Intellectual debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff (and Mike),

My example of using a narcotic was not a red herring. I have been saying from the beginning that emotions can be controlled by chemicals. You said you disagreed (Jeff said, not Mike). Well, what do you think chemicals are? A narcotic is merely an extreme example, but it is an undeniable one. The principle of hormonal surges is the same. They cause a chemical status in the emotional control centers of the brain that bypasses reason.

There is also a concept you can read about in Emotional Intelligence by Goleman called "emotional hijack." This is a temporary state when reason is turned off and pure reaction kicks in. It is instantaneous and it does not last very long. The physical alterations in the brain have been studied for this state. In the court system, one form of this is called "temporary insanity." This is an instance of emotion blinding reason.

These are facts. I see no point in trying to blank them out to fit some preconceived principle. By looking at facts, this does not mean that I or anyone else endorses irresponsibility. All it means is that something is correctly identified.

I strongly believe individuals are responsible for their behavior. But I did not come out of hard addiction by blanking out reality to fit that belief. I had to recognize reality first, understand my limitations, then act where I could. That meant understanding what I did not consciously control in my own mind. If I had not done that, I would still be addicted and wondering why (or dead).

This is one real danger of trying to impose a principle on reality instead of deriving principles from reality. I know that danger. I did it. I paid for it, too.

Michael

[sjw]

Rand's viewpoint may be summarized by this statement by Galt:

"If any part of your uncertainty,” said Galt, "is a conflict between your heart and your mind—follow your mind."

NB states that this advice may turn out to be quite wrong, so in that regard his viewpoint is certainly different from that of Rand.

Read NB's *Rand-endorsed* articles "The Objectivist" to see Rand's view. But you don't need to read that to see Dragonfly's bias here--quoting a single line of fiction and pretending that's Rand's complete advice on how to deal with emotions. Not that Galt's advice isn't completely sound when read objectively: the mind is not some opposite thing from emotions, it *includes* the evaluation of the emotion, and the certainty of the conscious conviction. Dragonfly's reading is totally non-objective and arbitrarily hostile of Rand.

[sjw]

My example of using a narcotic was not a red herring.

If it's not a red herring then it's definitely a non-sequitor. Just because a drug is able to induce a state of emotions trumping reason does not imply that normal hormones would do the same thing. If even that's true. I've never noticed alcohol disengaging my reason--it just makes it more difficult to reason, particularly, to think creatively. I'm aware of the fact that some people seem to turn into Dr. Jekyll/Hyde when they drink (I've never known anyone like this), I wonder if that's because they are severely indulgent emotionalists to begin with.

[Victor Pross]

Victor you purposefully like to inflame and insult. Your top purpose in life is caricature, and this penchant for mocking people has seeped deeply into your entire person. Just like your latest irrational caricature of me as "sensitive" in spite of the fact that any rational person who was being persistently insulted from irrational grounds would take offense.

You were the one that started this thread, yet you can't even last as long as this thread in staying civil. That speaks to the hypocrisy inherent in tolerationists, and underscores why the true standard should not be "toleration" but "rationality".

Shayne,

I am intrigued, how is that you paint me as a tolerationist? [i imagine this word is being used in the Objectivist encrusted sense]. If I am given to mocking people, it would seem that I look upon most of my fellow homo sapiens with bemused distain. Where is the undue “toleration” here?

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm aware of the fact that some people seem to turn into Dr. Jekyll/Hyde when they drink (I've never known anyone like this), I wonder if that's because they are severely indulgent emotionalists to begin with.

Shayne,

Some might be. Not all are. In my experience, "severely indulgent emotionalists" are in the minority when a severe problem kicks in.

There is no one size fits all for reaction to alcohol, except to say that everybody gets drunk if they drink too much. Some of it is even racial. Orientials, for instance, physically process alcohol (specifically a byproduct called acetaldehyde) differently than Indians do. Indians actually have a higher vulnerability to alcoholism than most other races. I can point you to studies if you are interested.

