Personality Cafe banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
223 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
How do you think emotion and intellect are related?

Intellectuals have a tendency to think that emotion and intellect should be separate in order for the intellect to become more productive. I've found the opposite (in my own experience).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
I think that when you separate emotion and intellect, often times people loose sight of things. Such as tact, being respectful, or polite. Such as doling out criticism in a harsh manner doesn't make it more "smart" than giving it to someone with a softer tone. Both people prove their point.

However, there are times that people let their emotions cloud their judgment and sometimes their intake of new information or facts.

Personally, I think that they need to be balanced. Otherwise you end up with one extreme or another. And like most extremes, it isn't good. I believe that once a person learns to interpret, decipher, and appreciate how they work together in a harmonious fashion, not only do we become better people, we become wiser.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Interesting topic. :happy:

Emotions may be used in fueling certain intellectual pursuits, I guess. A better quality is achieved.

This could also backfire, of course; control is key?

When you think about it though, emotion and control hmmmmmm. Doesn't one negate the other? :crazy:


Creative pursuits, now, that's a different matter. :crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
There are at least 7 (if not 9) intelligences in this world of ours, about half of which disappear if emotion is eradicated and eliminated. Yes, this leaves room for the "objectivity of logic" to function a little easier, but tbh, I find logic to be much more subjective than it claims to be (most of the time--not always) because it depends on how its used. Tho, I'm not undermining it, I think there are some people who over-emphasize its usefulness.

Anways, to make correct judgements about people, situations, problems, etc. both logic and emotion need to come into play. You simply can't make complete since out of an issue if you use only emotion or if you only use logic (ever heard of a friend making an error of thinking, but not of feeling [or vice versa]?)--you only have a partial picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
I second imru2 in that the prevalence of each should strike something of a balance. Though I feel that in any given situation, one should probably be given a greater nod than the other.

Neither should be neglected. I generally place greater importance on intellect if made to choose. But life becomes rather pointless if feelings never come into play. We'd all be rigid robots =[.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
I personally think there's more factors than either intellect or emotion that plays into mind of what is important. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive and extremes of either will exist regardless of what is important. In addition what is important remains subjective yet what is important *is* important. I shall now demonstrate relation *swallows red pill*.

The most optimal answer would of course be a "balance" because it sounds logical. Yet now I question the status quo of such thing of why it's considered to be a balance and it could be considered "idiotic". Maybe it's idiotic and far from important but the matter of choice I'm opening up a possibility to see things a different way. As I question it a reaction would come up by the one who reads it.

I attempt to neither use intellect or emotion to "think outside of the box". It will mostly be frowned upon as it doesn't match the common sense of others. You didn't take into consideration of the ability to think outside the box and in the same way as I didn't take into consideration other factors that I don't know of. Well actually maybe you did but I wouldn't know. Yet in reality there's no such thing as a box that I am in and if you take my words in literal terms you'll probably think that I'm some sort of nutjob that needs to be placed in a prison (which in a way, is a box). I have one definition of nutjob and you have a definition of nutjob.

Perhaps the ability to "think outside of the box" in the medieval times where considered to be lunatic because you know in those times what was important that you had a large piece of land or a large sack of nuts and certainly didn't your ability to think outside of the box take into consideration by anybody. Yeah a good balance would be the ability to have a moderate piece of land and sack of nuts. A good balance indeed -- and if you had anything of these two extremes you were frowned upon but your ability to think outside of the box remain unnoticed and hence not important because it weren't taken into consideration -- it weren't important for anybody else and the matter of what was important was more important. Hell you didn't see those virtues and vice things come up for nothing. Your concept of "important" was subjective. (wait! that weren't my sack of nuts!)

We take it for granted that it's a matter of balance and we convey focus on that which sounds best. We form a conclusion about that we know of but we do not take into conclusion that which we don't know of. Perhaps I take the ability to be introspective as a thing that "is a matter of importance" -- perhaps even more important and while in the process of doing so I ignore other factors that I didn't knew of -- I thought I was "right". Now I form two extremes -- the ability to be patient and the ability to be confused. Now set a "balance". Damn you if you aren't both confused and patient.

Perhaps something more important that I didn't convey focus on was lying somewhere I didn't knew. But that doesn't matter does it? It's a matter of balance after all of the factors that I did take into consideration. Maybe you formed a very high bias without even being aware of it -- perhaps a bias of what others considered a matter of no bias. Yet the conclusion remains there while we search for other more sort of "important" things such important things that we deem important of what we value. Like climbing the social ladder, gaining power or getting a faster car -- yeah that's more important isn't it? So long as what is important follows these values things are important... everything else that I don't deem important is an obstacle to overcome or if anything not even notice those things if they aren't in the way... right?

