When someone needs to be heard and you are there to give comfort.
Specially dedicated to @DarrenWalker
I am terribly flattered. May I refer you to Feeling Rational? It's a little eight-paragraph article—a single chapter from a lovely book on how to be, if not right, at least less wrong.
In short: feelings exist, so it's logical to treat them as things-that-exist. And, as with all things that exist, there are ways of dealing with feelings that give the results you want, and ways that don't. Rationally, you should do what works.
The common idea that logic and emotion are opposed is an exasperating one. Oh well.
Dear @DarrenWalker , complex creatures it's all what we are, thank you to feed the controversy with your annoying logic, is always nice to read you, even when you try to minimize others feelings with logic. It's always better to handle feelings with logic, but never to ignore that we all deal with these in different and complexes ways.
Hmm. I think I'll try something new.
Response One: Rational and emotionless
It doesn't make sense to blame your own feelings on outside stimuli. You don't have to be angry about a gremlin tying your shoelaces together, or someone online insisting that you're broken because you're not like him, etc. The anger isn't a part of those outside things. It's a part of you: the hormones and chemicals your brain and body produce in response to your interpretation of whatever the thing was.
You are in control of your own emotions. Without your assistance, I can't make you feel angry, or patronized, or... well, anything. I don't have that much power. I can make guesses about how I think you're most likely to interpret stuff—but my guesses are very often wrong.
My brain is built differently to yours. When I look inward, at the way feeling and emotion work for me, then extrapolate outward, I make remarkably large mistakes.
As a result, I don't know how to deal with other people's feelings. They're things that exist, but they're not things I understand. They're fascinating, but baffling. I can't predict what they're going to be. I don't know how people are going to respond, emotionally, to anything I say or do. Other people aren't like me. Internal modelling doesn't work. For you, it's easy enough to understand that someone else will be upset by a specific turn of phrase because you would be upset by it. For me... not so much.
I can't stop "trying to minimize others' feelings," because that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to understand things as best I can while handicapped by having no idea what way of dealing with other people's feelings will give the results I'd like. It's difficult to predict the interpretations others will put on my words, and what feelings they'll have as a result of those interpretations. I try. But I don't do well.
Response Two: Rational and emotional
When I was a child, the woman who raised me blamed me for her own emotions. If she was angry, it was my fault. Even if I didn't know what I'd done wrong. Even if I'd done nothing wrong, and she was just in a bad mood.
I decline to be held responsible for the feelings of others. It isn't logical, and I have an emotional aversion to it.
I don't want anyone to blame me for their feelings anymore. I'm doing the best I can with what I have—upsetting you is not (usually) my goal. If it is, I'll let you know: I'll say something like "I want to make you feel bad." I'm tired of people insisting that their feelings are my fault. I had quite enough of that as a kid, getting beaten with a paint stick until it broke every time my mother decided my autistic facial expressions meant I was making fun of her.
Sometimes I do want to upset people. I have a lot of anger in here. But it's mine, and I take responsibility for it. I'm not going to blame you for doing something that I can use as an excuse to blow up. In fact, I positively decline to blow up. I've seen what that looks like from the outside.
I am in control of my own emotions. I'm in charge of them.
Not you.
Which response works best for you, readers?
I feel like I’m watching a human talk to a Vulcan. It’s okay to feel things in different ways. Some like to be more emotional. Some more logical. We all should try to process the way that helps us cope. Both are fine
I’m curious: what is “real logic”?
LOL @hogboblin by asking that question... you exposes the fact that you haven't see the entire video, If you pay attention to the end.... you will answer your question.
I was hoping that someone into clear and concise explanations could do me a favor by translating whatever nonsense is likely present in the video.
@DarrenWalker ?
@hogboblin: Here.
"It's strange to think that someone could be too reasonable/logical. Reason and logic are good things. So how could they be a problem in a romantic relationship? Simple. Sometimes we don't want our problems solved for us, we just want emotional support in dealing with them ourselves."
[Side note: Insisting on solving a problem for someone who just wants emotional support is illogical.]
"Sometimes reason doesn't (or can't) solve the problem, as in the case of certain phobias. There are, for example, perfectly logical arguments against being afraid that a nice, solid balcony will collapse, but vertigo doesn't care about these arguments. Presenting them is logical—"
[Note: It isn't. The arguments themselves may be logical, but it isn't logical to present them where they don't apply.]
"—but it doesn't help, and can come off as patronizing. There are many instances in which feelings refuse to be reasoned away (guilt over a parental relationship which is actually perfectly fine, fear of poverty when you're financially stable, disgust at your own appearance when you're not at all ugly, etc.), and hearing all the reasons why our feelings aren't aligned with reality just makes us angry."
[Note: Aligning one's emotions with reality isn't always easy, and one shouldn't expect it to be. The human brain is not well designed. Cognitive patterns often "stick" even when we know they're not adaptive. This is true for everyone, even the most rational.]
