DU is a great lab for observing human nature . .

[msmcghee]

. . and how our minds really work.

These threads on the Israeli/Hizbollah conflict show, in post after post, the power of emotional belief over reason and logic. The first clue that emotional belief is at work and reason is absent is the amount of venom in a post. When a post starts off claiming that another poster is a fool or that a particular pov is ignorant, etc. then you know that whatever the poster is proposing has absolutely nothing to do with reason.

When we consider questions that are extremely important to us, that we sense can affect our survival or well-being, our first instinct is to refer to our strong emotionally held beliefs. From those we will feel that a particular view resonates with those beliefs. Only then do we engage our intellect - but not to examine our conclusions - to defend them.

Note: This justification of our own hardened emotional beliefs is what most people think of as critical thinking. When persons they disagree with do this they refer to that as ignorance. That's because we feel good and warm inside when our emotional beliefs are supported by others and we feel actual pain when they are attacked. When we feel pain we strike back.

I am not accusing anyone or any side here of being emotional rather than rational. I am pointing out that this is the way all our minds work in these charged situations.

If you are looking for a reasonable view of this Israeli/Hizbollah conflict - look for forums, threads and posts that don't use strong emotional words to describe what is happening or to describe views they disagree with. But, from looking at the threads at DU on this I doubt that many are looking for that level of discourse. Anytime someone offers any reasonable pov in these threads they are immediately hit with ridicule and insults - no matter how reasonable their point.

The result is that once the emotional level rises in a thread, and the insults start flying, these threads quickly degenerate into an emotional food-fight where reason is completely powerless to deal with the question. But, that's OK. I'm sure it feels good to those throwing the food - especially when they and their allies feel they have scored a hit.

But, while everyone gets their emotional juices flowing - no-one should mistake this process for discourse that will reveal anything new about the situation - or a fresh pov that might offer some solutions. I offer this mental overview because I think a more rational discourse on this could actually do some good. For one thing, pundits and others who criticize the left get a lot of their ammo from lurking here - and I'm sure they've found plenty to embarrass us lately.

Now, you can flame away at me for suggesting that not everyone here is presenting their views with the utmost reason and logic - which I'm sure some will find emotionally threatening.

[Lerkfish]

1. I hope you have a mirror handy.

otherwise, valid points, thanks.

[msmcghee]

3. I will add that I am often guilty of this.

It is very difficult to be reasonable when you are being attacked. Our instinct is to strike back. But, I hope you see that I didn't use any particular posts or pov as a target for my criticism. That's how you keep a thread like this from blasting off into space.

[sgxnk]

2. i 100% agree

fwiw, i spend time reading blogs and stuff on ALL sides of the political spectrum

and people are people

contrary to what some would like to believe, i see the EXACT SAME logical inconsistencies, syllogisms, emotionalism, cognitive dissonance, personal attacks, willingness to ignore inconvenient evidence on leftwing sites as i do on rightwing sites

because people are the same.

period

people look for evidence to support their POV and discount evidence that counters it

that's universal

[rock]

4. We ARE humanity

[distantearlywarning]

5. Agreed.

It's the venom, contempt, and name-calling that's the problem here, not the disagreement. I like your "flinging food" analogy - it's a great description of many of the more controversial threads in past weeks.

[mrcheerful]

6. I've seen the same thing in other forums as well

if someone questions or has a different opinion on the topic, those who believe close their minds to anything that threatens that belief. They try to discredit the poster by side tracking, poor spelling, giving wrong dates or picking the post apart trying to discredit each point the poster puts down. Then when all that fails start name calling.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Isn't that response interesting?

To me it indicates the poster himself has a bit of distrust in his own viewpoint. There are many times when posters here shock me out of my perceptions, and I have to reassess.

[mrcheerful]

13. I'm not sure what you mean, I once put a link on another forum

and because some dates where off or the link had mis-spelled a word, people attacked my post. It went against their beliefs about abortions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

32. I'll try and explain it better

I feel that often when people attack with great emotion, it is because, in their own minds,they are either unclear or truly uncertain about their own positions on the subject. They attack because your post has caused a small amount of doubt to creep in.

[mrcheerful]

35. In another post someone stated SSI was welfare because drunks and addicts

could get on it without having to pay into the system. I Wrote that true addicted people could get SSI, but they had to agree to detox and rehab before they got SSI if they refused to go they lost the SSI or when they complete rehab they also lose the SSI. Having gone through rehab with quite a few addicts on SSI, Ive seen how fast SSI is taken away after rehab.

