Posted: Jun 30, 2018 2:02 am
by Thommo
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
One (additional) fundamental problem is conceptualising the human mind as divided into complementary categories of emotional and reasoning in the first place. When it comes to explaining a phenomenon like loss aversion the very categorisation fails altogether. The emotional/reasonable divide is a useful model within its limitations, but fundamentally flawed.

I think that I addressed this in my previous post. We're born seemingly as experts in knowing when to cry/smile (be emotional)(it's fairly universal/absolute in fact). Whereas it takes us considerable time to assess our surroundings/life.


It may seem that way to you, it does not seem that way to me. We are born reasoning and we are born emoting. We are simplistic and immature in both.

Babies learn at an astonishing rate. And they also cry at an astonishing rate. However their emotional and reasoned responses both become fine tuned, develop and mature as they grow. There is unquestionably such a thing as emotional immaturity.

jamest wrote:To me, this implies that we have the capacity to reason from the onset, but what we eventually reason is anyone's guess. Parental/cultural influences, etc.. (subjective/diverse reasoning as opposed to universal/absolute emotions. How ironic.).


Not really, we all make a lot of similar discoveries. Things fall downwards, fire hurts, affirming the consequent is incorrect.

There are more diverse avenues of reasoning, of course, but there are also more diverse avenues of emotional expression. Grief expresses itself in so many ways, some people laugh, others cry. Some repress, some express. Things which emotionally crush us as teenagers become manageable as adults.

There's some truth in the concept that young children are "dominated" by emotion, but the division of the mind into emotional/reasoning is still just as fundamentally flawed. There's a nugget of truth, but if you take it literally or take it too far you're going to end up with a lot of false conclusions.

jamest wrote:I have no wish to discuss Spock except as a metaphor for pure reason. Reasoning devoid of emotional baggage. Is that notion even possible I wonder?


No. Obviously not - for humans at least. Maybe an 8086 can do it, but then you're just into semantics of what's reasoning and what's a programme.