying to me, it was simply imprecise, which is what I explained above.

I find things emotionally satisfying when they are accurate and precise and logically consistent.

How would you word it to be emotionally satisfying to you?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Okay, but only because it's you.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

I was re-reading D. Dennett’s "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a little while ago so I saw this in a more basic evolutionary way and I think rosborne has put his finger on an important point:

Quote:

But in many cases the issues are complex. Compared to the volume of information out there, people have very little direct experience. Almost everything we know beyond the world we touch with our fingertips comes from other sources which we must choose to trust or not. But trust is an emotional thing. So most of the information we deal with in our lives is tinged with a dose of subjective emotionalism

I would bring it down a level, below emotions. Emotions could be viewed as what Dennett would refer to as an evolutionary "Good Trick". I would submit that our "emotions" are something we inherited from way back from creatures considered too primitive to be recognized to be any where near our ancestors (but they are), like, say, Lobed fin fish. In the real world quick actions are preferred over those less quick; blow on an animal's eyes and they blink. Noxious stimuli, such as extreme heat, produces a quick reaction response designed (by natural selection) for the good of the individual and the species. A small quick moving shadow will cause a herd like flight reaction in pigeons, but not every quick moving small shadow is a hawk. Better safe than sorry though.

We as humans have developed these reactions but also have built upon them to develop a decision mechanism that allows, in combination with real time environmental conditions, to make quick and dirty decisions that are necessary for survival. When you think how difficult and time consuming making decisions can be, these mechanisms allowed a way to avoid the "analysis to paralysis" problem. Soldiers are trained and drilled constantly and repeatedly so as to respond instinctively to battlefield situations--taking time to "think" during the heat of combat can be deadly. Perhaps emotions are the descendants of these "Quick and Dirty" mechanisms.

But emotions are still crude decision tools. They are based on past experiences combined with limited short term knowledge and assumed generalities. But how does this explain humans? How do we explain such vile reactions when discussing such things like politics or religion? Why do such reasoning and thinking beings behave so? Because we are not such beings. We feel we are intelligent and logical. That's half right, but anyone that has taken a course in logic or logical thinking is quickly disabused of this.

So, our first reaction to controversial or threatening ideas is emotional and without true thought. It is a primitive brain response not much more nuanced than a spinal reflex initiated by us touching a hot stove. It takes self restraint and this is not a basic animal instinct. This must be learned. Academic training is one way to this end but obviously not necessary. After all, one must remember all those great thinkers of the past that never went to Harvard or Yale.

Yes, the issues are complex, but I think people must want the facts and analytical explanations. Hopefully, we humans will evolve away from emotions and ideological xenophobia but we can't depend on that to free us from political tribalism. More tolerance would be good but, again we should not hold our breath. Villains are defined by our heroes but our heroes are not always correct.

JM

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
Was the statement emotionally unsatisfying to you? If so why? How would you word it to be emotionally satisfying to you?

No, the original quote wasn't emotionally unsatisfying to me, it was simply imprecise, which is what I explained above.

I find things emotionally satisfying when they are accurate and precise and logically consistent.

How would you word it to be emotionally satisfying to you?

Here is how the author worded it:

Quote:

The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

I don't think the statement is imprecise at all and for me it is provocative. And, because I discern a truth in it that had not occurred to me before, it is emotionally satisfying as it is.

One example:

In 1992 the same writer commented on the reports of price gouging in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. Most of us were incensed that motel managers were jacking up the price of a motel room and bottled water and batteries were going for exhorbitant prices. We all quickly saw a a clear right and wrong value judgment that could be applied to this situation. The people doing this were greedy grubby opportunists at best; criminal at worst.

Until. . . . .

The writer applied a different analytical perspective from the standpoint of pure economic principles. He pointed out that sky high prices limited demand for these precious and scarce commodities. A large family that might have rented two or three motel rooms made do with one leaving space available for others. People who would have bought extra bottled water to bathe or wash hair chose to forego such luxuries in the near term leaving precious drinking water available for others. People who might have hoarded batteries didn't and left supplies available to more people.