Michael

[Danneskjold]

Do you think that different people have different capacities for resisting temporary insanity or emotional hijack? Do you think that this capacity is innate or learned?

[Mikee]

Michael,

"My example of using a narcotic was not a red herring. I have been saying from the beginning that emotions can be controlled by chemicals."

You cannot compare a powerful addictive drug taken externally and argue that conceptually our "hormones" do the same thing. The feedback systems that exist in our bodies, including the chemicals naturally produced, are part of our life's experience. We have acclimated and adapted to our bodies and minds over decades and used our rational faculties to finely discriminate our feelings relative to our internal and external perceptions. You cannot purposely throw a monkey wrench into the works with a powerful drug and call the result consistant with human nature. The decision to behave irrationally in that case happened before the drug took effect. That's why I called your example a red herring.

-Mike E.

[sjw]

There is no one size fits all for reaction to alcohol, except to say that everybody gets drunk if they drink too much. Some of it is even racial. Orientials, for instance, physically process alcohol (specifically a byproduct called acetaldehyde) differently than Indians do. Indians actually have a higher vulnerability to alcoholism than most other races. I can point you to studies if you are interested.

I know that everyone has different alcohol tolerances, but what doesn't make sense to me is why some people might turn into a completely different person. It's not about how much causes an effect, it's about what effects can be caused. The only explanation I can think of is that severe emotional repressors lose control of their repression under the influence. I mean--the way they are behaving has to be coming from them. Alcohol doesn't add/remove personality traits. It can only amplify/unmask them.

Maybe that's a good way to get to know someone--get them drunk and see if their personality changes for the better or for the worse ;)

[Victor Pross]

One wonders what effects the Y-chromosome has on reason—this being a line of genes designed for men only; the cause of virility, war, baldness, hockey, sex crimes, cleaver inventions and a disinclination to ask for directions when lost.

[sjw]

I am intrigued, how is that you paint me as a tolerationist? [i imagine this word is being used in the Objectivist encrusted sense]. If I am given to mocking people, it would seem that I look upon most of my fellow homo sapiens with bemused distain. Where is the undue “toleration” here?

Just as people who repress their emotions end up being emotionalists, people who repress rational judgments end up being irrational at judging. The most irrational, insulting, and unjust kind of person is the one who preaches tolerationism.

[Victor Pross]

I am intrigued, how is that you paint me as a tolerationist? [i imagine this word is being used in the Objectivist encrusted sense]. If I am given to mocking people, it would seem that I look upon most of my fellow homo sapiens with bemused distain. Where is the undue “toleration” here?

Just as people who repress their emotions end up being emotionalists, people who repress rational judgments end up being irrational at judging. The most irrational, insulting, and unjust kind of person is the one who preaches tolerationism.

But I don't preach toleration. For example, I'm the first one out on the field in my cheer leader outfit when it comes to the hanging of tyrants. I don't repress my emotions [i'm an artist] or my rational judgments. You may beg to differ, but I happen to think that I have a better idea of myself than you.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Just as people who repress their emotions end up being emotionalists, people who repress rational judgments end up being irrational at judging. The most irrational, insulting, and unjust kind of person is the one who preaches tolerationism.

Shayne,

You have called a number of people here, myself included, emotionalists and tolerationists. Does this mean that you think those of us you have labeled as such are "people who repress their emotions" and "who repress rational judgments?" Those people you have called tolerationist, I assume you would claim they are preaching toleration so they must be the "most irrational, insulting, and unjust kind of [people]." Is this what you are saying about a number of the people here at OL? Is this what you are saying about me? I just want to get my facts straight about your point of view.

I wonder if you could tell me exactly what you mean by "emotionalist" and "tolerationist." It would help me to understand the principles behind your perspective. I also wonder if you would mind providing a list of those people here who you consider to fit these categories so I can consider what behaviour fits these principles. Your judgments of those around you and people's responses to those judgments have occupied quite a bit of space recently. I want to understand the principles and the evidence behind these judgments.

