How emotion affects our political views

[Brian Blackwell]

What is emotion? Have you ever heard a definitive answer to this question? Chemical reactions... well, yes, but what purpose does it serve? Fight or flight, human bonding for procreation... ok, but obviously it's more nuanced and influential than that.

I'd like to submit an idea for your review: Emotion is personal guidance. It exists as means for evaluating the merit of our thought.

Emotion is intrinsically linked to thought; it is a reaction to thought. You may be watching TV, feeling emotionally neutral, until you remember the big test, interview, or presentation tomorrow morning. Immediately upon having that thought, a flood of anxiety fills your body.

And thought need not always be overtly conscious. Sometimes there are lingering thoughts just behind our conscious awareness; thoughts that have not undergone the formality of being mentally vocalized, but are present nonetheless. In this case, the emotion will get our attention, even when the thought doesn't. We call this experience a "nagging feeling". Emotion is serving its purpose - cluing us in to the nature of our thoughts.

Humans are motivated by emotion. All human action is an effort to move to a more pleasing emotional state. Our political views are rooted in this effort as well. We perceive that if this massive construct affecting our lives called "government" operated in a way more in line with our desires, we would feel happier, safer, have more pride in our country, etc.

Here I will provide a chart that outlines the "Emotional Guidance Scale" (courtesy of Abraham Hicks). Items higher on the scale denote better-feeling emotions, while items lower on the scale denote worse emotional states:

Sometimes this phenomenon is not so obvious, like in the case of the person who abuses themselves. But upon closer inspection, we can see that the person is trying to move from feelings of guilt, for instance, to the relief experienced by the feelings of revenge against themselves. Even moving from one negative emotion to another negative emotion is motivated by the desire for improvement.

Unfortunately, much of our political views are born of a fear. Fear of what the opposing party will subject us to; fear of what foreign powers will unleash upon our country; etc. This is a very low emotional state, and though improvements sought through rage and resentment may serve to ease our pain temporarily, they are hardly the most desirable emotional states to reside within on an ongoing basis. We can get trapped in a negative loop without a concerted effort to move higher on the scale.

Since emotional improvement is the motivation for all action, and all emotion is a reaction to thought, we can see that thought is the realm of causality. This means that we purposefully defer action (verbal or physical) and remain in the realm of thought, progressing upward along the scale via self-talk before taking action. In other words, we can wait until we're in a better place before expressing ourselves through actions which have the power to shape our world.

And since emotion clues us in to the merit of our thought, the better feeling emotions reflect thoughts that are more in alignment with ultimate truth in some way. In this way, knowledge and understanding lead to better-feeling emotions, and ultimately wisdom, or right action. This can be difficult to discern. But when we feel rage against the opposing party, something about our thought is misaligned with truth. Maybe it's because we are seeing these people as evil, when in reality, they are only trying to seek higher states of emotion just like us. Their motivations are good in this sense, and so our perception of them as evil enemies with vastly different goals is inaccurate on a deeper level.

There is so much more to say, but I will not impose upon your patience any longer in this post. Use this scale to assess what you are feeling, and what emotional state you are trying to achieve by your actions. Use it to evaluate others. See if the described phenomenon accurately corresponds with your own experience and observation.

Thank you for considering these ideas, I hope they offer some preliminary insight into how this "thought --> emotion --> action" dynamic plays out in the political landscape.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Was just thinking about this and how all the Leftist "Polls" and claims of looming defeat for the Right are designed to EMOTIONALLY defeat Right Wingers and keep them from the voting booths.

Unfortunately, it works on far too many.

 

[there4eyeM]

Are we trying to prove that human beings are psychologically directed animals, or merely educating those who remain ignorant of the obvious fact?

 

[Weatherman2020]

What is emotion? Have you ever heard a definitive answer to this question? Chemical reactions... well, yes, but what purpose does it serve? Fight or flight, human bonding for procreation... ok, but obviously it's more nuanced and influential than that.

I'd like to submit an idea for your review: Emotion is personal guidance. It exists as means for evaluating the merit of our thought.

Emotion is intrinsically linked to thought; it is a reaction to thought. You may be watching TV, feeling emotionally neutral, until you remember the big test, interview, or presentation tomorrow morning. Immediately upon having that thought, a flood of anxiety fills your body.