His explanation was hugely emotionally unsatisfying. We didn't want to see the motel manager or the merchants as anything other than hard hearted, opportunistic, greedy villains. And yet, intentionally or unintentionally, their practices, whatever the motives, accomplished a common good. I think many can see the truth in what he was saying. But we don't like hearing it.

We want our villains to be thoroughy evil and our heroes to be perfectly good. It is emotionally unsatisfying to know that none of them are and we sometimes work really hard to keep from admitting that none of them are.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Noting and thinking too on James' different perspective. Lots to digest there.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Until. . . . .

The writer applied a different analytical perspective from the standpoint of pure economic principles. He pointed out that sky high prices limited demand for these precious and scarce commodities. A large family that might have rented two or three motel rooms made do with one leaving space available for others. People who would have bought extra bottled water to bathe or wash hair chose to forego such luxuries in the near term leaving precious drinking water available for others. People who might have hoarded batteries didn't and left supplies available to more people.

In economics this is termed proper allocation of capital and resources .The beauty of the capitalistic system, given free markets, is such auto correcting. The guys who have stuff do not set the price. The guys who want that stuff do not set the price. The price automatically sets itself and is defined as the price at which the seller will sell and the buyer will buy. When governments try to pick winners, like ethanol, they distort the market and therefore the correct pricing of the market. The governmental ethanol subsidy makes the price lower than it really is. This locks the government into providing the subsidy (all tax payers pay the difference, whether they use ethanol or not) like forever. Case in point: Iran subsidizes gasoline. When they recently tried to move the price closer to the unsubsidized market price (and this price was not even remotely close to the correct price) the public almost rioted. G.W. Bush yielded to political pressure and mandated a significant increase in the production of ethanol. This distorts the demand/supply curve not only for ethanol but for those resources needed for its production--now corn's price rises because there is more demand for it. But that means the rancher has to pay more to feed the cattle who are raised for beef whose price also rises. Lastly, congress just passed a tariff on cheap Brazilian ethanol, which is also plentiful. This is solely designed to keep the price of ethanol high to make it profitable to make. Given we want to encourage the use of ethanol in place of fossil fuels to run autos why don't we just by Brazilian ethanol? But ,due to government interference ,all taxpayers pay to produce more expensive ethanol that they may not use which raises the price of corn and beef and many other products made from corn. Not an emotionally satisfying situation!

It also important to realize that those rooms and batteries could have just been horded but weren't--the reason: free markets.

Oh well.

JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

But in this context we don't want the technical explanation, James. How it all works is beside the point from the primitive level of feelings. Emotionally we want President Bush to be innocent. Or we want him to be guilty. We want to heap accusations on the inn keeper or merchant. We don't want any explanation that makes it more difficult to do that. Sometimes we will go to ridiculous lengths to avoid having to accept one.

This is the point I think the writer was making. In a sense he was saying that once our mind is made up, we resent having to deal with different facts.

As another example, probably all of us at some time have worked up a huge dislike or resentment of another person. We don't WANT anybody to tell us that we have misjudged them or are reading them wrong. It is more emotionally satisfying to wallow in the justification of feeling angry or resentful. We may even resent those who suggest we got it wrong (emotionally unsatisfying) while we feel warm and fuzzy toward those who agree with us (emotionally satisfying).

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Here is how the author worded it:
Quote:
The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

I would have preferred if the author said, "SOME people do not want factual or analytical explanations...". I would have considered that much more accurate. But I'm picky about such things because accuracy is important to me.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
Here is how the author worded it:
Quote:
The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

I would have preferred if the author said, "SOME people do not want factual or analytical explanations...". I would have considered that much more accurate. But I'm picky about such things because accuracy is important to me.

Me too (re accuracy). But since I agree with the writer that MANY people misunderstand many issues, the words he used are more emotionally satisfying to me. Smile

(I have long been in issue-oriented professions that do perhaps make some concepts more familiar than might be apparent to those who deal with more absolutes.)