Paul

[Victor Pross]

Just as people who repress their emotions end up being emotionalists, people who repress rational judgments end up being irrational at judging. The most irrational, insulting, and unjust kind of person is the one who preaches tolerationism.

Shayne,

You have called a number of people here, myself included, emotionalists and tolerationists. Does this mean that you think those of us you have labeled as such are "people who repress their emotions" and "who repress rational judgments?" Those people you have called tolerationist, I assume you would claim they are preaching toleration so they must be the "most irrational, insulting, and unjust kind of [people]." Is this what you are saying about a number of the people here at OL? Is this what you are saying about me? I just want to get my facts straight about your point of view.

I wonder if you could tell me exactly what you mean by "emotionalist" and "tolerationist." It would help me to understand the principles behind your perspective. I also wonder if you would mind providing a list of those people here who you consider to fit these categories so I can consider what behaviour fits these principles. Your judgments of those around you and people's responses to those judgments have occupied quite a bit of space recently. I want to understand the principles and the evidence behind these judgments.

Paul

Paul,

I suspect that there is very little cognitive content in those labels that Shayne designates to people—other than the fact that they are meant to be belittling. They amount to the emotional equivalent of the following: “I disagree with you, and because I do…you must be morality tainted in some manner.” This is where the cut and paste Objectivist jargon becomes a convenient substitute for principled thinking. It merely amounts to this: 'I don't like what you are saying.'

I think Shayne sometimes selects words more for sound than meaning. You know, there are so many other little goodies to choose from. I’m still waiting to be called “second-hander” and “mystic.”

-Victor

Edited January 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You cannot purposely throw a monkey wrench into the works with a powerful drug and call the result consistant with human nature. The decision to behave irrationally in that case happened before the drug took effect. That's why I called your example a red herring.

Mike,

Why can't it be called human nature? Do you consider our mechanism for processing chemicals excluded from human nature? How about digestion? Is that unnatural?

But to be clear, we were discussing whether emotions can blind reason. I fully agree with you that the decision to take a narcotic (before the drug takes effect) is a decision to act irrationally. But that does not bear on whether the emotion, once it surges, can blind reason or not. It can blind reason. In addition to blinding reason (which rarely lasts for long periods), most everything else you do after that effect wears off, but while you are still under the influence, is governed more by the emotions that are running than by reason.

How this is similar to hormonal surges is that when the hormones come, the emotions come. Once the hormones go away, the emotions do too. Let's say that a person becomes "under the influence" of hormones in this case. A very strong hormonal blast can cause a short time of being blinded by the emotions it brings with it. So that is possible. (Temporary insanity, once again, is an example.)

I know that everyone has different alcohol tolerances, but what doesn't make sense to me is why some people might turn into a completely different person. It's not about how much causes an effect, it's about what effects can be caused. The only explanation I can think of is that severe emotional repressors lose control of their repression under the influence. I mean--the way they are behaving has to be coming from them. Alcohol doesn't add/remove personality traits. It can only amplify/unmask them.

Maybe that's a good way to get to know someone--get them drunk and see if their personality changes for the better or for the worse ;)

Shayne,

Actually, the one size fits all doesn't work here either. The effects of alcohol are primarily on chemical reactions in the brain. The mental events are secondary. As we are all different individuals, we all have different chemical balances. In many people alcohol acts like you say, where they unmask themselves. In others, it releases some really nasty behavior that has nothing to do with who they are in the rest of their lives. This is a good case where it is chemical/brain, not mental/choice.

If you were injected with, or took, certain chemicals, your own behavior would be altered. You can become extremely angry, extremely paranoid, very loving, fairly serene (like with Prozak), etc. Alcohol can cause some of these transformations in some people, depending on their own chemical realities.

There is also a strange effect I have only seen in a few people. These unfortunate souls (unfortunate because of their biology) take one drink, then black out and go on wild benders for 3 days or so (often longer). When they come to, they are completely perplexed and in a daze. These are ones who process alcohol differently enough to cause this. You have to see it to understand how it is actually a different animal than what you are used to seeing. Frankly, it's creepy and I feel fortunate that my own body does not do that.