The person I was dealing with husband had been injured and he had a heck of a time getting off SSDI ( yeah two very different programs )so she knew SSI worked the same way. Anyhow, it lead to me qouting something I knew, SSDI you can get without having to work too, the only requirements are the person was disabled before the age of 22 and the person isn't married, they are then able to go on their parents Social security plan. Also even if your on your own SS claim you are able to apply for your parents SS, when my dad passes away, I'd be able to get more benefits then I recieve on my claim. As long as I don't marry.

Anyhow, I got my dates mixed up on when I became disabled and when I started collecting disability. Because of that mix up, she felt she won the debate by default. Though it never changed the fact that a person can get SSDI without having to work. In her mind regaurdless of what evidence I gave, I even posted the link where it stated that in the SS web site, she was right SSDI you had to work for or you couldn't collect benefits.

[ThomCat]

7. A total lack of emotion does not equal clarity.

If you know what's happening you're going to be upset about it. If you aren't upset, either you don't know or you don't care.

[msmcghee]

11. Interesting point.

It seems to me that the people most effective dealing with adversity - which does get people upset - are those who can remain in control of their emotions.

If you were being operated on and a life-threatening problem occurred - wouldn't you want a Dr. who would care - but also who could remain calm and keep her emotions under control while figuring out how to respond?

Or, would you prefer a Dr. who became emotionally distraught and began screaming at the nurses in the OR?

I think the key is to care - intelligently.

[ThomCat]

16. We're not talking about surgery

I am a corporate management consulant, so I am very familiar with being dispassionate when making decisions. But this is not a corporate office either.

When you're dealing with war-crimes, the deaths of hundreds of people, destruction of people's lives and homes, you expect people to feel something.

People who can successfully sublimate their emotions, even about issues like this, are people who can turn off their ability to care. Those are exactly the people you do not want making decisions in this case. Those are the people who will choose profit and politics over what is right.

[msmcghee]

17. I don't think you understand human nature . .

. . as well as you think you do.

Profit and politics are some of the most powerful, emotionally charged motivations in human affairs.

People who choose profit and politics to make decisions simply have attached their emotions to those sources. It is a function of their character and personalities - not their ability to sublimate their emotions. Quite the opposite.

[ThomCat]

21. Thank you for your expert opinion.

I always like being talked down to by people who clearly don't have any experience in the field.

Sublimating emotions is not only valued in corporate environments, it is expected and required. Only the people at the top have the freedom to express their emotional opinions in the decisions they make, and by the time they get to the top most of them don't.

There are a lot of petty emotions in corporate America, like anywhere else, but they are kept out of the decisions. The decisions are based on bottom line calculations.

[msmcghee]

24. A difference of opinion is not talking down.

You said, "There are a lot of petty emotions in corporate America, like anywhere else, but they are kept out of the decisions. The decisions are based on bottom line calculations..."

I disagree. All decisions are based on emotion. They are the result of our emotional prediction that we will benefit most from that decision. Benefit is an emotional determination. Generally benefit can be defined as profit (not just monetary profit). If reason enters into the equation it is through that person's emotional committment to the value of reasoned judgement in that decision process. They have an emotional belief that reason will bring them greater profit.

Some decision-makers value reason greatly and will be able to diminish the emotional forces from other sources such as instincts or their political biases - if that's important to them.

But make no mistake - all decisions are the result of a reckoning of those things a person values most emotionally - reason could be one of them, hopefully.

BTW - These are interesting things to discuss as differences of opinion - not assertions that one of us is smarter than the other. I'd like to hear more of your opinions on this but have to leave the office for a while.

[havocmom]

26. So, POV is determined as right or wrong by... whom?

From OP:

"When a post starts off claiming that another poster is a fool or that a particular pov is ignorant, etc. then you know that whatever the poster is proposing has absolutely nothing to do with reason."

That is so damned funny and sad all at once.

I agree with the first reply.

[msmcghee]

29. It's interesting that you find it both sad and funny.

Both useful emotions. But I'd be more interested in your reasoning.

[havocmom]

38. What you said in OP is the vary thing you complain about

in OP

[msmcghee]

39. Sorry, I can't understand your point.

Are you saying that when I point out that "not everyone here is presenting their views with the utmost reason and logic" - that I am not being reasonable or logical?