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Point taken.

JM

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I read this today. I hope some will discuss it at face value on its own merits, even if you know the author:

Quote:
The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

Is he right?

yes

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I read this today. I hope some will discuss it at face value on its own merits, even if you know the author:

Quote:
The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

Is he right?

Maybe for some people, sometimes.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I read this today. I hope some will discuss it at face value on its own merits, even if you know the author:

Quote:
The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

Is he right?

Thanks for bumping this one Kenn, it's a good one.

Folks like simplicity and clarity, we see it all the time. Who wants explanations or investigations that cast the black and white into shades of grey. They wanna get riled up, or feel that invisible Pat on the Back that someone has championed their cause.

Oh yes, I think this is a very strong sentiment with tons of examples. But to relate just one: Look what's happened to news networks; nowadays (US) its like a bunch of Jerry Springer wannabes trying to get people all riled up (though I still hang on to NPR as much as I can). Dispassionate reporting of verified facts doesn't get the ratings and subsequent advertising dollars.

Good one

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I read this today. I hope some will discuss it at face value on its own merits, even if you know the author:

Quote:
The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

Is he right?

Thanks for bumping this one Kenn, it's a good one.

Folks like simplicity and clarity, we see it all the time. Who wants explanations or investigations that cast the black and white into shades of grey. They wanna get riled up, or feel that invisible Pat on the Back that someone has championed their cause.

Oh yes, I think this is a very strong sentiment with tons of examples. But to relate just one: Look what's happened to news networks; nowadays (US) its like a bunch of Jerry Springer wannabes trying to get people all riled up (though I still hang on to NPR as much as I can). Dispassionate reporting of verified facts doesn't get the ratings and subsequent advertising dollars.

Good one

It was Steve who bumped it back up from the depths of the forum though, not kennethamy. Indeed, its a good thread, too bad we are two years too late for the first phase...

My brother is the perfect example of that, he sees the world in black & white. Either he loves something or hates something. He refuses to admit any mid-terms, to the point of being anoying. If I tell him "I dont know" or "Im not sure", he gets irritated and asks: "Yes or no?".

I, on the other hand, see the world in shades of gray. Nothing is perfect nor worthless, and I almost always prefer to stick to probabilities rather that deciding for an absolute affirmative or an absolute negation. So we discuss frequently =)

The most interesting point of this to me is how people manage to fool themselves without noticing they are fooling themselves. I guess our emotional side is mixed to our logical side to such a deep level that we confuse our reasoning with our emotional limitations and dont notice our logic is stained with emotion.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

roger wrote:
Is this where you are going with the thread, Foxfyre?

Actually, I think Foxfyre intended to start an atheism thread. Although she quoted Sowell (I'm pretty sure it's him -- this is one of his favorite soundbites), she obviously wants to talk about her doubts in her Christianity, about the way the existence of gawd is supported by no evidence at all, but how she's kept believing in him because the thought was so comforting.

I applaud Foxfyre's openmindedness and encourage her to pursue her investigations wherever they may lead.

Much as I think this is very funny Thomas, (and would have said true, also, had Fox not denied it) but you're exemplifying the quote as much as any christian beliefs would. In fact, was that you're point? I'm going to feel very silly if I write any more on this and you were just being ironic all along.

0 Replies

What makes a desire for black and white explanations a bad thing? It is practical. If we got bogged down in grey about every little thing we could not function. Black and white allows us to make quick decisions. We celebrate black and white in ethics and culture. Black and white is passionate, heroic, brave, joyful, and idealistic. Black and white simplifies. Black and white allows us to belong, which is the singular driving bio-social force for our species. Black and white is the bond between mother and child. Again what is wrong with black and white?

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

What makes a desire for black and white explanations a bad thing? It is practical. If we got bogged down in grey about every little thing we could not function. Black and white allows us to make quick decisions. We celebrate black and white in ethics and culture. Black and white is passionate, heroic, brave, joyful, and idealistic. Black and white simplifies. Black and white allows us to belong, which is the singular driving bio-social force for our species. Black and white is the bond between mother and child. Again what is wrong with black and white?