There are more than just one type of intellect and emotion. Even though there might be different intellect and we've been trying to categorize it remains that we know very little about ourselves. I would say that the reason we know so little is one of our advantages because if we didn't we'll never find anything new. We come to the conclusion that neither these types of intellects are "separated" from each other and finally rather as a whole in some kind of way. Not as an intellect or emotion but as a person or a living being. Maybe one month ahead you'll come to a different conclusion. But why should you think about this problem one month ahead?

For example say if there is a certain problem that needs to be taken care of. Two of the opposing sides are arguing to death without coming to a single conclusion. Yet when I come up with a sort of statement that contradicts the common sense of the norm it will be considered too much of a "risk" and for some strange reason just when I communicate such statement the problem is withdrawn. The possible suggestion and statement I came up with didn't satisfy the values and common sense of others most likely because they didn't know where I was coming from. Perhaps I wasn't too cool enough. If I were your best friend maybe your reaction would be different.

You wonder why did I get that off tangent anyway -- you deem that unimportant while what I deem that important. I have this concept of "Skvbilsd". I don't know what you are talking about to the exact terms either when you use such human made concepts such as "intellect" and "emotion" since our definition of such might be different. You would ask me what my definition of "Skvbilsd" was and ask me to elaborate. Well apparently the concept of intellect for me could be emotion and the concept of emotion could be intellect. But now when we're talking about the discussion at hand we come to the conclusion that it's not a matter of either that is important. We could for example now deem the concept of "Skvbilsd" more important than the concept of either emotion or intellect -- this tells us something.

Just look at the society today -- neither extreme empathy or extreme intellect are valued and of course we could wonder why it is such as this. Yet It's funny to admit that when there's now no clear definition of what is either empathy or intellect is we subconsciously choose to "not make it too extreme" and frown upon our own created concepts of such that weren't clear.

We'll always find a flaw at another being just so long as it follows our values. I could for example say that if you aren't good at math you are not good in my book. Or if you don't have the same haircut as me. But then if I notice that you haven't the same values as me then you should go fix it right? Because I'm right aren't I? It were in my "book" that these things were important and they were scrutinized to the point of no regard to others.

For example being a sociopath would be *important* and being kind to others wouldn't because you know being a sociopath would most likely bring you power and climbing the social ladder. Being kind is of no important and hence if it isn't important and if it doesn't follow the universal rule of what is *important* it isn't important isn't it? We've come to the *conclusion* that it is like this but is it really? You didn't see it coming.

The other flaws are deficiency that should be "cured" or be "balanced" right? It "sounds" right but *is* it right? Think a little while about that. I might magnify the problem and you'll say "don't be so serious" and that would be a reaction that didn't fit your common sense and after a while it's time to withdraw from the problem -- it's not worth the effort is it? But yet perhaps my statement weren't serious in intent and you took it as serious while at the same time something other statement you choose to admit to were in fact dead serious but you perceived it as "not" serious and because of that makes my validity of my statement none because it didn't follow your measure of "don't take it so seriously"... but I don't take it seriously but you didn't take that into your consideration of factors... and perhaps the one you think was not serious was indeed serious.. but you didn't know the factors... or perhaps it weren't important... to you.

I would say search deep within yourself because you are a part of the world and you have the ability to affect it and many factors are at play so please question and reflect once more about your actions and self. People aren't static. The experiences that you could hold of much value might be of importance but don't disregard others experiences if you don't deem them as not important. It's not only a matter of improving oneself but rather something else... of course if I would give you that answer if I had it. Even if I gave you my answer would you accept it? Would it matter -- to you? Of course don't listen to me -- I'm regarded as somebody without common sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
422 Posts
How do you think emotion and intellect are related?

Intellectuals have a tendency to think that emotion and intellect should be separate in order for the intellect to become more productive. I've found the opposite.
I would agree with you, though it depends on the situation

Doctors for example need to be empathic and professional in their consultations with their patients, but when it comes down to doing their job on the medical basis alone, they sometimes have to cut of their emotions to be able to do it I think.

Balance as had been said before is definitely the best thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
204 Posts
I personally think there's more factors than either intellect or emotion that plays into mind of what is important. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive and extremes of either will exist regardless of what is important. In addition what is important remains subjective yet what is important *is* important. I shall now demonstrate relation *swallows red pill*.

The most optimal answer would of course be a "balance" because it sounds logical. Yet now I question the status quo of such thing of why it's considered to be a balance and it could be considered "idiotic". Maybe it's idiotic and far from important but the matter of choice I'm opening up a possibility to see things a different way. As I question it a reaction would come up by the one who reads it.

