Emotions are self-serving
All of them. When you make a decision based on your emotions, you're doing it to please yourself. You can only use emotions to satisfy your own ego. The only thoughtful way to use emotions is to express them through art, probably. Using them to influence and manipulate people's behavior is one of the most selfish, self-serving, and destructive things people do to each other. Emotions are a human weakness.
Do you agree? What are your thoughts?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Neuroscience studies say that decisions, no matter how rationally layed out, cannot be made without emotions giving weight to each criteria/aspect being considered.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/feeli...0227-8k8v.html
This link provides a summary of problems people have with making decisions when their brain can't access emotional components. Even the simplest decision becomes a convoluted mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion...ecision-making
Pfister and Böhm (2008) have developed a classification of how emotions function in decision-making that conceptualizes an integral role for emotions, rather than simply influencing decision-making.[19]
The four roles played by emotions in this framework are:
Providing information: This includes both positive and negative emotions that arise directly from the options being considered by the decision maker, who can then evaluate choices with this “information.” This role is especially likely when the felt emotion is reducible; that is, easily reduced to a simple comparison (for example, attraction and repulsion), and unequivocally positive or negative. Pleasure and displeasure make up the spectrum of these emotions.
Improving speed: While making a good decision is important, making a quick decision is also important. Therefore, emotions and associated somatic conditions can offer mechanisms for encouraging a decision maker to decide quickly, especially when one or more options are potentially dangerous. Hunger, anger and fear can all induce a speedy decision.
Assessing relevance: Emotions help decision makers decide whether a certain element of the decision is relevant to their particular situations. Each person’s personal history and state(s) of mind leads to a different set of relevant information. The two such emotions most studied to date are regret and disappointment.
Enhancing commitment: In some ways, making the decision best for the self may be construed “the best” overall. However, acting in the best interests of others is also important in human civilization, and moral sentiments, or emotions, serve to help decision makers commit to such a decision rather than being drawn back toward pure self-interest. Emotions such as guilt and love help decision makers make such commitments.
Last edited by anndelise; 04-14-2014 at 03:13 AM.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
So stop having emotions. You can do it; you're SLI.
Or just ban Fe. I think that's what you really want.
@Park Emotion is like axiomatic reasoning. Thoughts basically conclude and crystallize into emotions... your own OP is so firmly founded it's an emotional claim.
No my emotions give me power.
If you weren't able to read people well emotionally, you would probably just end up killing yourself - you wouldn't understand genuine empathy vs. somebody fucking with you. The same mush that makes you feel like an insecure 12 year old girl is the same 'mush' that tells you when somebody is trying to gaslight you, set you up for a bad situation, or being truly vulnerable and human/nice with you. You take the gush with the 'you're creeping me out dude.' The facts of life.
And this is the 32472347324923th 'humans suck' post from park. I think you might have personally grown up in a situation where you felt unsafe/like nobody ever really rooted for you/had your back. And when they did you felt like they were being fake/manipulative/like Oprah or whatever. I genuinely apologize, that must be awful. You might be like 'Don't You Dare Pity Me' but you should rant more about being bisexual, I liked when you did that. Because I'm you know emotional, and have my own biases and preferences for things. Silly me.
When your nervous system is aroused into various states by the firing of specific neurotransmitters in the brain, we subconsciously assign it an emotional response. The frequency and sequencing of these signals are what differentiate the type of signals sent. Changes in blood pressure and heart rate, changes in perspiration, the constriction or dilation of the pupils in the eyes, sequential activations of facial muscles, so on and so fourth, are all examples of human physiological responses to emotional states.
So dispensing with emotion completely is impossible anyway because it's how we're wired. Even if we could willfully live without our emotional responses, we can't coexist peacefully with one another. We become sociopaths and narcissists. We don't have a clear sense of right and wrong. And the key to our survival as a species has never been our individual strength, but our social cohesion.
@Park, are you a Star Trek fan at all? Because I have a great analogy if you are.
This was one of the first "typing" theories I was into and it is presented from a "spiritual" perspective. I know I am an emotionally based person. Others are thought based, etc... According to the ideas presented in this link people process input from different "energy centers" aka chakras.
http://www.eliasforum.org/digests/essence_elements.html
Also within the "Michael Teachings" I was said to be an emotionally focused person as well which doesn't conflict with the above information, my MBTI or my socionics type.
Last edited by Aylen; 04-14-2014 at 02:08 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Once when I was walking out of Ikea, a customer outside was calling an employee stupid and was cursing loudly at him. The employee had a limp and seemed slightly mentally disabled. There were lots of people around looking disapproving but no one was trying to stop the abuse. When I got close to the man, I confronted him and told him Stop It in a pretty loud tone of voice. My emotions definitely were in control of me at that moment and they did give me power. But not power to be logical. A more logical approach would have been to go back into the store and to get a manager to deal with the situation. But I was so mad that I didn't even think of that option.
You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains. You will find a fortune, though it will not be the one you seek.
But first you must travel a long and difficult road, a road fraught with peril.
