
The seeming irrationality of a well-tuned emotional system - ALee
https://qz.com/1313944/being-rational-all-the-time-isnt-going-to-do-you-any-favors/
======
crispyambulance
I like the "The marriage of sense and reason" section.

There are so many "wrong-on-the-internet" folks who believe they're being
rational, but in fact are merely cherry-picking whatever bits of reality (they
use the word "facts") they understand, formulating their response only on that
basis and ignoring everything else that isn't easy to observe, measure or
reason about.

Being rational or objective is a very tall order. We are never _actually_
prepared to do that in real-life scenarios. It is only remotely feasible in
the most stripped-down, simplified set-ups.

~~~
AstralStorm
Being rational is separate from being objective. Please do not mix these terms
to confuse people.

Typical way to attempt rationality is to follow a well defined algorithm to
make a decision, with well defined inputs. Even if it is a simple as "sum
these assigned numbers and pick highest option" it is more rational than the
alternative.

You can quantify and tune your "gut" or estimation skills the same way as with
any other. Remember and learn from both successes and mistakes, exercise the
skill.

Most people learn only from representative instances which is actually
irrational and a known human logic hole - representativeness heuristic. This
means their gut feeling is relatively mistuned this making for bad decisions.

Asking just one simple question - how meaningful was it - is very effective to
avoid the pitfall...

Emotions have more context than one would wish and not all of it obvious. This
is what makes using this as decision input hard.

~~~
asgraham
Similarly, quantification is separate from being rational.

In your simple example "sum these assigned numbers and pick the highest
option," how did you assign those numbers? In most real life scenarios,
qualities are difficult to quantify. If you start from questionable
quantifications, as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out."

Often the rational thing to do is to acknowledge the nigh-impossibility of
quantification (let alone combining those quantifications; what if the
qualities interact in nonlinear ways?).

------
vinceguidry
One thing I thought about recently is just how 'theory of mind' works. When
you're trying to figure out someone else's motives, often times logic and
reason just get in the way. Emotional processing uses the limbic system and is
much 'faster' than cognitive thought. You definitely don't want to over-rely
on knee-jerk emotional responses, but you don't want to completely throw out
the hundreds of thousands of years of primate social evolution in a vain
effort to be smarter.

------
ThrustVectoring
Game theory is extraordinarily helpful for understanding what's going on,
IMHO.

First off, not every capability is positive value to have. If you can
irreversibly give someone a million dollars from your phone, people have a
pretty big incentive to stick a gun in your face and make you do that. "It's
physically impossible to do that" is an extremely useful negotiation stance;
the winning strategy in a game of chicken is to make sure your opponent knows
you threw the steering wheel out the car window.

Your emotional system is a really powerful decision-making engine that is
almost completely immune to reason. It's extraordinarily hard to use logical
reasoning to convince someone to not be sad that their dog died. This is a
_feature_ , not a bug. Anger is a much more relevant emotion for this -
someone with a hair trigger on their temper has figured out that wielding that
implicit threat serves their interest.

~~~
cyberpunk0
For all of that theory crafting you forget the person holding you at gunpoint
is emotional as well and would just shoot you for having ruined their chance
to get money. What use are you to them at all now?

~~~
setr
Outside of _extreme_ irrationality, this is difficult to imagine: murder is a
much bigger crime than theft, and a much, much bigger crime than threatening
someone (but ultimately doing nothing).

The detterance from simply being shot is that theres nothing to gain, and
doing so increases your risk _substantially_.

Now, if there was little risk, such as you're in a shithole that the cops have
gave up on anyways, or you're a known and hated gang member that no one will
particularly miss, then its another story. But this why an eye-for-an-eye is
an almost necessary strategy in lawless areas: the threat of your kin means
that killing just you doesn't end the story. In lawful lands, the police play
that role.

Of course, some will just ignore the risk and shoot you anyways, but thats
just how it goes. After they take your money, they could shoot you too. Hell,
if they're really stupid they might even shoot you _before_.

If they're going to ignore the risk associated with the act, regardless of how
risky it is, then there's not much you can do about it. Except shoot them
first, I guess.

------
jacquesm
This is an interesting article in the sense that it is impossible to comment
on it without making the point of the article even stronger.

~~~
vinceguidry
I like to make up terms on the spot for interesting phenomena I see, the term
I came up for for this one is a "rational ratchet". I see it a lot
particularly in this space of combining reason with intuition. No matter which
direction you push in, you can only apply torque in one direction.

I specifically look for this sort of thing when I meditate.

------
xivzgrev
"For example, this would suggest that if an event that makes you “angry”
occurs multiple times in succession without actually harming you in a way that
the feeling of “anger” predicted, and you don’t aggressively hold on to that
label, by the tenth time you experience this event, your initial response
would have slowly changed from the feeling of “anger” toward something more
representative of the situation."

I don't agree with this universally. Case in point: road rage. A person could
get cut off 100x and still feel anger. That's because emotions arent just a
predictive system about an event. They are also about related ideas. In this
case perhaps our driver feels like people take advantage of him. As long as
that belief is there he may get angry every time he is cut off.