Please explain further if you care to.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. Reason without emotion...

is robotic-

Emotion is essential to humanity.
You can be 100% reasonable, and make the intellectually 'correct' decision, but you may also find yourself to be completely wrong.

There is a balance- extremes of anything are usually toxic.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. It is a practice

in patience to NOT get emotional over some threads. I have tried to see both sides of the situation, and have asked posters for information, which has been greatly received.

Sometimes people post's reflect misinformation or true lack of facts over a situation. I have noted, for example, that many here think that Muslims, in general, attempt to proselityze. I have found this not to be the case; Sufi philosophy is that everyone has their own path, and it is wrong to force them on a path not their own. I have Sunni Muslim friends who have Christian spouses and who have never tried to "convert" them. Another notion that many non-Muslims have is that there are a few religious leaders who have the same sway over their followers as the Pope has over Catholics. This is not the case. You don't even have to go to a mosque, and can do all your worship from your home. Finally, Islam has many different sects and beliefs; even the concept of proper dress varies from sect to sect.

I hope that we can use our conversations as a way of learning about other faiths and other cultures. This works best, as you say, when people speak in a calm manner.

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. A few thoughts...

You write,
"When a post starts off claiming that another poster is a fool or that a particular pov is ignorant, etc. then you know that whatever the poster is proposing has absolutely nothing to do with reason"

This is laughably untrue! The mere fact that an insult, editorial comment or a disparaging remark is included in a post that contains factual information does not make it unreasoned. It may make it impolite or impolitic, but it does not make it prima facia unreasoned. Some of the most famous utterances of mankind have included impolite and insulting commentary. I will heartily agree that insults and name calling do nothing to further any discussion. I will also agree that emotion laden words, editorial comments and personal attacks rarely facilitate the open, honest exchange of ideas. On the other hand, it is has been said that no person has ever changed their mind because they were out-argued, but many have readily changed their mind and their behavior in the face of public ridicule and shame.

[msmcghee]

14. I didn't say it was automatically wrong . .

I said it had nothing to do with reason. It was not derived from rational thought. It came from a feeling of emotional resonance.

In most binary discussions - one side is bound to be more rationally correct than the other. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

My point is that the amount of venom spewed has nothing to do with the correctness of the position.

[sui generis]

as someone with a well deserved rep for rudeness

I have to agree with you here. Sometimes merely refusing to agree with the other party is considered rude; reiterating one's own minority view in the face of overwhelming majority opinion is the acme of impolitic discourse, and there are as many boorish people trying to use shame and ridicule to force a point as there are rude people speaking plainly.

Color in speech is not well looked upon either it would seem, and I am freaking flaming plasma some days. I love color, tit for tat, AND reason. Everything else might just as well be a bunch of cagey old geezers wheezing on about who had the better bowel movement that day for all the level of interest I take in their carefully honed and reasoned dreadfully inoffensive utterances.

Give me a little passion any day.

:P

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. Cheers!

I agree wholeheartedly!

Passion is one of the primary human traits that dragged our sorry species from the jungle. Ironically, we have emerged from the jungle to fatally hurtle off a cliff called Global Warming, but hey, we tried OK. Rarely have humans been convinced to follow a leader or support a cause unless, rightly or wrongly, there was not a passionate appeal to their emotions. Cold, emotionless discourse has it's place, but it rarely ever wins the field in the battle of the moment. If the GOP has taught the Left anything, it should be that "passion" works. How else could the very small group that runs the party convince so many in America to kick themselves in the balls and pay for the privilege?

As humans, we also derive a great deal of our information from passionate displays. Whether it be the vast amounts of information that flows from body language or the insight gained about a person's nature by their choice of language, humans have evolved to rely greatly on passionate communication.

Also, it does make for more enjoyable reading IMHO. If I didn't want to be inspired or laugh or get angry by the passionate opinions expressed on DU, I would read the telephone book.

[msmcghee]

25. Oh, but passion - or emotion -

. . is all that non-human species have to work with for decision-making.

What brought us out was our ability to reason. We still have trouble though giving reason enough emotional weight in our decisions - against our instincts and inherited dispositions.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. naaaaaa.T.. - ! are you honestly trying to say

that animals use passion and emotion for 'decision making'?