"The one being logical—"
[Note: Presenting logical arguments that don't have anything to do with the real source of the problem is not being logical.]
"—shouldn't be surprised when the person having the feelings becomes upset. They ought to expect it, because emotions are weird and illogical."
[Note: Emotions operate according to cause and effect, just like the rest of reality. They are not illogical. An emotion is the perfectly rational conclusion of a series of premises. Feelings only look illogical because so many of their premises are hidden (and, because hidden, unexamined... and often inaccurate). Analyzing your own emotions will eventually reveal the reasoning behind them, and then (if you like) you can try to correct it. Why is your brain convinced you've forgotten to pack something when you know for a fact you haven't? There will be a reason. Emotions are not illogical. The reasons behind them may be wrong, but they're there, and they lead logically to their emotional conclusions.]
"Our brains are often freaked out by things that aren't real. But this isn't actually illogical. Our belief that we don't look good may be the logical conclusion of the way we were treated as children. Our fear of public speaking may follow logically from buried fears of not being good enough, or of being a loser, or even of being envied by others (who may tear us down just for the crime of being above them).
"Being too logical about the fear we're feeling means ignoring all the premises behind our current conclusion ("this is scary"), and instead focusing entirely on the fact that our current conclusion is inaccurate."
[Note: ...Yeah, that's NOT logical.]
"It isn't that we want our romantic partner to throw logic out, we want them to use it to figure out that everyone has weird, illogical emotions, so they should empathize with us when we have them, too."
[Note: Sigh.]
"It's possible, by the way, that our romantic partner is being overly 'logical' in a deliberate attempt to hurt us. Probably because we've hurt them emotionally somehow. It would be really, truly logical to ask if you've done that, the next time your romantic partner tries to solve your problem without taking into account how complex emotions are."
In short: "real logic" is treating emotions as things that exist and dealing with them in the ways that get the results you want.
Thank you very much. I don’t think I missed anything of value by skipping the video.
Your translation was lovely, though.
@hogboblin: Encouraged by your appreciation, I worked on it a bit more and think I've managed to boil the whole video down to three sentences:
Logic means dealing with emotions in ways that don't work. Dealing with emotions in ways that don't work clearly isn't logical. So real logic is dealing with emotions in ways that do work.
Edit: I would love to deal with other people's emotions in ways that work. Unfortunately, it's especially difficult for me to figure out what ways of dealing with other people's emotions will work the way I want them to.
Also, I spend most of my dealing-with-emotions spoons on my own emotions.
@DarrenWalker yeah well we all have limitations... and absolutely nobody is perfect.
There is analogy out there in the ether that I like
Let's say that there is an airplane:
"Thinking" (logic) is like the mechanic's view: Just because I can see all the parts, doesn't mean I am an expert at how to operate it
"Feeling" (emotion) is like the passenger's view: I can see the whole all at once, and if it is going where I want to go, great, but that doesn't mean I can change anything if it isn't
"Savoir faire" (doing) is like the pilot's view: if there is a problem in flight, and I need to make a successful landing, I have to know enough about the parts to know what's broken, and also enough about the whole to get it on the ground
Neither the mechanic nor the passenger know enough about the other aspect
@DarrenWalker honestly both responses feel very valid to me. I've lived both sides of the fence of logic vs emotion.
I work in software so I am use to people who express their concern through logic quite heavy. I had also dated people who were somewhere on the spectrum of autism or aspergers. I just feel that it's similar to learning a new language. It's a matter of exposure and just being the dumb tourist sometimes to ask "what did you mean by this?" Not out of hostility, but to just understand. I do like that the video exists, but personally I worry that the subnotes of us vs them may be counterproductive to its intent. Maybe that was just me picking that vibe up.
@laylanie: The main difference between the first and second responses is that in the first I don't consider emotion at all, while in the second I treat various emotions as things that exist, matter, and can be logically considered.
There is no fence. Logic is not opposed to emotion. Emotion is not opposed to logic.
@mmpacom: Try this analogy. Let's say there's a kitchen out there somewhere—logic is the basic rules of cooking. It's a method of doing things: first preheat the oven, mix these types of ingredients first... that kind of thing. Maybe you won't wreck the kitchen even if you don't follow these rules. But following them always means you don't wreck the kitchen. (Edit: So long as you have accurate information about the kitchen and all the stuff in it, anyway—it doesn't help to know what happens when Coke and Mentos are mixed if you don't know what or where either of those things are.)
Reality is the kitchen and the things in it: ingredients, bowls, whisks, the oven, etc.
Emotion is a part of reality. In this analogy, feelings are like... spices. What spices do you have? Whatever you have or don't have, that's reality. Now, you can use the spices in whatever you're making of your life or you can leave them out—but either way, you should make the decision based on the basic rules of cooking. Don't just dump a whole load of sugar into whatever it is you're making without considering what result this will have. How do you know what result it'll have? The basic rules of cooking will tell you that, provided you have enough information about what else is in the bowl.