Your rule of thumb about getting to know a person by observing him while he is drunk works often, but not always. One area where it has served me well, though, is in business. When I stopped drinking, I discovered that most people will disclose information under the influence that they otherwise would not. All you have to do is be sober around them (if you have the patience) and ask the right questions, then harvest a rich crop of info.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

"Emotions just are." True. But insofar as emotions lead to actions [that is what they are for, spontaneous action to deal with a recognized situation] they can sometimes be inappropriate. A simple example is a person who is deathly afraid of bees. He's driving 70 miles an hour and a bee buzzes by his head. He reacts wildly in panic focusing entirely on the bee and crashes the car killing himself and someone else. His emotion "is", but his reason should have taken over to control the situation. I am personally of the opinion that it is a moral issue whether or not we take steps to reprogram ourselves if we knowingly have phobia of this kind in order to be able to control our reactions if an unexpected situation comes up. The fellow that crashed the car and killed himself and someone else is morally responsible for that act.

Please don't hate to disagree. I value disagreement.

Mike,

Sorry, but I don't disagree. My only problem is with your "but," so to speak. I don't see where anything you said contradicts what I said. To change a phobic reaction one might use systematic desensitization. This is a behavioral learning strategy. This changes the learned behaviour that is associated with the emotion, not the emotion. Also, in the absence of an extreme learned response that makes someone out of control, I would hope a person could control the the automated action sequence that is triggered by an emotion in order to act more appropriately in the given context. But this, in itself, is not a method of changing the automated action sequence. The principles of behaviour therapy are excellent for changing automated action sequences. A number of other therapeutic approaches are good for changing the individual's intuitive interpretations that create the context from which emotions react. In fact, Branden's sentence completion technique is excellent for tapping into one's intuitive interpretations and opening the door to reshape those intuitions.

I'll try to disagree more next time. :thumbsup:

Paul

[Victor Pross]

In the original post of this thread, I wrote:

Our emotions can trick us. Because of them, we may accept as true that which is not true and we may be lead astray to regard as relevant that which is not irrelevant… I am saying that we are able—by choice or error—to take our emotions 'primary' and construct upon them our conclusions or perspective of a given topic.

Let me expand upon this for clarity and to provide a wider context.

There has been much talk of “strong emotions.” Emotions do not only unduly effect the committed irrationalist—that walking substrate in search of a catalyst, be that catalyst religion, tribalism, group-think or sports. They affect YOU—the committed paragon of rationality. Sometimes emotions have very subtle and insidious ways of affecting judgment - and do so in such a way that has a profound impact upon our lives.

To serve as examples, here are a few desultory comments upon human nature…no spectacular pronouncement, just a few casual observations:

First, most of us tend to think highly of people who agree with us or share our positions on issues we feel important. “We hardly find any persons of good sense except those who agree with us,” says a maxim of La Rochefoucauld. Even people for whom we have little regard miraculously become elevated when we realize that their feelings complement our own. Now suppose I have neutral feelings toward a person. If you and I become close friends and if you dislike that person, chances are good that I will dislike that person. It is difficult to remain neutral in the face of a strong counter-emotion.

Indeed, we tend to adjust our beliefs and attitudes to our circumstances. We do so emotionally.

Here’s another example: a young married couple, struggling to find an apartment and finally finding one that they would ordinarily consider an eyesore, will convince themselves that the place is really not all that bad, that it has charm, is quaint, and will be quite nice after some work. But if they should then come upon a much nicer apartment, they will express relief and will comment on how awful the first place was.

Look at your own life and draw on more examples. What's that? Too many examples come to mind? That's what I thought. And don't forget: you chose to do it.

-Victor

Edited January 21, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Paul Mawdsley]

there is no such thing as inappropriate emotions. Emotions just are. (Although they may occur at inappropriate moments. This is where control is required over their overt expression.)

Have you read Nathaniel Branden's writings in The Objectivist?

