5. Logic, emotions and rationalization
Embedded Files
In this chapter we would like to address one common misunderstanding. If someone does some decision we consider (in violent way) “stupid” or in other words not as responsible decision (see above) that it is common to say and think that “it was not rational decision” or “the decision was based on emotions”. The massage and common understanding is that rational decision = the right and correct one.
But if we look closely we would not see that this is actually the truth. Very good understanding of this was already shoved by the Nonviolent communication approach (NVC) (see above). NVC in the opposite of common understanding of “rational decision” is shoving that rationalization that leads to judgements and evaluations that are taken us from understanding the situation as it is. And thus is the cause of action that would not lead to fulfilment of our needs (something we actually desire).
From other perspective, we can see an example by any supporter of any conspiracy theory or demagogy / populist politician. See for yourself the “arguments” and the point of view the supporters are presenting. They are putting up “rational” explanations based on rationalization as a proof that the conspiracy theory or politician is right (have the truth).
Emotions and feelings although they era different in nature they are actually at the end depicted by same categories. Emotions are based on bodily chemical response to situation (or our perception of the situation) and las (some say) six seconds. Feelings on the other hand least longer. But the psychological response (how we feel) is described in the same terms as emotions (anger as emotion and feeling angry as feeling; joy and feeling joyful).
Rationalization is explaining or justifying action or an opinion with logical reasons, even if these does not have to be appropriate. Behind rationalization is logical (rational) thinking that usually operates with limited and/or biased information. The opinion based on rationalization might be or might not be correct as the evidence available or used actually does not entitle to formulate such conclusion.
Important is to understand (as some argument might go) that this is NOT about wrong rationality or logic. Even (paradoxically) when it seems like that and could even show that the decisions are not logical. Why then?
First scenario (biased logic): Because logic in principle (in its essence) can work only with the information we have (“posses”). We cannot do any rational and logical operation with information we do not have. And as we have explained above (see biases above) if we combine our perception with confirmation bias and other biases than we can understand that the person even does not allow the information that does not correspond with his/her point of view to enter his mind. So this information is actually not available for his/her rational thinking (the information was not looked up or has been ignored, but in the person´s mind the information actually does not exist). So he/she (e.g. follower of conspiracy theory) is actually doing logical operations with the biased set of information. Not that he/she would not thing in “a logical way” for that person it is absolutely logical (corresponding with the information he/she disposes with).
Second scenario (rationalization of the possible consequences of the situation or possible interpretation of the situation): Lets thing of what is actually first the feeling or rationalization of the situation that does not happen yet? If something did not happened yet how we could feel about it something unless we thing of or come out with possible (actually imaginary) scenarios. This is actually a rationalization like: What might/would happen if…? It is said that the decision was based on emotion. But what is behind the emotion? If someone is “against” refugees and in principle opposes any policy helping them. It is said he/she is acting like that out of fear and that it is not rational. But where is this fear coming from? We fear something that does not happen yet because we expect (rationalization) that it might do us harm (we come out with dangerous scenarios for the situation to possibly happen). So in this case the emotion is following the “rationalization” of the possible (imaginary) consequences of the situation.
Third scenario (rationalization of the possible interpretation of the situation): This principle is actually also applied in current situations when we give the situation (person etc.) meaning based on our interpretation based on our judgmental thinking (we can also call it projections). E.g. we think in a way “she have done it because she hates me” (even this might not be the case). So than we also tent to have feeling (e.g. anger) based on our thinking. So again thinking before feeling creation no accurate reflection of the situation.
Fourth scenario (rationalization of the cause of our feelings): We tent to rationalize our feelings to find the “cause” or the “villain” responsible for our unpleasant (or possibly pleasant) feelings. Our feeling of fear might be showing us that our need for (let’s say) security is not met (it is actual situation). But then comes the rationalization and assessment who to blame for. So our aversion to someone is not because of our feelings but because of our rationalization (finding explanations) to our feeling. Feeling is feeling and there is no blame or assessment in it. This is all rational (“logical”) operations doings. So the judgements and evaluations are output of rational explanations of something that we perceive or feel.
EXAMPLE If my favorite politician a have strong positive attitude towards him, someone I deeply trust, is charged with possession of illegal materials found at his home, what is “the logical explanation” for this? Surely it was set up and the police slip this evidence to his house to make this allegations. This is (or actually could be) logically correct explanation. So we would argue that this is logical but the point is that it is not based on any or appropriate evidence to be confident about it. It is actually deductive thinking (see Module 3) based on wrong assumptions and lead by confirmation and blind spot bias – thinking that all others are biased against my admired politician and that I see his as he truly is (see about biases above).