~~~
marcosdumay
I would guess that driving is an inherently stressing activity, where people
have internalized the knowledge that any mistake can kill them (like nearly no
other activity they do nowadays), and thus are prone to getting angry even if
they happen to escape most of the time.

------
ridewinter
When the author talks about not aggressively holding onto labels he is
basically talking about meditation.

In my experience, emotions generate discursive thought. Meditation is a
process of dropping that discursive thought and feeling the emotions directly.
This leads to clear insights on your world.

------
lmm
Headline doesn't match the content; while the article is more nuanced, it
still seems to put too much blind faith in our evolved emotional systems.

> On the other hand, given that our emotional system—that gives us information
> points through a sense or a judgment—has been refined by the battery of
> evolution for much, much longer than the thinking mind, we know that it
> absorbs more of the nuances of reality before it comes to a conclusion.

That doesn't follow at all; if anything the opposite is true, our emotional
system is quicker to discard nuance (because in the ancestral environment it
was more important to make an approximate decision quickly, whereas in the
modern world the opposite is true).

> In fact, Barrett’s model even suggests that cognition and emotion are not
> distinct at all. > the seeming irrationality of a well-tuned emotional
> system, within the right context, can fill in gaps that reason misses.

It's not about irrationality being an advantage or "filling in gaps". It's
about the speed of our emotional system making it useful despite the
irrationality. It's well worth making the best possible use of the cognitive
tools we have, including our emotional system, but that doesn't mean the flaws
of those tools cease to be flaws.

~~~
proto-n
He says "seeming irrationality". Meaning something that is judged irrational
by our logical system, which has limited capacity thus limited information.

He says that, if you account for certain biases, the much higher capacity
emotional system can be a useful input feature for the final decision.

In summary, don't trust the input of your instincts blindly, it is biased.
However, flawed as it may be, it is probably based on much more information
than your logical decision, so you should not discard it completely either.
Try to account for biases, better yet, train your emotional system for less
biased decisions.

~~~
lmm
> He says "seeming irrationality". Meaning something that is judged irrational
> by our logical system, which has limited capacity thus limited information.

But this fails to acknowledge that very often the reason our emotional system
seems irrational is because it _is_ irrational.

> He says that, if you account for certain biases, the much higher capacity
> emotional system can be a useful input feature for the final decision.

> In summary, don't trust the input of your instincts blindly, it is biased.
> However, flawed as it may be, it is probably based on much more information
> than your logical decision, so you should not discard it completely either.
> Try to account for biases, better yet, train your emotional system for less
> biased decisions.

That's a very generous reading of the article, and a much better takeaway than
anything I got from the article itself. There is value in our emotional
systems, but the biases of that system are very real and warrant more
attention and caution than the article pays them.

------
nsedlet
The article makes the case that our "emotional systems" can be understood as
an effective way of internalizing and responding to our experiences in a
complex world.

Maybe this is obvious but I think equally important is the emotional interplay
between people, and the dynamics of that larger emotional system. Emotions are
like a protocol that humans use to communicate their mental states to each
other. If emotions were just about understanding the world, there would be no
reason for humans to express them visibly & audibly.

A little bit of occasional anger can effectively communicate that someone has
crossed a line. Laughter is positive feedback. etc. etc.

------
Asgardr
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Predictably Irrational. It's a book about
experiments in behavioural economics and relevant anecdotes. I'd recommend it
to anyone, it's easy to read and highly informative.

------
ponderatul
Finally, someone is speaking about this.

------
SubiculumCode
If one accepts that one is an emotional animal, and that over-suppression of
emotional irrationality can lead to mental illness and non-adaptive stress
responses, then the rational thing to do is to let yourself be irrational.
Escape the local minima.

------
bloak
Are we discussing "rationality" without having defined that term? I would
guess that's probably an _example_ of irrationality.

As I see it, people mostly use "rationality" to refer to a set of theories,
such as mathematics, which are useful tools that can help people make
decisions in the real world. However, people still have to decide when and how
to use those tools. Deciding which tools to use and how is another thing that
theories, such as mathematics, might help people with, but, again, people have
to decide when and how to use those tools in deciding which tools to use. To
avoid an infinite regression, most decisions need to be made unconsciously: at
some point people just do what feels right.