No. I have only read what he has written from 1968 onward. Have you read The Psychology of Self Esteem, Breaking Free, The Disowned Self, Honoring the Self, The Psychology of Romantic Love, The Six Pillars of Self Esteem, The Art of Living Consciously, or Taking Responsibility? I think his views on emotions, and on many other things, continued to evolve after he stopped writing for The Objectivist.

In any case, Paul's view is not the correct view, nor is it the Objectivist view. Here's the correct view:

My understanding of epistemology would never allow me to make such an assertion as, "Here is the correct view." I find it interesting that yours does. By what means does your perspective become absolute?

It's true that emotions "just are" and we have no direct control over them. But it is not true that emotions are always appropriate. If we feel like stealing for the fun of it--that is inappropriate. If we feel like lying to get away from something we should be held accountable for--that is inappropriate. But we are not morally responsible for the emotion. We are only morally responsible for what we choose to do. So the truth is that emotions are not morally right or morally wrong.

Emotions can be for or against our chosen values--and that makes them something we appropriately judge as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" and then take the proper steps to change them over time. Emotions that are in line with our conscious values strengthen and motivate us to pursue them even more. So we try to change them, since they are *inappropriate* to our consciously chosen values.

"tealing for the fun of it" is not an emotion. "[L]ying to get away from something we should be held accountable for" is not an emotion. These are action alternative intended to satisfy the impulse generated by an emotion such as a desire for imagined social acceptance or fear of intuitively visualized social consequences. The action alternatives are inappropriate, not the emotions.

We can have different sets of chosen values: those chosen via symbolic (i.e.: logical) reasoning processes; and those chosen via intuitive (i.e.: causal) reasoning processes. It is the causal reasoning processes that are associated most closely with emotions. When these sets of values conflict, the symbolic reasoning that shapes our "conscious values" should not automatically be chosen over the intuitive reasoning that shapes the context in which or to which (depending on which orientation of consciousness one has at the time) our emotions respond. What is needed is an exploration of just what our intuitive perspective is so we can determine whether or not these two modes of reason are in alignment and, if they are not, which one holds the more representative view of reality. Sentence completion anyone?

Paul

Edited January 21, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[Victor Pross]

It is interesting to observe the level of erudition here—an erudition that exhibits a degree of book learning fatal to any romantic or business enterprise below the Ivory Tower.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

I suspect that there is very little cognitive content in those labels that Shayne designates to people—other than the fact that they are meant to be belittling. They amount to the emotional equivalent of the following: "I disagree with you, and because I do…you must be morality tainted in some manner." This is where the cut and paste Objectivist jargon becomes a convenient substitute for principled thinking. It merely amounts to this: 'I don't like what you are saying.'

I think Shayne sometimes selects words more for sound than meaning. You know, there are so many other little goodies to choose from. I'm still waiting to be called "second-hander" and "mystic."

Victor,

I think I have more respect for what Shayne is saying and his ability to choose the right word to convey his meaning. I have been rereading some of Rand's non-fiction work recently. Since I haven't read any of her non-fiction for about twenty years, I think my understanding of her perspective might have been a little skewed by some of my biases at that time that I no longer have. A number of things I've read have made me think of Shayne. They seem to be important principles behind his actions. One such principle is:

• You must not take a catch phrase--- or any abstract statement--- as if it were approximate. Take it literally. Don't translate it, don't glamorize it, don't make the mistake of thinking, as many people do: "Oh nobody could possibly mean this!" and then proceed to endow it with some whitewashed meaning of your own. Take it straight for what it does say and mean. (Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It, p. 16)
  

I get the impression that this principle is an important one to Shayne. In my questions, I am trying to honour this principle. My goal is to understand. I am not offended by how he might judge me. I just think he might be mistaken. If I can understand what his perspective is, I might have the opportunity to change it or I may discover the need to reevaluate my own perspective. This is what an exchange based on good will is about. At the end, all parties can learn something more than how to attack and defend.