You shall see things, wonderful to tell. You shall see a... cow... on the roof of a cotton house. And, oh, so many startlements.
I cannot tell you how long this road shall be, but fear not the ob-stacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward.
Though the road may wind, yea, your hearts grow weary, still shall ye follow them, even unto your salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pukq_XJmM-k
Self-serving is definition of life.
What isn't?
Objective, impartial thinking? It is an evolved practical tool, existing to serve. Exclusively objective, impartial perspective produces no care or motivation one way or another. It is dead.
What else to server?
A family, group, ideals, way of life? Those are just extensions of self / expansive, more inclusive selfs (while still exclusive).
Other, all? The above may or may not apply, but there are emotions for these things anyway.
Replace general attributions to "for me, to me, mine"(and people like you - with Fe-PoLR) and it may be right.
I for example may have problems with my emotions and feel at mercy of them but I don't feel at mercy of other people's emotions how ever they communicate them, they are accepted, rejected or anything in between while almost invariably braking my own out of a rut. Assuming the persons emotions are considered worthy a reaction on account of not being superficial, flimsy and gone in a second anyway.
I think to argue against emotions in such a way is to make out they are irrational and that "being rational" is never self-serving. Are there any actions that cannot be considered self-serving?
i'm not really sure what you mean when you say "emotion", because how you can compartmentalize emotions outside of yourself as a person, or anyone else for that matter, is beyond me. emotions don't serve you, or make decisions for you, your emotions are you. any and every physiological response; fear, affection, joy, disgust, the positive feed-back of learned behavior looping back to remind you of past memories, experiences, mistakes, decisions is YOU, not a fractured peripheral outgrowth of you that you can pick apart and throw away. you cannot separate them out of the human narrative because emotion is what defines it at the very core.
I'm afraid that would require a far more serious mental disorder.
I didn't. It was a joke.
Nope, sorry. I have trouble making myself watch, read, or otherwise immerse in fiction. Non-realistic or science fiction, that is.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Martin Luther King Jr. "I Have a Dream"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vDWWy4CMhE
"Moral crusaders with zeal but no ethical understanding are likely to give us solutions that are worse than the problems."
Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live?
Fe - EIE Harmonizing 3w2
Married to my dualLSI 1w9
Congrats, you have defeated this thread. I have nothing more to say.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Uhhh @Park. I surely wasn't trying to defeat your thread. Carry on bemoaning how useless and horrible emotion is, if that's what makes you happy
"Moral crusaders with zeal but no ethical understanding are likely to give us solutions that are worse than the problems."
Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live?
Married to my dual
No, you win. Thread over.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Dreams are for suckers. Real people change the world.
You make a mistake when you think that you can't both be self-serving and do good to others. So even if you argue that emotions are self-serving, it doesn't follow that they're damaging.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I didn't make that implication, FDG. I just took my natural tunnel-vision approach which prevents me from seeing the big picture sometimes. Gabrielle's post was a perfect counter-argument to my theory and bringing Dr. King into the discussion was enough to make my words appear petty and narrow-minded. Which, from a more holistic perspective, they kind of are.
Not considering artistic expression, I still have trouble imagining myself using emotion to accomplish anything other than maybe some short-term self-serving goals, which for the most part seems unlikely that I will be attempting to do, as my sense of integrity is surely going to be standing in the way. Also, broadly speaking, I'd rather not be expected to have to deal with anyone else's feelings and emotions directly or interactively as I tend to find that awkward and uncomfortable. But I understand how people are different and how I should be careful not to project my own weaknesses, strengths, or preferences onto others.
Last edited by Park; 04-16-2014 at 11:39 AM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
"logic" and the purported statement of fact are also implicitly self-serving 95% of the time.
i had a statement from mussolini a day or two ago about how the ultimate form of intellectual relativism is fascism, because if all ideas are of equivalent merit one may as well assert those that serve one's aims. people should believe and act like that, because they always fuck up at doing otherwise. it is wasted energy. it is only the locking of arms between opposites that a relative measure of peace and balance is attained.
When it comes to emotions/ethics, my dual has said this to me quite a few times over the years - some version of "I hate these types of talks. I suck at them and I always feel incapable of getting myself across." Thing is, in my view, he's not as incapable emotionally as he thinks or says he is. My interpretation is this is more about a fear of being controlled by or overwhelmed by the dual's information element. For example, he can't stand it if I start to cry.
It's interesting because I also align the singular use of logic with self-serving misuse and lack of ethics. This feels cold-hearted and Machiavellian in spirit. My sense of integrity gets in the way of that. However, it's use in a moderated form feels structured, clean and consistent - something you can hang your coat on.
I like that you make the connection between emotional expression and art. I think there might be something of value in that. Maybe if we look at the use of pathos as an art form and logos as a science we can see that at the optimum they are utilized in a hand-in-hand manner. If there is too much of one at the suffering of another, than we have a problem and most likely a deficient or extreme form of communication.
