5 ms·

I just want to quickly talk about the main problem I've noticed people having when having personal conflicts and arguments (especially noticeable on MBTI forums

I just want to quickly talk about the main problem I've noticed people having when having personal conflicts and arguments (especially noticeable on MBTI forums, with the "logical thinkers" going up against the "emotional feelers"). Logic, in the practical, day-to-day sense, isn't something that replaces emotion. Without emotion, we wouldn't be able to make logical decisions (established by studies on people with brain damage that specifically took out their capacity for emotion- they can lay out all the pros and cons of a decision, but they can't actually decide)- because emotions are what allow us to atribute value to things. So when we say "I did the logical thing and took the job that offered more pay", what goes unsaid is that we emotionally prefer more money to less money, and maybe value that over whatever the other costs much be. TL;DR: Logical decision-making is calculative, but it is not free of emotion. Emotions matter. PS: I know this isn't directly related to the more mathematical, axiomatic sort of logic being discussed... but I just have a lot of feelings.

goldenkey 13y ago
I like your point because it helps me understand why I'm a prick sometimes. It could just be that I'm looking for excuses for my overly pedantic behavior, I'm not sure. It's hard for me to read my emotions :-(
- visakanv 13y ago
  I can be a prick, too. I think it happens when I start getting carried away with communicating to others that I am right about something, rather than actually being sensitive to the context of the conversation.
  - sanoli 13y ago
    and about 75% of the time, it wouldn't matter a tiny bit if I just let go.
nmc 13y ago
I believe I get your point, but you seem confused about what you mean by "logic". Formally, your example is: 1. I prefer more money than less money 2. Job x is offering more money 3. I prefer job x There is your syllogism, your "logical thing". However, the emotional part about money is just an axiom: you may call it obvious, but not logical. ... Or maybe you can, if you consider something like: 1. Money is good 2. I prefer more good than less good 3. I prefer more money than less money However, you will always end up on an axiom: something you say is true, without any logical thinking involved, like "money is good". There is your emotional part. I hope I understood your point correctly. In this case, my answer is: you can always separate logic from emotions by going into details of the reasoning.
- visakanv 13y ago
  Yup, you got exactly what I was trying to say. Logic is the system of reasoning, the "weighing scale". Emotions are what give the objects weight. So we could both arrive at different conlusions despite having identical logical reasoning, because we value things differently.
  - nmc 13y ago
    Happy I got it right! This was generalized by A. Einstein in something along the lines of "a problem cannot be solved with the same state of mind it was created in". I like to understand that as: 1. You have a problem. 2. You have a situation that cannot be solved. 3. You have a situation you think cannot be solved. 4. You have a reasoning process concluding that the situation cannot be solved. 5. You have a state of mind which implies, as a logical outcome, that the situation cannot be solved.

goldenkey 13y ago

I like your point because it helps me understand why I'm a prick sometimes. It could just be that I'm looking for excuses for my overly pedantic behavior, I'm not sure. It's hard for me to read my emotions :-(

visakanv 13y ago
I can be a prick, too. I think it happens when I start getting carried away with communicating to others that I am right about something, rather than actually being sensitive to the context of the conversation.
- sanoli 13y ago
  and about 75% of the time, it wouldn't matter a tiny bit if I just let go.

nmc 13y ago

I believe I get your point, but you seem confused about what you mean by "logic". Formally, your example is: 1. I prefer more money than less money 2. Job x is offering more money 3. I prefer job x There is your syllogism, your "logical thing". However, the emotional part about money is just an axiom: you may call it obvious, but not logical. ... Or maybe you can, if you consider something like: 1. Money is good 2. I prefer more good than less good 3. I prefer more money than less money However, you will always end up on an axiom: something you say is true, without any logical thinking involved, like "money is good". There is your emotional part. I hope I understood your point correctly. In this case, my answer is: you can always separate logic from emotions by going into details of the reasoning.

visakanv 13y ago
Yup, you got exactly what I was trying to say. Logic is the system of reasoning, the "weighing scale". Emotions are what give the objects weight. So we could both arrive at different conlusions despite having identical logical reasoning, because we value things differently.
- nmc 13y ago
  Happy I got it right! This was generalized by A. Einstein in something along the lines of "a problem cannot be solved with the same state of mind it was created in". I like to understand that as: 1. You have a problem. 2. You have a situation that cannot be solved. 3. You have a situation you think cannot be solved. 4. You have a reasoning process concluding that the situation cannot be solved. 5. You have a state of mind which implies, as a logical outcome, that the situation cannot be solved.