If you've discovered some theory that seems really useful and not as well
known as it deserves to be, tell us about it: that sounds interesting. If
you've got some vague waffle about the usefulness of theory/rationality in
general, then I'm not so interested because I don't even see any entertainment
in that, let alone practical use.

~~~
bad_user
"Rationality" should be pretty obvious ... in accordance to logic. And logic
has a very rigorous definition.

> " _people mostly use "rationality" to refer to a set of theories, such as
> mathematics_"

Your thinking is flawed, probably by having wrong ideas about what mathematics
is. _Mathematics is logic_ , a fact obscured by the math we end up learning
all the way up to high school, which does not capture the essence of math.
Speaking of which, add the Curry–Howard correspondence in the mix and the plot
thickens ;-)

]

~~~
mbrock
Rigorous definitions of logic—the various systems of formal logic—do not fully
define reason. They are more like particular schemes that formalize and
idealize some aspects of reasoning.

Those systems are derived from reasoning, using reasoning, in accordance with
reason, but they are not reasoning itself, unless you want to claim that the
process of inventing or refining formal logics is itself unreasonable.

It's impossible to fully define a foundational concept like rationality. This
concept has been used as an example of an "essentially contested concept"
whose "proper use… inevitably involves endless disputes."

------
akvadrako
This can't be true by definition. Being maximally rational means behaving
optimally. If your behavior doesn't provide a good cost-benefit ratio, what it
wan't rational to begin with.

One big issue I see with people acting "rationally" is they don't take into
account all factors, like the time it takes to analyse your options vs just
going with your gut.

~~~
akuji1993
I don't agree with you on this completely, even though I'm very pragmatic and
usually very rational myself. Sometimes it's better to consider the emotional
effects your decision has, rather than just the logical reasons to pick A or
B. I learned that the company lives and dies with their employees so sometimes
making the rational decision can cost you a lot, even though, most people
would agree with you about it being the right decision.

~~~
nordsieck
> Sometimes it's better to consider the emotional effects your decision has,
> rather than just the logical reasons to pick A or B. I learned that the
> company lives and dies with their employees so sometimes making the rational
> decision can cost you a lot, even though, most people would agree with you
> about it being the right decision.

You talk about eschewing "just the logical reasons", and then describe a
perfectly logical decision making process. I'm confused.

Do you believe that logical decisions can only involve quantitative factors?

------
carapace
I'm well-grounded in science and the the rationalist worldview. Imagine my
wonder and curiosity when I went for a Reiki "initiation" and I could _feel_
the "energy"!

I've worked with electricity, I understand that, if I _feel_ something, a
_force_ is involved in the sense of Physics. I wasn't hallucinating, nor was
there a Van de Graff generator concealed behind a screen. I'm more-or-less a
Rational Materialist, so I immediately began to try to find the physics behind
the "Chi" or "Ki" phenomenon. Fortunately, there was a well-stocked
metaphysical library in my neighborhood at the time, (a physical library of
books on all metaphysical subjects.) I began to spend hours a day there,
poring over the books trying to find a rail on which to lodge my foot.

I discovered that "Chi" has been discovered and re-discovered several times in
the West by many people, beginning with Mesmer[1], and including a Baron Carl
von Reichenbach (who called it "the Odic force")[2], one William Walker
Atkinson (who called it "Vril")[3], he was contemporaneous with the founder of
Reiki, Mikao Usui[4], and Wilhelm Reich (who called it "Orgone")[5].

That's not a complete list. Some investigators were more scientific than
others, to put it mildly. But it's fair to say that this phenomenon has been
known to and investigated by Westerners continuously for about three
centuries, yet it has somehow never fully broken into consensus reality
despite having been granted the benefit of the Scientific Method in at least a
few cases.

I failed to find anyone who had developed any sort of mathematics or
engineering around it. It's possible that it has something to do with EM. (I
did find a lot of magic. There are more and stranger religions in our world
than you can possibly imagine. I did discover that there is a sort of formula
or algorithm in common to _all_ prayer, magic, ritual, new age magical
thinking wish-fulfillment, etc. Every single cult, religion, lodge, mystery
school, etc. has the same basic structure to its magic regardless of the
trappings or outer organization. But that's a tangent.)

My point is, "chi energy" is real, and it is the medium of emotions. Whatever
emotions are they happen in this "chi field." You have experienced this
yourself your whole life: the ineffable part of experiencing an emotion, the
part that _isn 't_ proprioceptive feedback from your muscles and glands, is
your subjective experience of a phenomenon that has a real physical existence.
Your emotions extend out from your body for a meter or two. (The literature
speaks of the "Emotional Body", and "aura".[6])

My meta-point is, _we should do science to this_. This is a body of knowledge
clogged with nonsense and bullshit, and dogged by skepticism and apathy, "and
yet it moves"[7]. I did experiments, other people felt it, it's real, whatever
it is. (And in the case of Reiki it has the capacity to engender healing,
which is pretty important and should _also_ be scientifically investigated.
But that's separate from the fact that we should investigate "Chi" in
general.) If we want to understand emotions we have to study this "energy".

