4 ms·
>I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over
by Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I know I've had many and extensive (and quite good) conversations with my fiancee as to how she was brought up in a family that valued emotional reasoning over logical reasoning.
I understand that most people value emotional reasoning more than I do. I don't get people valuing it more than logical reasoning.
There is just so much potential danger with implicit and explicit bias. Sexism and racism tends to be more the result of emotional reasoning than logical reasoning. (Think of a jury/judge sentencing a black guy to a harsher sentence than a white guy who did the same crime. Imagine if the difference between if the justification was the black guy felt more dangerous vs a justification such as in this instant the black guy having similar prior offenses. Which justification is racism?)
- existencebox 11y agoTo clarify my point, my intent wasn't to assign value to thinking emotionally, but to suggest that being candid and open about differences such that they exist is an important step to working productively despite, or even because of them. That being said though, you bring up an addendum I would counter that although you're right to say there is potential danger to emotional thinking, there's potential danger to purely logical thinking as well; to bring this back to my original statement in which avoiding confronting these differences in an "easy to work with" fashion reduces the chances of moving even a little towards a middle ground to 0.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoI would definitely agree there is great danger in purely logical reasoning, especially if it were someone who had limited empathy. I wonder, if both extremes are dangerous, is the middle ground safe?