From: Randall Parker 

In article ,
blucy{at}mediaone.net says...
> > But seriously, the reason that Rand's position makes sense to me is that
> > it dovetails so nicely with my own view of emotions which is a
> > decidedly biological view. I see them as a product of evolutionary
> > forces.
> So is intellect, but I don't see that argument being made from your
> perspective.

I've made it in the past and you've forgotten about it. See some of my old
Canopus messages about cognitive science where I recommended some books
about the tendency of the human mind to make certain kinds of reasoning
errors. How We Know What Isn't So by Daniel Gilovich is a simple intro to
the subject.

I've read more about this recently in the context of economic research into
human decision-making. The Economist had a great summary about, among other
things, the current research into how people value what they have versus
things that they could buy. They will want to hold onto stuff rather than
sell it for a given price even though they will not want to buy the same
stuff if they don't have it even if it is offered at a lower price.

> > We have all
> > sorts of inappropriate emtional reactions in this rather different
> > environment.
> And we make all sorts of rational decisions which are inappropriate. That
> doesn't mean we should ignore the rationale, does it?

No, it just means we should not trust it.

The problem as I see it is that the human mind requires considerable
training to allow it to compensate for some of its tendencies to make
certain types of reasoning errors. The classic example (that I've cited in
the past in Canopus) is just how superstitions start. People will notice
the occurence of two phenomena together far more efficiently than they will
notice the occurence of each phenomenon apart from the other. So there is a
tendency to imagine non-existent cause-and-effect relationships.

I think the problem is worse with emotions than with conscious reasoning
precisely because the emotions come from places that we can barely see.


> > Secondly, they are flawed approximations even in our natural
> > environment. Our emotions are not generated by a part of the brain that
> > is any more omniscient and all-knowing than the reasoning conscious
> > part.
> Well, *you* believe that.

That my emotions are not driven by omniscience? Yeah, I believe that. I
only wish more people did.

eg how many people have killed another person because their emotional pain
and emotional rage have seemed like proof to them that the other person has
done something that justified the killing? (extremely jealous and abusive
husbands that kill their wives come to mind as just one category that does
this sort of thing).

> I, OTOH, accept that many good things happen because
> I "allow" them to happen.

I'm not a solipsist Bill.

> Or, at the very least, I don't try to make them
> happen.

Not sure what you are now saying here.

>
> > Thirdly, what behaviors our emotions encourage are designed for survival
> > and reproductive success (not just in having kids but in a broader
> > sense). Well, are such behaviors really in our personal interest as
> > individuals? I mean, I don't want to simply exist to serve my genes
> > after all.
>
> I believe they are essential. If you were not so affected by this thread
> emotionally, would you even care to respond?

But are all emotional responses appropriate? Are they all beneficial?

Have you ever been in a meeting and felt the classic fight-or-flight
response? If you haven't then you are unusual. And yet for all the people
who have, are they going to start fighting phyiscally about who is, for
instance, responsible for failing to meet some sales goal?

We are having emotional responses every day which were selected for to deal
with problems in very different environments than what we live in today.


> > He's also too ignorant to make rational decisions about what constitutes
> > his best interest.
> I would substitute "nescient" for ignorant. Ignorance is a
desired state.
> Nescience is a state before knowledge.

No, according to Random House ignorance is not a desired state. Their
definitions for nescient an ignorance are almost identical. Though in the
case of nescience they also offer agnosticism as an alternative definition.
While Random House does refer one to Ignore, -Ance they do not explicitly
say that ignorance is a state brought about by choice:

Ignorance the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning,
information, etc.

Under ignorant they do not say under any of their definitions that it is a
state arrived at by choice.

> But if he's nescient, it means someone should be acting on his behalf -- and
> without any evidence to the contrary, I think it should be his father.

My evidence to the contrary is that the father appears to believe that life
in a communist country is worth returning to.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5