Whose talking about "everything we do"? And since when does our desire to oversimplify produce well thought-out results?

The short answer is this: Because that's not the reality of our lives. Actions produce multiple effects and come from many motivational sources and appearances are only a snapshot of what's perceived at one point in time. How can a quick, superficial appraisal that jumps to label something good or bad, right or wrong - without careful consideration of some measure of depth - be a good thing?

Yes, most issues (phenomena) could conceivably come down to such a point. But without understanding the "greys" involved - what hope has one to even reach a considered black or white call? Or... has perspective become a lost commodity?

Its through oversimplifying - through polarizing - that the hues of color disappear and all becomes 'this' or 'that'. I can't imagine how this is a good thing for the person, the culture or the species. Perhaps its worst effect is that upon people; we hear something and judge, see something and judge, we can't imagine what someone's motivation for something is so we come up with the only answer we can and ... judge. In all its complexity, human nature is is a cacophony of competing attentions, ideals, motivations, goals and conditions. The only way I can make a pure black or white judgment is to choose but one; do I have an accurate picture? An accurate judgment?

No, unless we're talking about two vastly different ideals here I believe that more depth brings a better perspective, more accurate decisions and a better understanding of 'the way things are'. There's a time and place to withhold judgment and investigate and a time to not - so such consideration isn't for all issues. What is or isn't is up to the mind involved.

I believe we've gone too far in our laziness and quick-to-judge indolence that not only are great injustices - between people - happening all the time, but that overall our civilization is learning to actually praise superficiality.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I read this today. I hope some will discuss it at face value on its own merits, even if you know the author:

Quote:
The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer" and they don't want explanations that do not give them that.

Is he right?

In religious countries, yes. Like USA and middle east, and east. It's an naive upbringing, that depicts life in a overly simplistic way (good against evil) disregarding the simple fact, that it is you own self that instigates evil the most times, because of ignorence, stupidity and cruelty, it starts in the school yard bulling the weak, and the kids still previce themselves as "good" even though they do "bad", it progresses in life where we discriminate eachother, we choose by emotion instead of intelligence.

Our preception are left dorment, and oten let other make our choise, friends, family and goverment, the masses are fools and followers.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

I was being dramatic, and a little serious. I would prefer all my major decisions to be well thought out. It isn't possible to wade through every decision, even important ones. I'm fairly certain its not even biologically possible to do so given some of the reading I have been doing lately. We are in countless situations that affect the rest of our lives everyday where a quick judgment is necessary and often not even recognized on a fully conscious level. I too share a disdain for shoddy and lazy stereotyping.

However:
1) as mentioned above our cognitve system seems to be built to create archetypes and prototypes of people, traits, systems, situations, and scenarios that hover disturbingly close to blatant stereotyping. We make decisions all day long based on these things, which are not thought out, they are just cateloged in our minds from experience or cultural/educational acquisition and we act accordingly.

2) There are certain noble things about humanity that fly in the face of rational, such as what I mentioned in my last post. People need to have an identity, and much of a person's identity is not rational and not well thought through much of it is reaction biological and cultural to experience that has made a person what they are, granted this can create the not-so-noble as well.

3) We are a social species that has the ability of self-consciousnes on an abstract level. This simultaneously makes us well aware of our state of unique-ness and aloness and draws us to be a part of a group and be accepted. These are base needs that transcend reason and people do things every day that counter reason to achieve them or transcend the lack of them. Two polar base needs at war, the need to be unique and the need not to be unique creates a vortex of irrational. but it is this vortex of irrational where the beautiful things in humanity appear. Ingenuity, creativity, love, sharing, etc...

So although as part of my set of ideals I agree with you, so much suffering could be avoided if people thought through stuff before they did or said it. I just don't see it as possible, and if it were I don't think we would be nearly as interesting and loving a species.

0 Replies

REALITY VERSUS FEEL GOOD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know