This does not make me a tolerationist. I do not tolerate other people's perspectives against some impulse to disvalue and disregard them. I either value a perspective or I do not. I do not have to agree with a perspective to value it. As Mike pointed out, there is value in disagreement. So far, I see value in Shayne's perspective on a number of levels. If I find, at some point, that I no longer value his perspective, I will stop interacting with him. I don't tolerate things I don't value.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

It is interesting to observe the level of erudition here—an erudition that exhibits a degree of book learning fatal to any romantic or business enterprise below the Ivory Tower.

Victor,

To whom or to what is your comment directed?

Paul

[Victor Pross]

It is interesting to observe the level of erudition here—an erudition that exhibits a degree of book learning fatal to any romantic or business enterprise below the Ivory Tower.

Victor,

To whom or to what is your comment directed?

Paul

Paul,

Just a general musing. Certainly not you--you're married! :turned:

-Victor

[Paul Mawdsley]

It is interesting to observe the level of erudition here—an erudition that exhibits a degree of book learning fatal to any romantic or business enterprise below the Ivory Tower.

Victor,

To whom or to what is your comment directed?

Paul

Paul,

Just a general musing. Certainly not you--you're married! :turned:

-Victor

I hope not. I'm just a lowly tradesman who only thinks in his spare time. In fact, I didn't read my first book, cover to cover, until I was eighteen. Atlas Shrugged was the fifth book I read cover to cover. I read it at twenty-one. My view was and is very intuitive---i.e.: generated from causal reasoning.

As far as romance...well...I can have my moments. I've found that fixing things around the house makes for great foreplay.

[Victor Pross]

It is interesting to observe the level of erudition here—an erudition that exhibits a degree of book learning fatal to any romantic or business enterprise below the Ivory Tower.

Victor,

To whom or to what is your comment directed?

Paul

Paul,

Just a general musing. Certainly not you--you're married! :turned:

-Victor

I hope not. I'm just a lowly tradesman who only thinks in his spare time. In fact, I didn't read my first book, cover to cover, until I was eighteen. Atlas Shrugged was the fifth book I read cover to cover. I read it at twenty-one. My view was and is very intuitive---i.e.: generated from causal reasoning.

As far as romance...well...I can have my moments. I've found that fixing things around the house makes for great foreplay.

Ah yes, marriage: a contract by which a free individual willingly enters into a state of bondage as one does a mortgage—which generally lasts longer. :turned:

[Ellen Stuttle]

About the talent question: Being one of the people I speak about, [one who was born with an innate talent that was honed later on with thousands of hours of practice] I think that this may allot me a perspective not available to you [ES].

You're right that I never worked at drawing and developed my skill at it; however, I was told by several people who were competent to judge that I was definitely good at drawing. I was just never interested in pursuing the skill. I found drawing too glued-to-one-place an activity for my tastes. I enjoyed -- and still enjoy, when my eye problems permit -- reading for hours on end, but somehow reading seemed different. Instead of doing something like drawing, I preferred to be off riding a horse, or hiking. Plus, I've never liked the smell of paint (though one can pursue visual arts using other media besides paints).

While it is true that I did gain a greater appreciation as to the complexity of the talent issue—I did not walk away having changed my views in any fundamental way.

Well, that's a shame imo, since your views, at least as expressed in your initial post starting the thread, seem overly nativist.

One more thing: yes, yes, we are all so impressed with the constant waving of your intellectual credentials. You don’t need to downplay other people to get across your point of view.

Victor, I suspect that you have only a minimal idea of the extent of my intellectual credentials. I hardly think that I wave them, but I'm not going to pretend that I don't have background in areas where I do have background. You've a number of times made comments which indicate that other people's erudition is bothersome to you. You made another such comment further along in this thread (post #143). You present a false contrast of erudition versus romantic and practical success.

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

Victor, I suspect that you have only a minimal idea of the extent of my intellectual credentials.

Ellen,

Your precision-crafted peevishness gave you away. :turned:

Why wouldn’t you want to be an artist? Ah, there is nothing like being a questioning soul who pursues a singular vision, and who creates something of permanent value...and dies with the rent unpaid. B)

Victor

Edited January 21, 2007 by Victor Pross