EXAMPLE To show that this does not have to be limited to “conspiracy theories” let’s see some example from prominent science, actually whole field of science. The whole mainstream economy have been based on the assumption that people act rationally. Interesting is that (almost) everyone knows that this is just not corresponding with reality but this did not lead to change the economic mainstream thinking. Even thought psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2022 based on his empirical research challenging the human rationality as the main factor for our decision-making and judgements this thinking, or actually models based on this wrong assumption are still present in economic thinking. We could associate this with anchoring, availability and representativeness bias – sticking/anchoring to something and being influenced by what we are exposed to and by quantity of information supporting it (see about biases above).
SELF REFLECTION
Which of these scenarios have you experienced?
Take some time to reflect on this.
SUMMARY) Take into the class From scientific point of view (and point of view promoted in this Methodology) it would by actually perfectly correct approaches to define assumptions (as this not supported by evidence) BUT knowing that it is just an assumption that has to be further tested as hypothesis by relevant research approach (see Module 3).
Connection between emotions and thinking has been also described by neuroscientists Mary Helen Immordino-Yang and Antonio Damasio [1]. They are based on their research shoving that: "There's really no such thing as a thought that doesn't have an emotion attached to it or that doesn't have an emotion that follows it. When we take in the world around us, we have an emotional reaction to that appraisal. That emotional reaction changes the way we think in the next moment and cumulatively, over time."
IMPORTANT But we could also argue that trough some practices like meditation you can distance yourself from your thoughts and emotions. So in this case there would not be any emotions attached to that thought. But this does not actually contradict what the neuroscientists have observed. Even yogic masters would point out that thoughts and emotions come together (in some yogic traditions they would even argue that there is not a difference between them and actually fall into the same category). The point is whether we can distance ourselves from them and see that we are not this thoughts and emotions. See also the approach of Nonviolent communication (above) twitch is pointing to the “problem” and impact of exchanging observation (free of judgments) with thinking and rationalization leading to judgements – not seeing the things as they are (clearly) but the way we interpret them (with our limited information and biases).
IMPORTANT We do not want to say that it is possible to see things objectively – “as they truly are”. What that would actually have to look like? Just imagine human and a bird or a snake. All have different perception of the world. Which one is the right, objective one? So it is not about to see “objectively” but to see without judgements whether it is wrong or right. But there will always be our perspective based on our perception limited by our human body (or our equipment) and our experience.
SUMMARY) Take into the class We do not want to say and are not saying that there is thinking that could be arguably seen as logical or illogical but we wanted to debunk common understanding and believe :) that logical is (always) correct and that irresponsible decisions are irresponsible because they are based on emotions and feelings (illogical). This is would not be relevant understanding and my mislead us to finding solutions that are not working. It is important to understand that rationalization (and actually logic) is also behind irresponsible decisions and conspiracy theory mindset (see also Module 4) and that it is not only (wrong) logic but also inherent aspect of rationality. In this sense rationality without awareness and openness could be and “is blind” to interpret correctly world around us and cause for our irresponsible decisions, not our feelings as is used to say. We do act out of our feeling but how we perceive and interpret (knowingly or unknowingly) those feelings. We are the ones who act not our feelings, we are responsible for our action…
We can also see that rationalization plays crucial role in confirmation biases. We rationalize because we want to confirm/defend (confirmation bias) our stance and point of view (see also chapter about biases above).
5.1. Intentions
With this topic we should also point out that people are actually acting with “best intentions”, to “do good”. Even if it does not seen or could be interpreted like it by others, people are acting as they do to improve the situation. As it said: Most horrible things were done with the best intentions. To take some examples. Even people like Anders Breivik or Islamic state were perusing, “better word” in the name of higher principles, by their own norms.
SUMMARY) Take into the class It is quite different perspective when we understand that he/she/they are perusing better world even that it could be by our norms considered as wrongdoing. This is not that we have to accept it but it is key when we want to make sense of the action of others. This approach also “forces” us out of our own “truths” and believes and our biases.
5.2. Judgements - right and wrong (concept of good and bad)
“INSTEAD TO BE RIGHT WHY NOT TRY TO BE SENSIBLE
AND DO WHAT IS RELEVANT/NEEDED FOR THE ACTUAL SITUATION”
As we are talking about seeing the other without judgements to be able to understand his/her we should take a look where is this judgements are coming from. When we judge someone we actually compere his action with our perception (believe) of what is right and what is wrong.
We will discuss the topic of “right and wrong” in the Modul 6 Evaluation. Let’s for the purposes of this Module summarize that perception of what is good and what is bad is based on our definition of the goals (what should be achieved). Actions lead to certain outcomes and impacts and whether these are perceived as positive (good) or negative (bad) is purely based on what we want(ed) to achieve.