Like when an animal is experiencing hunger, they passionately, or emotionally go out in search of prey? Or are they operating under 'instinct'- are they not somewhat mindlessly filling their biological need???- Where does 'emotion' or 'passion' enter into the decision of whether the fox in my back field goes for the mouse that is in the thicket of raspberry bushes, or rather decides to go for a more filling meal by pushing in the chicken wire mesh guarding my sons pet rabbit??
Do you think the fox is considering my son's feelings when she chooses the mouse instead??

I don't believe animals are WITHOUT emotion, but I neither believe they are slaves to it either-
What seperates us from other non-human species, is that WE alone among all 'life' have within our power the ability to destroy all life on earth-

I'd love to see some 'passion and emotion' present in the decisions that effect this profound power.

[msmcghee]

28. You have a limited definition of emotion . . .

. . compared to mine. I am using emotion in the psychological sense - to mean desire, any need that we feel - consciously or not - positive or negative - to fulfill a requirement to enhance our survival.

All living things experience that - even plants in a sense. A daisy turns toward the sun because something in its nature creates that need that must be fulfilled. I wouldn't say the daisy experiences emotion but the same underlying mechanism is at work.

But - aninals and humans are built the same way. Emotion is the signal that our bodies and brains recieve that tells us some behavior is required that will help is avoid danger or survive better or maybe just feel pleasure.

When you say, "I'd love to see some 'passion and emotion' present in the decisions that effect this profound power."

Hasn't it occurred to you that passion and emotion on both sides - and lack of reason on both sides - is why so many people are dying in the ME today?

Not saying you are wrong. Just my view of this.

[jonnyblitz]

37. !!!!

:hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Correct

[Ron Green]

15. "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

The emotional gambit is the most effective in getting things stirred up, getting people to act, getting attention for your cause. Emotional response is easy; hell, it's automatic. And that's why war is so easy.

Reason, on the other hand, is difficult. It requires time and reflection before answering, and it requires control of emotions learned only by years of learning adult behavior. That's why peace is so hard. Peace on DU, or peace on earth.

[msmcghee]

18. Well put. n/t

[Batgirl]

19. I think it's good to be aware of this oh-so-human tendency

I admire the people I've known who seem more capable of genuine critical thinking than I am. Many times I've found myself coming up with the reasons to support a conclusion I had already leapt to intuitively. That's not to say the intuition is always wrong, but it is kind of backasswards. Knowing this personal tendency, I avoid forming granite tablet opinions on complicated, emotionally inflammatory subjects like the current I/P crisis. I'd rather read and be educated by more knowledgable people, the ones who are able to express their ideas without resorting to over the top emotionalism.

edit/typo

[oc2002]

20. Middle East is an emotional topic, not surprisingly. its not like the

talking about the budget, which is an important issue too. Just not as emotional.

[omega minimo]

30. Threads (and posts) to avoid

"The result is that once the emotional level rises in a thread, and the insults start flying, these threads quickly degenerate into an emotional food-fight where reason is completely powerless to deal with the question."

[sui generis]

31. you drop chinned no neck loose nostril back alley bug

eating manbitch concubine! Aaaaaiiiiiiiiaaiaiaiiaiaiiaiiiiii! :nuke: How dare you say that!!! You have reached through the monitor with your pathetic rude rude RUDE pathetic lame-ass posturing and made me crap in my hand and fling poop right back.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

33. loose nostril?

lol

[omega minimo]

34. heh heh. you said

"posture" heheh heh heheh heh. :yoiks:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

36. Unfortunately Some Are Quite Quick To Resort To Childishness & Mudslinging

rather than engaging in serious logical debate. They get threatened and their panties in a bunch when presented with logic or fact that they can't easily dispute, so rather than responding to context or attempting to refute or discuss intelligently and logically, they instead go right into tantrum mode of name calling, avoiding context, parrot-talk or a plethora of other childish and abusive unproductive behavior.

We could learn a lot more from each other if we were more readily able to say "hmmm, that was a good point. I hadn't thought of that and can see where you're coming from. I still disagree though because (etcetera etcetera)"

There are many here capable of discussions in that manner and I salute them, especially in these more emotional than usual times. But those that can only resort to name calling, personal attack, avoidance of context, spin and strawmen arguments while refusing to acknowledge valid points receive no respect from me. They are a detriment to the well-being of our community and only hurt our environment here by engaging in such practices. Every so often is one thing: Repeatedly engaging in such tactics is another. But that's why I thank God for the mods and the incredible job they do in trying to manage the probably more-than-they-can-handle influx of such stupidity and anger.