And thought need not always be overtly conscious. Sometimes there are lingering thoughts just behind our conscious awareness; thoughts that have not undergone the formality of being mentally vocalized, but are present nonetheless. In this case, the emotion will get our attention, even when the thought doesn't. We call this experience a "nagging feeling". Emotion is serving its purpose - cluing us in to the nature of our thoughts.

Humans are motivated by emotion. All human action is an effort to move to a more pleasing emotional state. Our political views are rooted in this effort as well. We perceive that if this massive construct affecting our lives called "government" operated in a way more in line with our desires, we would feel happier, safer, have more pride in our country, etc.

Here I will provide a chart that outlines the "Emotional Guidance Scale" (courtesy of Abraham Hicks). Items higher on the scale denote better-feeling emotions, while items lower on the scale denote worse emotional states:

Sometimes this phenomenon is not so obvious, like in the case of the person who abuses themselves. But upon closer inspection, we can see that the person is trying to move from feelings of guilt, for instance, to the relief experienced by the feelings of revenge against themselves. Even moving from one negative emotion to another negative emotion is motivated by the desire for improvement.

Unfortunately, much of our political views are born of a fear. Fear of what the opposing party will subject us to; fear of what foreign powers will unleash upon our country; etc. This is a very low emotional state, and though improvements sought through rage and resentment may serve to ease our pain temporarily, they are hardly the most desirable emotional states to reside within on an ongoing basis. We can get trapped in a negative loop without a concerted effort to move higher on the scale.

Since emotional improvement is the motivation for all action, and all emotion is a reaction to thought, we can see that thought is the realm of causality. This means that we purposefully defer action (verbal or physical) and remain in the realm of thought, progressing upward along the scale via self-talk before taking action. In other words, we can wait until we're in a better place before expressing ourselves through actions which have the power to shape our world.

And since emotion clues us in to the merit of our thought, the better feeling emotions reflect thoughts that are more in alignment with ultimate truth in some way. In this way, knowledge and understanding lead to better-feeling emotions, and ultimately wisdom, or right action. This can be difficult to discern. But when we feel rage against the opposing party, something about our thought is misaligned with truth. Maybe it's because we are seeing these people as evil, when in reality, they are only trying to seek higher states of emotion just like us. Their motivations are good in this sense, and so our perception of them as evil enemies with vastly different goals is inaccurate on a deeper level.

There is so much more to say, but I will not impose upon your patience any longer in this post. Use this scale to assess what you are feeling, and what emotional state you are trying to achieve by your actions. Use it to evaluate others. See if the described phenomenon accurately corresponds with your own experience and observation.

Thank you for considering these ideas, I hope they offer some preliminary insight into how this "thought --> emotion --> action" dynamic plays out in the political landscape.

BS. The Left are motivated by hate, they bask in it. The only time they are happy is when they know someone else is suffering.

It is why the left rarely meaningfully give to charity time or money.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

What is emotion? Have you ever heard a definitive answer to this question? Chemical reactions... well, yes, but what purpose does it serve? Fight or flight, human bonding for procreation... ok, but obviously it's more nuanced and influential than that.

I'd like to submit an idea for your review: Emotion is personal guidance. It exists as means for evaluating the merit of our thought.

Emotion is intrinsically linked to thought; it is a reaction to thought. You may be watching TV, feeling emotionally neutral, until you remember the big test, interview, or presentation tomorrow morning. Immediately upon having that thought, a flood of anxiety fills your body.

And thought need not always be overtly conscious. Sometimes there are lingering thoughts just behind our conscious awareness; thoughts that have not undergone the formality of being mentally vocalized, but are present nonetheless. In this case, the emotion will get our attention, even when the thought doesn't. We call this experience a "nagging feeling". Emotion is serving its purpose - cluing us in to the nature of our thoughts.

Humans are motivated by emotion. All human action is an effort to move to a more pleasing emotional state. Our political views are rooted in this effort as well. We perceive that if this massive construct affecting our lives called "government" operated in a way more in line with our desires, we would feel happier, safer, have more pride in our country, etc.

Here I will provide a chart that outlines the "Emotional Guidance Scale" (courtesy of Abraham Hicks). Items higher on the scale denote better-feeling emotions, while items lower on the scale denote worse emotional states:

Sometimes this phenomenon is not so obvious, like in the case of the person who abuses themselves. But upon closer inspection, we can see that the person is trying to move from feelings of guilt, for instance, to the relief experienced by the feelings of revenge against themselves. Even moving from one negative emotion to another negative emotion is motivated by the desire for improvement.

Unfortunately, much of our political views are born of a fear. Fear of what the opposing party will subject us to; fear of what foreign powers will unleash upon our country; etc. This is a very low emotional state, and though improvements sought through rage and resentment may serve to ease our pain temporarily, they are hardly the most desirable emotional states to reside within on an ongoing basis. We can get trapped in a negative loop without a concerted effort to move higher on the scale.

Since emotional improvement is the motivation for all action, and all emotion is a reaction to thought, we can see that thought is the realm of causality. This means that we purposefully defer action (verbal or physical) and remain in the realm of thought, progressing upward along the scale via self-talk before taking action. In other words, we can wait until we're in a better place before expressing ourselves through actions which have the power to shape our world.

And since emotion clues us in to the merit of our thought, the better feeling emotions reflect thoughts that are more in alignment with ultimate truth in some way. In this way, knowledge and understanding lead to better-feeling emotions, and ultimately wisdom, or right action. This can be difficult to discern. But when we feel rage against the opposing party, something about our thought is misaligned with truth. Maybe it's because we are seeing these people as evil, when in reality, they are only trying to seek higher states of emotion just like us. Their motivations are good in this sense, and so our perception of them as evil enemies with vastly different goals is inaccurate on a deeper level.

There is so much more to say, but I will not impose upon your patience any longer in this post. Use this scale to assess what you are feeling, and what emotional state you are trying to achieve by your actions. Use it to evaluate others. See if the described phenomenon accurately corresponds with your own experience and observation.

Thank you for considering these ideas, I hope they offer some preliminary insight into how this "thought --> emotion --> action" dynamic plays out in the political landscape.

Not going to bother reading all this because it's based on a false premise. Saying emotion affects political views is like saying water content affects moisture level. In this day and age emotions are political views.

 

[kiwiman127]

Was just thinking about this and how all the Leftist "Polls" and claims of looming defeat for the Right are designed to EMOTIONALLY defeat Right Wingers and keep them from the voting booths.

Unfortunately, it works on far too many.

Really?
Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
It's a fact that Republican politicians use fear to generate their base. The election of 2016's use of fear (which was their main tool), is stilling being implemented repeatedly today.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Are we trying to prove that human beings are psychologically directed animals, or merely educating those who remain ignorant of the obvious fact?

Mainly I’m trying to flesh-out precisely how this dynamic works; give specifics about which enotional states represent improvement relative to others. Also, I want to encourage people to ask “what thought is inspiring this emotion” and evaluate the validity of that thought, rather than just reaponding to the emotion with action. We can “skip” steps via our thought process to ensure that we are acting from a higher state. I also want to point out how knowledge and understanding is the path to a better internal, and subsequently external, world.

 

[there4eyeM]

Are we trying to prove that human beings are psychologically directed animals, or merely educating those who remain ignorant of the obvious fact?

Mainly I’m trying to flesh-out precisely how this dynamic works; give specifics about which enotional states represent improvement relative to others. Also, I want to encourage people to ask “what thought is inspiring this emotion” and evaluate the validity of that thought, rather than just reaponding to the emotion with action. We can “skip” steps via our thought process to ensure that we are acting from a higher state. I also want to point out how knowledge and understanding is the path to a better internal, and subsequently external, world.

We would have to begin by educating people about how, instead of what, to think. That is something society and 'the powers that be' definitely do not want.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What is emotion? Have you ever heard a definitive answer to this question? Chemical reactions... well, yes, but what purpose does it serve? Fight or flight, human bonding for procreation... ok, but obviously it's more nuanced and influential than that.

I'd like to submit an idea for your review: Emotion is personal guidance. It exists as means for evaluating the merit of our thought.

Emotion is intrinsically linked to thought; it is a reaction to thought. You may be watching TV, feeling emotionally neutral, until you remember the big test, interview, or presentation tomorrow morning. Immediately upon having that thought, a flood of anxiety fills your body.

And thought need not always be overtly conscious. Sometimes there are lingering thoughts just behind our conscious awareness; thoughts that have not undergone the formality of being mentally vocalized, but are present nonetheless. In this case, the emotion will get our attention, even when the thought doesn't. We call this experience a "nagging feeling". Emotion is serving its purpose - cluing us in to the nature of our thoughts.

Humans are motivated by emotion. All human action is an effort to move to a more pleasing emotional state. Our political views are rooted in this effort as well. We perceive that if this massive construct affecting our lives called "government" operated in a way more in line with our desires, we would feel happier, safer, have more pride in our country, etc.

Here I will provide a chart that outlines the "Emotional Guidance Scale" (courtesy of Abraham Hicks). Items higher on the scale denote better-feeling emotions, while items lower on the scale denote worse emotional states:

Sometimes this phenomenon is not so obvious, like in the case of the person who abuses themselves. But upon closer inspection, we can see that the person is trying to move from feelings of guilt, for instance, to the relief experienced by the feelings of revenge against themselves. Even moving from one negative emotion to another negative emotion is motivated by the desire for improvement.

Unfortunately, much of our political views are born of a fear. Fear of what the opposing party will subject us to; fear of what foreign powers will unleash upon our country; etc. This is a very low emotional state, and though improvements sought through rage and resentment may serve to ease our pain temporarily, they are hardly the most desirable emotional states to reside within on an ongoing basis. We can get trapped in a negative loop without a concerted effort to move higher on the scale.

Since emotional improvement is the motivation for all action, and all emotion is a reaction to thought, we can see that thought is the realm of causality. This means that we purposefully defer action (verbal or physical) and remain in the realm of thought, progressing upward along the scale via self-talk before taking action. In other words, we can wait until we're in a better place before expressing ourselves through actions which have the power to shape our world.

And since emotion clues us in to the merit of our thought, the better feeling emotions reflect thoughts that are more in alignment with ultimate truth in some way. In this way, knowledge and understanding lead to better-feeling emotions, and ultimately wisdom, or right action. This can be difficult to discern. But when we feel rage against the opposing party, something about our thought is misaligned with truth. Maybe it's because we are seeing these people as evil, when in reality, they are only trying to seek higher states of emotion just like us. Their motivations are good in this sense, and so our perception of them as evil enemies with vastly different goals is inaccurate on a deeper level.

There is so much more to say, but I will not impose upon your patience any longer in this post. Use this scale to assess what you are feeling, and what emotional state you are trying to achieve by your actions. Use it to evaluate others. See if the described phenomenon accurately corresponds with your own experience and observation.

Thank you for considering these ideas, I hope they offer some preliminary insight into how this "thought --> emotion --> action" dynamic plays out in the political landscape.

Not going to bother reading all this because it's based on a false premise. Saying emotion affects political views is like saying water content affects moisture level. In this day and age emotions are political views.

I suppose you’re being facetious, but I wish you wouldn’t discredit the post in that effort. I agree that many people are stuck in thought/emotion/action loops and never rise off the bottom of the scale, but there is no such thing as emotion (effect) without thought (cause), so no, emotions are not political views. It just seems that way because a lack of understanding about this process leads many to remain stagnant in a fear/anger loop.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We would have to begin by educating people about how,instead of what, to think. That is something society and 'the powers that be' definitely do not want.

I agree whole-heartedly. That is “the Great Work”.

I addressed that issue here:
How to think, learn and behave - The Ancient Trivium

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Was just thinking about this and how all the Leftist "Polls" and claims of looming defeat for the Right are designed to EMOTIONALLY defeat Right Wingers and keep them from the voting booths.

Unfortunately, it works on far too many.

Really?
Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
It's a fact that Republican politicians use fear to generate their base. The election of 2016's use of fear (which was their main tool), is stilling being implemented repeatedly today.

Fear is the primary tool of dominators and extortionists, regardless of what jersey they’re wearing. Without fear, it is very difficult to get people to give you power. Governmental authority in general cannot be maintained without fear, so party affiliation is not a relevant factor. I will be posting about that dynamic soon.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

What is emotion? Have you ever heard a definitive answer to this question? Chemical reactions... well, yes, but what purpose does it serve? Fight or flight, human bonding for procreation... ok, but obviously it's more nuanced and influential than that.

I'd like to submit an idea for your review: Emotion is personal guidance. It exists as means for evaluating the merit of our thought.

Emotion is intrinsically linked to thought; it is a reaction to thought. You may be watching TV, feeling emotionally neutral, until you remember the big test, interview, or presentation tomorrow morning. Immediately upon having that thought, a flood of anxiety fills your body.

And thought need not always be overtly conscious. Sometimes there are lingering thoughts just behind our conscious awareness; thoughts that have not undergone the formality of being mentally vocalized, but are present nonetheless. In this case, the emotion will get our attention, even when the thought doesn't. We call this experience a "nagging feeling". Emotion is serving its purpose - cluing us in to the nature of our thoughts.

Humans are motivated by emotion. All human action is an effort to move to a more pleasing emotional state. Our political views are rooted in this effort as well. We perceive that if this massive construct affecting our lives called "government" operated in a way more in line with our desires, we would feel happier, safer, have more pride in our country, etc.

Here I will provide a chart that outlines the "Emotional Guidance Scale" (courtesy of Abraham Hicks). Items higher on the scale denote better-feeling emotions, while items lower on the scale denote worse emotional states:

Sometimes this phenomenon is not so obvious, like in the case of the person who abuses themselves. But upon closer inspection, we can see that the person is trying to move from feelings of guilt, for instance, to the relief experienced by the feelings of revenge against themselves. Even moving from one negative emotion to another negative emotion is motivated by the desire for improvement.

Unfortunately, much of our political views are born of a fear. Fear of what the opposing party will subject us to; fear of what foreign powers will unleash upon our country; etc. This is a very low emotional state, and though improvements sought through rage and resentment may serve to ease our pain temporarily, they are hardly the most desirable emotional states to reside within on an ongoing basis. We can get trapped in a negative loop without a concerted effort to move higher on the scale.

Since emotional improvement is the motivation for all action, and all emotion is a reaction to thought, we can see that thought is the realm of causality. This means that we purposefully defer action (verbal or physical) and remain in the realm of thought, progressing upward along the scale via self-talk before taking action. In other words, we can wait until we're in a better place before expressing ourselves through actions which have the power to shape our world.

And since emotion clues us in to the merit of our thought, the better feeling emotions reflect thoughts that are more in alignment with ultimate truth in some way. In this way, knowledge and understanding lead to better-feeling emotions, and ultimately wisdom, or right action. This can be difficult to discern. But when we feel rage against the opposing party, something about our thought is misaligned with truth. Maybe it's because we are seeing these people as evil, when in reality, they are only trying to seek higher states of emotion just like us. Their motivations are good in this sense, and so our perception of them as evil enemies with vastly different goals is inaccurate on a deeper level.

There is so much more to say, but I will not impose upon your patience any longer in this post. Use this scale to assess what you are feeling, and what emotional state you are trying to achieve by your actions. Use it to evaluate others. See if the described phenomenon accurately corresponds with your own experience and observation.

Thank you for considering these ideas, I hope they offer some preliminary insight into how this "thought --> emotion --> action" dynamic plays out in the political landscape.

Not going to bother reading all this because it's based on a false premise. Saying emotion affects political views is like saying water content affects moisture level. In this day and age emotions are political views.

I suppose you’re being facetious, but I wish you wouldn’t discredit the post in that effort. I agree that many people are stuck in thought/emotion/action loops and never rise off the bottom of the scale, but there is no such thing as emotion (effect) without thought (cause), so no, emotions are not political views. It just seems that way because a lack of understanding about this process leads many to remain stagnant in a fear/anger loop.

Now you're really making no sense. Saying that emotions affect political views claims that political views are the consequent and that emotions are the cause. Now, you're saying that the emotions are the consequent, and are insisting that there is some hitherto unstated cause.

This is more than adequate to show that your grasp on cause and effect relationships is catastrophic.

 

[nat4900]

Trump has established his cult mostly based on FEAR....

Fear of darkies
Fear of someone wanting their precious guns
Fear of hordes of immigrants
Fear of environmentalists
Fear of Christmas been taken away....

etc.

 

[Markymark11]

Was just thinking about this and how all the Leftist "Polls" and claims of looming defeat for the Right are designed to EMOTIONALLY defeat Right Wingers and keep them from the voting booths.

Unfortunately, it works on far too many.

I remember Hillary celebrating with excitement hours before the final election numbers. Kinds scary how she was so confident she won, almost like she knew it was rigged.

 

[depotoo]

A sample of 28 participants, if all political beliefs, which none reported themselves as very conservative. I just have to laugh-


Although these results suggest a link between political atti- tudes and brain structure, it is important to note that the neural processes implicated are likely to reflect complex processes of the formation of political attitudes rather than a direct repre- sentation of political opinions per se. The conceptualizing and reasoning associated with the expression of political opinions is not necessarily limited to structures or functions of the regions we identified but will require the involvement of more widespread brain regions implicated in abstract thoughts and reasoning.
We speculate that the association of gray matter volume of the amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex with political atti- tudes that we observed may reflect emotional and cognitive traits of individuals that influence their inclination to certain political orientations.