I not only have trouble imagining myself using logic to accomplish much of value for me, but I find it humanly lacking and somewhat devoid without ethical content and context (emotions). Also, an over-abundance of logic comes across to me as an attempt to control in a way that I feel (knowingly instinctively) that I don't quite have a handle on.
"Moral crusaders with zeal but no ethical understanding are likely to give us solutions that are worse than the problems."
Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live?
Married to my dual
Like the link I posted above states, I also connect emotions to artistic expression but my emotional base is only used to process information. Beyond that anyone can be emotional and some people who consider themselves logical/thought based (process information input through their crown chakra first) have expressed emotions to me in a much stronger fashion than people I consider emotionally based because they don't really know what to do with emotions when they arise. Often it comes out as anger over something I would consider trivial but it is hard for me to understand these emotional outbursts. I do not consider love an emotion, for the record.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
People can be thoughtful and emotional. I will share an insight I got a while ago that touches mainly romantic relationships.
Being emotionally developed DOES NOT mean you are an over sentimental touchy feely freak hanging over people's back and exhausting them with it all.
That's what I call being hysterical, not sanely emotional.
Also, having emotions does not specifically involve any important feeling development, even if technically it can happen.
And then emotionally desabled people like you @Park get completely overwhelmed and cut their wrists
OK you just smiled? If you really did, everything is not that lost
Emotions are not particularly selfish, they also can be controlled...
Repressing it feeds your anger.. and it does not make you more powerful. Repressing IS NOT controlling.
I can understand it as well as I tend to internalize it all sometimes.
I learnt to express some of my emotions though. As @truck said, they are my power.
When sane emotions finally meet healthy feelings and both persons are not heavily emotionally retarded, it looks like this (non exhaustive list):
you share, you help, you are helped, you smile, you provoke smiles, you give, you receive, you support, you are supported, you care, you are cared about, you are protected, you protect too, you ask, you get clear answers, you are questioned, you clearly reply, you inspire and let yourself be inspired...
...you thrill, you get thrilled, you get stars in your eyes, you also give those stars, you peacefully come, you sincerely welcome, you gently leave, you say goodbye clearly, you accept, you let it go, you enlighten, you get enlightened, you touch, you are touched, you talk, you are heard, you listen, you understand, you make understand, you breathe, you let breathe, you laugh, you make laugh.
You get beautiful memories and you are yourself a beautiful memory. All in any fair order for each person. Naturally playful=yes, playing double-edged games=no.
When you give, it's not selfish... you share your world. You make people happy just to make them happy.
The magic of a sincere emotions and feelings mix is held in an explosion of FAIR EXCHANGE.
No insane emotional manipulation. It eventually makes you GROW UP. You LEARN. You are a muse, for yourself and for the person in front of you.
Once I was said: even if you are not there anymore, there is always some kind of magical stardust left behind, and when I think about and close my eyes, a peaceful and at the same time passionate serenity invades my stomach.
Emotions can go far beyond egoism, under and above basic logical understanding... It can be so beautiful between two emotionally developed persons.
I didn't smile, I laughed ...at your appalling English. Thanks for the sappy blob of nonsense.OK you just smiled? If you really did, everything is not that lost
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
You are even more evil than I thought. I feel sad for you.
Why do you take so much pleasure in hurting people...?
Would you like to discuss it all in French?
Last edited by mu4; 04-29-2014 at 08:15 PM. Reason: spoiler
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
This thread is absurd.
My mother has nothing to do here, please stay away from her.
I love you too, no matter how rotten you may seem.
This will be my last word.
Are we egoist or are we super-egoists?
Let's switch to the id for a bit. .... If I act real cold and unemotional it's sure to get sappy women wanting me.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Let's be fair .... I bet that strong mean guy doesn't take shit, has alot of value, he can give me everything I need... if only I can melt his heart and show him I'd give him everything.
But I can't, I'm evil. You know, you wouldn't have even existed if your mom hadn't raped that homeless Asian guy, whoever many years ago you were born.
Oh thank you, that's so heartwarming. No hugs?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Alter-egoists.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Is this real? I'd like to believe you.
Also
It may or can be real. I speak from my experience.Is this real? I'd like to believe you.
Also
It's just very rare...
Emotions in relationships should be synergistic, but the reciprocation can be both positive and negative. If they aren't then you should check the health and consistency of your successful partnerships and your list of people you know you don't want around. It's better to allow people to be ambivelently neutral until you understand that the synergy moves in one direction or the other.
How I see Te egos and particularly Fe PoLR in this question. All emotions are an undercurrent for them. There doing their thing of developing/reacting to themselves and the world. The undercurrent status cannot be functionally broken, because person has no conscious tool and capability of dealing with them. So strong emotions that plop themselves in to consciousness to be dealt with are a problem and so is having people planting emotions in to the undercurrent that is holding/creating cohesion and direction dynamically and passively.
There can be even an emotional benefit to the arrangement. You cannot mess up natural processes you do not actively access.
... I don't think you are LSI. @Park
That's kinda what Madonna says...
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
