Rational VS. Emotional, OR, Why We Clash The Way We Do

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: Hey, so, I forgot that there's an actual term for what I'm talking about! Thanks, Google!

Emotional Intelligence- noun
the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically.

This, I want to be like this.

Some of what I go on about is realized through the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman.
https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More-Than/dp/055338371X

Proteus wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: Hey, so, I forgot that there's an actual term for what I'm talking about! Thanks, Google!

Emotional Intelligence- noun
the capacity to be aware of, control, and express one's emotions, and to handle interpersonal relationships judiciously and empathetically.

This, I want to be like this.

Some of what I go on about is realized through the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman.
https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More-Than/dp/055338371X

"Emotional maturity is the ability to handle situations without unnecessarily escalating them. Instead of seeking to blame someone else for their problems or behavior, emotionally mature people seek to fix the problem or behavior. They accept accountability for their actions."

I want to be this too, this is important to me.

Gisteron wrote: A reason I think we don't see much of this provoking and trolling approach to debating here is because formal debates is exactly what we aren't seeking for the most part. Formal debates are contests of rhetoric. They are about competing with talking skills, swaying the audience and criteria for victory - if one need define any - can be devised with some ease. To admit becoming convinced by the opponent can well be seen as an admission of devastating, humiliating defeat, even if that be the honest response to hearing their case. Seldom are formal debates about convincing anyone, even the audience, seldom they are about finding a compromise or which of the views is preferable by some presenter-independent metric.
Here, on the other hand - or so has been my impression for the most part - people come to learn and grow. We are emotionally invested, because we are not pretend attourneys tasked with defending a pre-defined position, but we are people presenting and comparing our personal views we may feel attachment towards to varying degrees.
So I agree with you on two very major points. We cannot (entirely) divorce our emotions from the subject matter for one, because - secondly - they are almost the sole reason we engage in the first place.

This distinction between formal debate and genuine exchange of ideas and experiences is so important. But I think it's very easy to slip into the former. I know it is for me, at least. It's a very base instinct to try to defuse something we perceive as threatening. That's why we have to constantly keep our logical, emotionally intelligent selves engaged. It's not something to be ashamed of, nor do we need to get angry when someone points it out. It's a balance all humans have to achieve.

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: But, this seems to have fostered an attitude of, "If I can push them to an emotional response, I Win!" (I have yet to see this here, in my opinion, thank goodness) That's a popular tactic with people who are particularly bad at debate, but want to engage debate competitively (so their already emotionally invested beyond what's rational, the irony).

I know this wasn't your main point, but if you don't mind, I'd like to touch on it briefly. Is that alright?

lightscribe wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: But, this seems to have fostered an attitude of, "If I can push them to an emotional response, I Win!" (I have yet to see this here, in my opinion, thank goodness) That's a popular tactic with people who are particularly bad at debate, but want to engage debate competitively (so their already emotionally invested beyond what's rational, the irony).

I know this wasn't your main point, but if you don't mind, I'd like to touch on it briefly. Is that alright?

Hmmm... I'll warn against getting too far into it, or having a full on rant, but, speak your mind, friend.

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

lightscribe wrote:

Kelrax Lorcken wrote: But, this seems to have fostered an attitude of, "If I can push them to an emotional response, I Win!" (I have yet to see this here, in my opinion, thank goodness) That's a popular tactic with people who are particularly bad at debate, but want to engage debate competitively (so their already emotionally invested beyond what's rational, the irony).

I know this wasn't your main point, but if you don't mind, I'd like to touch on it briefly. Is that alright?

Hmmm... I'll warn against getting too far into it, or having a full on rant, but, speak your mind, friend.

I understand your hesitation, and I have no intention to rant. I just wanted to point out that in most cases where this occurs, the reason one party is more emotionally invested to begin with is because the subject directly affects them or someone they love. Sometimes, this kind of passion can understandably cloud one's ability to discuss a topic in as clear and calm a way as they otherwise might. I'm not judging this as good or bad, simply something occurs. This, I feel, is where a bit of extra gentleness is owing. To borrow vernacular from my Protestant upbringing, we must "stand in the gap" for the other person. I certainly am guilty of not doing this, and responding to heightened emotion with heightened emotion of my own. I am actively trying to do better. Anyway, I thought sharing this might provide a little clarity on how discussions can seem to get out of hand so quickly. Kelrax, if you feel this veers away from the purpose of your thread, please feel free to have it removed.

Sometimes, this kind of passion can understandably cloud one's ability to discuss a topic in as clear and calm a way as they otherwise might.

Which was fine, when we controlled education and information and the ability to broadcast your views - We could let people controlled by emotion go nuts on their opinions in the local pub, or yelling at clouds, where it was more or less harmless - but then we gave everyone a voice, the USA had things like theSh Fairness doctrine, where even the most batshit insane views were entitled to Air Time (the more people disagreed with them, the more Air time they were entitled to!)

and now, in the twenty-whatevers, with the internets and such - we have an underlying cultural assumption that your opinion, no matter how little it matters, is somehow valid.

Uh, trigger warning I guess -

If you were being accused or rape, would you want a rape victim as your judge?
Would the rest of the community want it? would they ever be sure the verdict was based on evidence, or emotion?

Should we ever care about the views of people who are "close to" the issues they are discussing?


Edit: everyone enjoys a clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA-SII0Ckos

JamesSand wrote:

Sometimes, this kind of passion can understandably cloud one's ability to discuss a topic in as clear and calm a way as they otherwise might.

Which was fine, when we controlled education and information and the ability to broadcast your views - We could let people controlled by emotion go nuts on their opinions in the local pub, or yelling at clouds, where it was more or less harmless - but then we gave everyone a voice, the USA had things like theSh Fairness doctrine, where even the most batshit insane views were entitled to Air Time (the more people disagreed with them, the more Air time they were entitled to!)

and now, in the twenty-whatevers, with the internets and such - we have an underlying cultural assumption that your opinion, no matter how little it matters, is somehow valid.

Uh, trigger warning I guess -

If you were being accused or rape, would you want a rape victim as your judge?
Would the rest of the community want it? would they ever be sure the verdict was based on evidence, or emotion?

Should we ever care about the views of people who are "close to" the issues they are discussing?


Edit: everyone enjoys a clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA-SII0Ckos

James, all I meant was that when emotions run too high, it helps to be aware of where they're coming from. I never meant to take the responsibility of managing one's own emotions and place it on someone else's shoulders. Ultimately, each person's words and actions are their responsibility. In hindsight, I should have added that disclaimer to my response. Thank you for making that clear to me.

James, all I meant was that when emotions run too high, it helps to be aware of where they're coming from. I never meant to take the responsibility of managing one's own emotions and place it on someone else's shoulders. Ultimately, each person's words and actions are their responsibility. In hindsight, I should have added that disclaimer to my response. Thank you for making that clear to me.

Bold mine - that bit is the basis for a particular set of politics. I'm not agreeing with it or disagreeing with it, I'm just sort of "filing it" for future reference.

Italics also mine - This is the whole "Emotional Intelligence" thing that is very on-trend right now. Businesses send their staff on courses for it, there's plenty of books and such, for one reason or another, a segment of society has determined that emotions exist, but can be understood, and should be subject to the powers of reason - again, another basis for a particular philosophy or political alignment.

underlining also mine - Nothing useful from me here, just I find top-and-tailing things with niceties a weird behaviour, I can't recall if I was raised to do it or not.

I see what you mean, Light, and while it wasn't strictly on topic, I'm not going to hold that against you.

James, glad you could join us and put your two cents in.

This is probably the most mileage we can expect from this thread, but, we'll see.