In short: logic is a way of thinking that provides a method of dealing with reality that works, and emotion is a part of reality (or maybe I should say "the basic rules of cooking provide a method of dealing with kitchen stuff that works, and spices are kitchen stuff").
So, as an example... let's say the basic rules of cooking state that if you put a load of chili powder into whatever it is you're making, the end result will be very spicy.
If very spicy is what you want, logic says "put in the passionate expression of emotion." If very spicy is not what you want, logic says "hold back on how much emotion you express."
My problem is that all my spice jars are unlabeled. I have an emotion, but I'm not always sure what it is. And when cooking with others, I don't know what spices they're using or how much they're adding, so it's difficult for me to use the basic rules of cooking to figure out what the result will be if I add an ingredient or adjust a temperature.
It's easy to say "If you were really logical (that is, if you were really following basic cooking rules), you wouldn't make such nasty-tasting food when cooking with others!"
Alas. I am following basic cooking rules. I just don't have all the information I need about the spices.
Oh @DarrenWalker some day your brain will just melt away, you think too much.
@garrablanca: Hmm. No, I don't believe exercise will send my mental muscles the way of the Wicked Witch of the West.
@DarrenWalker careful you can develop Kufungisisa !!
Note: @DarrenWalker that was a joke, ok?
@garrablanca: Hm. Suggesting that someone is in danger of developing a neurosis... isn't a very funny joke.
@DarrenWalker you see, you should not think too much... It's not funny!
Ah. Then, without thinking: you should watch out, @garrablanca! If you're not careful, you could develop an obsession over me and my patterns of thought that could severely impair your enjoyment of life for the rest of your days!
...How's that? Did I do well with the "making a funny joke about my debate partner's mental health" thing?
...I've never been too good at the ad hominem jokes. (Edit: Or any jokes, really.) In any comedy set up, it's plain that I'd be the straight man.
Note: this is funny because I'm neither straight nor a man.
@DarrenWalker well, I think you are not a lost case for sure ha ha ha ha ha. You can improve of course!
@DarrenWalker
Well thought out on your part and I am still parsing it out
When you state "...you wouldn't make such nasty-tasting food when cooking with others!" I think that sort of gibes with my idea in that I might say:
The rub is that I have only limited knowledge (for sure) of my own Feeling and even less so (if any) of the Feelings of others ("all my spice jars are unlabeled") I have no idea what combinations ("the whole") others will consider "nasty" even if I know all the ingredients ("parts") and the rules of cooking
Also not sure what "rules of cooking" might mean other than equaling "don't make 'nasty' combinations", which is not really a "rule" but a matter of taste
@mmpacom: Actually, I'm still working it out in my own head. It's not a perfect metaphor at all, and I don't think I did a good job with the "logic—cooking rules" thing. [sigh] Oh well. Let me see....
I suppose the "rules of cooking" would be what you'd use to create a recipe.
To be slightly less metaphorical about it, when a bunch of people are in the same thread cooking up a conversation, how does each of them decide what thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc., to put in? They don't have a recipe, but they probably have an end product in mind: maybe they want a "feeling good about yourself" cake, or a "thoughtful discussion" stew, or even a "vicious argument" hot pepper sauce. The rules of cooking will tell you what's most likely to get the result you want.
For instance, suppose someone starts a thread asking "How can I be safe when meeting a stranger from the internet?" and your goal is getting someone to want to meet you in real life.
You might say, "Talk to the stranger for a while before you meet them, get to know them better, and have your first meeting in a well-lit public place, maybe even bring a friend."
Or you might say, "Check to see if anyone's gone public with bad news about them, and if there's nothing, go with them to sit in a dark room where people traditionally make out."
Or you might even say, "It's always safe to cuddle with me, I feel sorry for the people who're too cowardly to meet me in person, they're really missing out. Meeting a total stranger from the internet presents only the tiniest of risks, and cuddling is such a wonderful thing! I have the power to fulfill your need! I would treat you so sweetly!"
Each of these three possible posts is a set of ingredients you're adding to the thread.
The question is, what ingredients are already out there? Everyone brings their own bowl to these things, so what's in everybody's bowls, and will what you've added give the result you want? If you know what's in someone else's bowl, the rules of cooking will tell you what ingredients to add to get that perfect "wanting to meet me in person" pie. If they have a lot of "wanting to be reassured and taken care of" in there, as well as a heaping helping of trust, that last possible post might work well. If they have four cups of cynicism in their bowl, on the other hand, throwing that out there may well make them think you're a serial killer.
Why? Because that's how it works. If someone's mental bowl has ice cream (trust) in it, adding Coke (self-praise) will give an edible result—if someone's mental bowl has Mentos (cynicism) in it, adding Coke (yup, still self-praise) will produce a somewhat explosive result.
The laws of cooking are what you use to figure this stuff out... and then make recipes.