Good = corresponding with our goals
Bad = not corresponding/contradicting our goals
So concept of good and bad is a concept based on our goals – what we see as desirable to be achieved. In this sense we can see that we are the ones who are deciding what is good or bad and there is no one else. It might sounds terrible and as an inevitable dooms day (everybody is choosing what is right and wrong). But we can see it from opposite perspective. If anyone claims he/she possess the only one true right to decide (on whatever basis) what is universally wrong and what is good (for all others) this would be and in history many times have been a real dooms day where lot of people truly suffered.
Only when we acknowledge that categories of good and bad are actually based on our goals than we can discuss this and agree on the goals that suits us best (our needs, see Nonviolent communication). And we can change the approach when we find out that the goals did not showed to serve us well or the circumstances changes. We can look at the consequences (the impacts) of our action and make decisions accordingly. And most importantly to be responsible for our decisions and impact of our action.
EXAMPLE The above does not in any means declare that there might not be a supreme authority. But that it would be hard to argue that we know what to do exactly based on any supreme authority. Even in the religious circles directed by one scripture there are different interpretations and perceptions of what “is right and what is wrong” (see for example view on gay and lesbian marriage in Catholic Church). The point is that there is always someone interpreting what “is right and what is wrong” so the authority in the end is not supreme being but the human or group of humans with the authority. And even if we follow any rules “given by” supreme being it is still us who decides what to do (and enjoy). So it is still our decision (goal). (in some cultures there might even not be gods that anyone would like to follow).
EXAMPLE What about for example smoking: Is smoking good or bad/wrong? One might be convinced that it is definitely bad in principle… But actually we can see that there will a reason for these judgement. In other words there will be assumed or perceived goal of let’s say: live a healthy life. Then for sure smoking would not be the best strategy to take. But if your goal would be to endanger your body or other goals with higher priority than health than you could be for smoking.
EXAMPLE One of the Ten Commandments (the 8th) sais “You shall not steal”. If we are thinking of supreme morals we might also and interestingly consider that in some cultures (like indians and in historic hunting cultures) there was actually no concept of ownership [1]. So there was not also any concept of steeling. This example is just shoving that the “universality” is limited to specific cultural norms based on specific structure and norms.
[1] Anthropologists call it „demand sharing“ and was operating in following way: if I have something in my possession that I am not currently using and you need or want it, you will demand it from me, and I will give it. They would not even refuse someone from different tribe.
EXAMPLE See for example some tragic example as war. We could say that by some supreme moral values that starting a war and killing is wrong. But do we really need some supreme morals to follow such values? Why just do not see that it is something that does not serve people (us) well. And even if we might thing that from our perspective we might gain some profit, we will still start to spin the wheel of effects that will back fire at us later on. Let’s use the logic from nonviolent communication that violence is only producing violence, viscous never ending cycle. We can ask if people in Russia would really support the war on Ukraine if they have free choice (and information needed for this free choice to see the real impacts of the war)?
IMPORTANT On one hand we say that there are not any supreme moral standards as there is not any supreme authority to propagate them here and know. But that does not mean that we as a human beings could not agree on standards that would propagate human values, values that ensure that we can fulfill our potential and wellbeing. Arguably some would point out that there is something that transcends us and we can connect to that and formulate such values (in other words we would not live joyfully if we do not follow what is inherent/natural to human beings). But it is still up to us to set and follow such goals and standards and take responsibility for them.
IMPORTANT every decision and action that we will make will most certainly contain some mistake in it (it would not be perfect). By policy decisions there will always by someone to profit more than other from that decision as we have scarce resources. And in some cases aggression can be stopped only with using force. But these are still our decisions and we have responsibility for them.
SUMMARY) Take into the class To acknowledge that what is good or bad is decided by us (that we choose the objectives for us and the society) opens possibility for responsible decision making and action. Such action can be assessed and evaluated whether is serves us (our goals). When rightfulness is claimed to be based on some higher principle (coming from outside of us without possibility to question it) than the one claiming to possess the right to interpret it has only one way how to achieve this objective and that is to force others, to force others to do something unwillingly rather than to do it willingly and joyfully (see Nonviolent communication above). And you can imagine how the students will participate if they enjoy what they do (when it makes sense for them) opposite to situation when they are forced to do something…
From the point of view of understanding different perspectives (topic of this Module). To understand that we are the ones to set the goals (what supposed to be done) and thus what is right and wrong than it opens possibility for discussion about these goals and impact of our (each of us) action. Then we might ask if it serves us well, makes us fulfilled? See also Personality types to see that everyone has different needs and is motivated or pursuing different goals (is fulfilled by different means).
There is also quite strong connection with biases. The biases (mainly the confirmation) gives the notion of confidence that we are doing or “fighting” for the right think. The important point is that under the influence of confirmation and other biases (like projection bias) we perceive our action as justified without acknowledging different perspectives and possibly the reality itself (the real impact of our action)...
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse