Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 15,713
- 27,669
- 2,430
Research Confirms the Stereotype: Liberals Confuse Emotion With Rationality
Research Confirms the Stereotype: Liberals Confuse Emotion With Rationality - The New American
Liberals are not only more likely than conservatives to suppose that “emotion is a feature of rationality,” a series of three studies has shown, but also apparently believe it should be. In fact, they consider emotions more “functional” (utilitarian, essentially) than conservatives do despite...
thenewamerican.com
Liberals are not only more likely than conservatives to suppose that “emotion is a feature of rationality,” a series of three studies has shown, but also apparently believe it should be. In fact, they consider emotions more “functional” (utilitarian, essentially) than conservatives do despite reporting less emotional well-being.
The research was published in the journal Motivation and Emotion. Defining “functional” as “beneficial for individuals for adapting to the environment or attaining their goals,” the authors write in their abstract (summary):
Relying on feelings to guide thoughts and plans may be functional from the perspective of the individual but threaten the cohesion of social groups. Thus, liberals, who prioritize caring and fairness for individuals, may view emotion as more functional than do conservatives, who prioritize preserving social groups, hierarchies, and institutions. To test this, participants in three studies (total N = 1,355) rated political partisanship, beliefs about the functionality of emotion, and well-being.… Across all studies, the more liberal participants were, the more they viewed emotion as functional, despite reporting less emotional well-being…. These results suggest that emotion is viewed as more functional by those who prioritize the needs of individuals, but as less functional by those who prioritize the cohesion of social groups.
Note that these characterizations of liberals and conservatives are suspect. Consider that liberals don’t in a blanket sense actually prioritize “the needs of individuals” (while confusing needs with wants); they don’t, for example, care much about the “needs” of those opposing their politically correct agenda. Rather, leftists today try to “cancel” them for the very purpose of achieving “the cohesion of [woke] social groups.” But I digress.
~Snip~
This relates to something the research paper authors stated. Asserting that our civilization has traditionally valued stoicism and discouraged emotionalism, they relate that recent “academic approaches, while acknowledging that emotions are not always helpful, portray emotion as an essential suite of processes that evolved to guide people’s thoughts and plans in a manner that helps them achieve their goals.”
Providing an example, the authors write that “anger directs people’s attention to, and motivates them to overcome, obstacles to their goals.” Precisely. In this case, anger is the fuel that “motivates” (moves) them to act on what, if the goal is valid, is a rational aim that would pass intellectual muster. In certain instances, this may even be what we call “righteous anger.”
The authors provide as another example that “[f]ear motivates people to avoid danger.” True, but it can also inhibit people from taking risks necessary to advance the common good or, even, from pursuing beneficial endeavors that don’t in reality pose danger; the latter case is known as irrational fear.
We can only know the difference, too, between rational and irrational fears by applying rationality — that which accords with reason — which is done via the intellect.
~Snip~
Our time’s exaltation of emotion and frequent subordination of reason to it — e.g., the recent story about how the Washington state Department of Health’s climate curriculum counsels teachers to emphasize “emotions” over “rational thinking” — constitute movement toward a childish or even animalistic state.
And that today’s liberals epitomize this explains why some have likened them to over-sized children, who’ve grown up but not wise, with an age of reason ever lying somewhere beyond the normal lifespan.
Commentary:
As usual, Maoist/DSA Democrats have it exactly backwards. Emotion is the antithesis of Reason.
The sequence of responses as usually understood, begins with a perception of a stimulus in the external world. The meaning of the perception is based on interpretation, a cognitive process which may or may not be rational. The emotional response follows, conforming with the meaning of the interpretation. This is where liberals go astray: they assume that since the emotion fits their interpretation of what’s going on, it must mean they are right.(“it just feels right.”) They don’t realize it is all based on what is too often ideologically distorted interpretation way up the chain.
When conservatives remind us that “facts don’t care about your feelings,” they are making a mentally healthy corrective observation. Naturally, to avoid cognitive dissonance, the observation is furiously opposed.
Those who attend self-help groups and are told by therapists have come to know this well....as a needed reminder":
"Feelings are Not Facts".