[1] 1734 – 1815
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer#Animal_magnetism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer#Animal_magnetism)

[2] 1788 – 1869
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odic_force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odic_force)

[3] 1862 – 1932
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_Atkinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_Atkinson)

[4] 1865 – 1926
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikao_Usui](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikao_Usui)

[5] 1897 – 1957
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich)

[6]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_\(paranormal\))

[7]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_yet_it_moves)

------
tw1010
Wouldn't "well-tuned" in this case mean "an emotional system which improves
reasoning where logical thinking fails". And in that case isn't the title of
the article a tautology?

I think most would agree that a "good" emotional system can be an aid to
reason. The reason many think we shouldn't trust emotions is because most
systems are "bad" (as in, it acts counter to capacity to reason).

~~~
sctb
OK, we've updated the title from “A well-tuned emotional system can fill in
gaps that reason misses”.

------
king_nothing
If someone wanted to connect with others and have a good time, rationality is
the number one party buzzkill. I’d trade all rationality in perpetuity for
being able to connect with people without even needing to think about it...
social skills are far more vital to well-being than almost anything else
besides industrious productivity. Worse, these skills are in abject crisis
with infinite distractions, negative social
polarization/crybullies/humorouslessness/long-tail civilization decline and a
disposable, social-dilettance mentality that only allows for surface, fake
relationships that go to die on Facebook. You also can’t have love with Vulcan
analysis... it’s incompatible with mutual-affinity.

~~~
Nasrudith
Rationality also keeps you from getting taken for a ride by failing for every
last scam in the book. Productivity doesn't do you any good and probably not
society getting siphoned. And that is before getting roped into doing harm to
others intentionally or otherwise.

Personally I disagree with the mutual affinity incompatibility. If rationality
is getting in the way it is for a reason - if you both like rowing and musical
theater there is nothing to object to but if they are also say a serial killer
to give a deliberately extreme example....

------
Quarrelsome
Can I suggest that the whole "Lean startup" process is an example of dangerous
hyper-reason? You're A/Bing your test subjects, you're responding purely to
data and a dogmatic following of the technique results in you never asking how
your users/test subjects _feel_ but only how they behave. Thus we end up with
software like Facebook that arguably makes a lot of people sad while being
unable to stop using it.

------
ada1981
The mind is meant to be a servant to the body, not the other way around.

A life lived disconnected from the body results in depression, illness and
ultimately, one devoid of humanity and instead enslaved to systems and
institutions.

Darth Vader represents the ultimate disconnection of mind from body.

And, our collective and individual trauma makes it difficult to remain in our
bodies.

The trick is not to suppress or numb out the emotional information we receive.

Rather, we are being called to feel it fully, heal our bodies and traumas, so
that we can be in deep attunement with our body and life itself.

~~~
AstralStorm
This post is so full of platitudes I do not even know how to start. It is in
"not even wrong" category as used by recruiting into cults.

1\. Depression has many causes and this thing is probably not one. If it is,
show evidence.

2\. Darth Vader did what he did because of reach emotional decision, after
emotional manipulation. Your argument is extremely invalid. Plus he's a
fantasy literary character.

3\. What does "remain in your body" mean anyway?

4\. Is there any evidence that mind - body dualism is real and not just a
concept?

5\. Emotional responses are still of mind, just a faster less controlled
system of it, influenced by internal chemistry too just like the rest of it.

6\. How do you define "fully healed" or what the trauma means?

~~~
ada1981
1.) I’d recommend starting with the book The Body Keeps Score, if you are
interested in the role of trauma & depression.

2\. I’m really just paraphrasing Joe Campbell here. If you want to see his
take on mythology, what it represents, and how Lucas used the Hero’s journey
to craft Star Wars, I’d recommend the current Netflix special on Joe Campbell.

3\. People tend to dissociate and disconnect from their felt body experience.
There is a fairly established body of work on “embodiment” and somatic based
therapies.

4\. We have our conscious logical brain and we have our emotional brain. Our
emotions are mapped to physical sensations in our body. That is what I mean
here.

5\. I don’t disagree with this.

6\. I would say fully healed would be releasing the traumas. One way might say
that you demylinate that pathways that trigger the fight or flight response in
similar contexts and form new pathways that create a more accurate model of
the world as well as increased capacity for self regulation.