Was just thinking about this and how all the Leftist "Polls" and claims of looming defeat for the Right are designed to EMOTIONALLY defeat Right Wingers and keep them from the voting booths.

Unfortunately, it works on far too many.

Really?
Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
It's a fact that Republican politicians use fear to generate their base. The election of 2016's use of fear (which was their main tool), is stilling being implemented repeatedly today.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"powerlessness, unworthiness and shame"

^^^^Drives the anti Trump hatred

 

[kiwiman127]

Was just thinking about this and how all the Leftist "Polls" and claims of looming defeat for the Right are designed to EMOTIONALLY defeat Right Wingers and keep them from the voting booths.

Unfortunately, it works on far too many.

Really?
Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
It's a fact that Republican politicians use fear to generate their base. The election of 2016's use of fear (which was their main tool), is stilling being implemented repeatedly today.

Fear is the primary tool of dominators and extortionists, regardless of what jersey they’re wearing. Without fear, it is very difficult to get people to give you power. Governmental authority in general cannot be maintained without fear, so party affiliation is not a relevant factor. I will be posting about that dynamic soon.

Yet multiple studies, show that conservatives show are more susceptible to fear than liberals. Just as liberals are more susceptible to empathy.
I am sure liberals too, can be motivated by fear but more so so by empathy, which is confirmed by studies.. Each political party, targets their base's main triggers.

 

[OldLady]

What is emotion? Have you ever heard a definitive answer to this question? Chemical reactions... well, yes, but what purpose does it serve? Fight or flight, human bonding for procreation... ok, but obviously it's more nuanced and influential than that.

I'd like to submit an idea for your review: Emotion is personal guidance. It exists as means for evaluating the merit of our thought.

Emotion is intrinsically linked to thought; it is a reaction to thought. You may be watching TV, feeling emotionally neutral, until you remember the big test, interview, or presentation tomorrow morning. Immediately upon having that thought, a flood of anxiety fills your body.

And thought need not always be overtly conscious. Sometimes there are lingering thoughts just behind our conscious awareness; thoughts that have not undergone the formality of being mentally vocalized, but are present nonetheless. In this case, the emotion will get our attention, even when the thought doesn't. We call this experience a "nagging feeling". Emotion is serving its purpose - cluing us in to the nature of our thoughts.

Humans are motivated by emotion. All human action is an effort to move to a more pleasing emotional state. Our political views are rooted in this effort as well. We perceive that if this massive construct affecting our lives called "government" operated in a way more in line with our desires, we would feel happier, safer, have more pride in our country, etc.

Here I will provide a chart that outlines the "Emotional Guidance Scale" (courtesy of Abraham Hicks). Items higher on the scale denote better-feeling emotions, while items lower on the scale denote worse emotional states:

Sometimes this phenomenon is not so obvious, like in the case of the person who abuses themselves. But upon closer inspection, we can see that the person is trying to move from feelings of guilt, for instance, to the relief experienced by the feelings of revenge against themselves. Even moving from one negative emotion to another negative emotion is motivated by the desire for improvement.

Unfortunately, much of our political views are born of a fear. Fear of what the opposing party will subject us to; fear of what foreign powers will unleash upon our country; etc. This is a very low emotional state, and though improvements sought through rage and resentment may serve to ease our pain temporarily, they are hardly the most desirable emotional states to reside within on an ongoing basis. We can get trapped in a negative loop without a concerted effort to move higher on the scale.

Since emotional improvement is the motivation for all action, and all emotion is a reaction to thought, we can see that thought is the realm of causality. This means that we purposefully defer action (verbal or physical) and remain in the realm of thought, progressing upward along the scale via self-talk before taking action. In other words, we can wait until we're in a better place before expressing ourselves through actions which have the power to shape our world.

And since emotion clues us in to the merit of our thought, the better feeling emotions reflect thoughts that are more in alignment with ultimate truth in some way. In this way, knowledge and understanding lead to better-feeling emotions, and ultimately wisdom, or right action. This can be difficult to discern. But when we feel rage against the opposing party, something about our thought is misaligned with truth. Maybe it's because we are seeing these people as evil, when in reality, they are only trying to seek higher states of emotion just like us. Their motivations are good in this sense, and so our perception of them as evil enemies with vastly different goals is inaccurate on a deeper level.

There is so much more to say, but I will not impose upon your patience any longer in this post. Use this scale to assess what you are feeling, and what emotional state you are trying to achieve by your actions. Use it to evaluate others. See if the described phenomenon accurately corresponds with your own experience and observation.

Thank you for considering these ideas, I hope they offer some preliminary insight into how this "thought --> emotion --> action" dynamic plays out in the political landscape.

Emotion is intrinsically linked to thought;
Humans are motivated by emotion.
Thank you for that, Brian. I believe emotion is as much a part of our perceptions and thoughts as any other ideas we have. Yet I am frequently criticized and dismissed for presenting an "emotional" argument, whether it be about guns, global warming, refugees, welfare benefits.... I know how to write emotionally, and when I specifically don't write emotionally but present facts, I am still mocked for presenting an emotional argument.

Emotions seem to be anathema to a lot of people here, but they don't recognize that they are being just as "emotional" as anyone else (especially the ones who want to shoot me--lol). It is part of who we are.

Since I tend to uphold optimism and hope, it would seem I'm headed in the right direction, but that is still mud in certain circles.
So anyway, if I haven't gone too far off track, thanks.

 

[Some Guy]

Yet multiple studies, show that conservatives show are more susceptible to fear than liberals. Just as liberals are more susceptible to empathy.
I am sure liberals too, can be motivated by fear but more so so by empathy, which is confirmed by studies.. Each political party, targets their base's main triggers.

Both sides deal in catering to the negative emotions on the provided scale. Fear, guilt, shame, powerlessness, rage, jealousy, greed. Any argument for your side that focuses on why the other side is wrong/bad is automatically dealing in the emotions i just listed above in some capacity. All you see on the networks and news coverage in general is just that: why the other side is bad and thus can't be given or shouldn't maintain power.

I've had a lot more fun with political topics since trying to dig beneath the day-to-day and get into the various philosophies that inform political opinion. Through that, i've questioned some of my political thoughts and strengthened others. It's much more interesting and largely devoid of those negative emotions. In listening to some really good thinkers talk on different subjects, i'm mostly feeling a range from apathy (-1) to enthusiasm (+8) depending on what the conversation is about.

And as Brian notes, this is just a guide to understanding the emotions of yourself but also the other side of your particular argument. I don't feel much anger toward people who disagree politically with me. I can understand their positions better and understand better why they think what they think (and thus feel what they feel), even if they're wrong. It's a much better way to be than being angry at someone else for their opinions all the time.

 

[Mac1958]

Yet multiple studies, show that conservatives show are more susceptible to fear than liberals. Just as liberals are more susceptible to empathy.
I am sure liberals too, can be motivated by fear but more so so by empathy, which is confirmed by studies.. Each political party, targets their base's main triggers.

Both sides deal in catering to the negative emotions on the provided scale. Fear, guilt, shame, powerlessness, rage, jealousy, greed. Any argument for your side that focuses on why the other side is wrong/bad is automatically dealing in the emotions i just listed above in some capacity. All you see on the networks and news coverage in general is just that: why the other side is bad and thus can't be given or shouldn't maintain power.

I've had a lot more fun with political topics since trying to dig beneath the day-to-day and get into the various philosophies that inform political opinion. Through that, i've questioned some of my political thoughts and strengthened others. It's much more interesting and largely devoid of those negative emotions. In listening to some really good thinkers talk on different subjects, i'm mostly feeling a range from apathy (-1) to enthusiasm (+8) depending on what the conversation is about.

And as Brian notes, this is just a guide to understanding the emotions of yourself but also the other side of your particular argument. I don't feel much anger toward people who disagree politically with me. I can understand their positions better and understand better why they think what they think (and thus feel what they feel), even if they're wrong. It's a much better way to be than being angry at someone else for their opinions all the time.

Seems to me that we as a society have in recent years tied more and more of our self esteem to tribalism, to politics. My side is always right and your side is always wrong. I can not and will not give an inch, because communication is capitulation.

This seems like some kind of collective emotional breakdown, in which we just cannot bear to open our minds to anything that challenges us. Yeah, that's an emotional issue.
.