I attempt to neither use intellect or emotion to "think outside of the box". It will mostly be frowned upon as it doesn't match the common sense of others. You didn't take into consideration of the ability to think outside the box and in the same way as I didn't take into consideration other factors that I don't know of. Well actually maybe you did but I wouldn't know. Yet in reality there's no such thing as a box that I am in and if you take my words in literal terms you'll probably think that I'm some sort of nutjob that needs to be placed in a prison (which in a way, is a box). I have one definition of nutjob and you have a definition of nutjob.

Perhaps the ability to "think outside of the box" in the medieval times where considered to be lunatic because you know in those times what was important that you had a large piece of land or a large sack of nuts and certainly didn't your ability to think outside of the box take into consideration by anybody. Yeah a good balance would be the ability to have a moderate piece of land and sack of nuts. A good balance indeed -- and if you had anything of these two extremes you were frowned upon but your ability to think outside of the box remain unnoticed and hence not important because it weren't taken into consideration -- it weren't important for anybody else and the matter of what was important was more important. Hell you didn't see those virtues and vice things come up for nothing. Your concept of "important" was subjective. (wait! that weren't my sack of nuts!)

We take it for granted that it's a matter of balance and we convey focus on that which sounds best. We form a conclusion about that we know of but we do not take into conclusion that which we don't know of. Perhaps I take the ability to be introspective as a thing that "is a matter of importance" -- perhaps even more important and while in the process of doing so I ignore other factors that I didn't knew of -- I thought I was "right". Now I form two extremes -- the ability to be patient and the ability to be confused. Now set a "balance". Damn you if you aren't both confused and patient.

Perhaps something more important that I didn't convey focus on was lying somewhere I didn't knew. But that doesn't matter does it? It's a matter of balance after all of the factors that I did take into consideration. Maybe you formed a very high bias without even being aware of it -- perhaps a bias of what others considered a matter of no bias. Yet the conclusion remains there while we search for other more sort of "important" things such important things that we deem important of what we value. Like climbing the social ladder, gaining power or getting a faster car -- yeah that's more important isn't it? So long as what is important follows these values things are important... everything else that I don't deem important is an obstacle to overcome or if anything not even notice those things if they aren't in the way... right?

There are more than just one type of intellect and emotion. Even though there might be different intellect and we've been trying to categorize it remains that we know very little about ourselves. I would say that the reason we know so little is one of our advantages because if we didn't we'll never find anything new. We come to the conclusion that neither these types of intellects are "separated" from each other and finally rather as a whole in some kind of way. Not as an intellect or emotion but as a person or a living being. Maybe one month ahead you'll come to a different conclusion. But why should you think about this problem one month ahead?

For example say if there is a certain problem that needs to be taken care of. Two of the opposing sides are arguing to death without coming to a single conclusion. Yet when I come up with a sort of statement that contradicts the common sense of the norm it will be considered too much of a "risk" and for some strange reason just when I communicate such statement the problem is withdrawn. The possible suggestion and statement I came up with didn't satisfy the values and common sense of others most likely because they didn't know where I was coming from. Perhaps I wasn't too cool enough. If I were your best friend maybe your reaction would be different.

You wonder why did I get that off tangent anyway -- you deem that unimportant while what I deem that important. I have this concept of "Skvbilsd". I don't know what you are talking about to the exact terms either when you use such human made concepts such as "intellect" and "emotion" since our definition of such might be different. You would ask me what my definition of "Skvbilsd" was and ask me to elaborate. Well apparently the concept of intellect for me could be emotion and the concept of emotion could be intellect. But now when we're talking about the discussion at hand we come to the conclusion that it's not a matter of either that is important. We could for example now deem the concept of "Skvbilsd" more important than the concept of either emotion or intellect -- this tells us something.

Just look at the society today -- neither extreme empathy or extreme intellect are valued and of course we could wonder why it is such as this. Yet It's funny to admit that when there's now no clear definition of what is either empathy or intellect is we subconsciously choose to "not make it too extreme" and frown upon our own created concepts of such that weren't clear.

We'll always find a flaw at another being just so long as it follows our values. I could for example say that if you aren't good at math you are not good in my book. Or if you don't have the same haircut as me. But then if I notice that you haven't the same values as me then you should go fix it right? Because I'm right aren't I? It were in my "book" that these things were important and they were scrutinized to the point of no regard to others.

For example being a sociopath would be *important* and being kind to others wouldn't because you know being a sociopath would most likely bring you power and climbing the social ladder. Being kind is of no important and hence if it isn't important and if it doesn't follow the universal rule of what is *important* it isn't important isn't it? We've come to the *conclusion* that it is like this but is it really? You didn't see it coming.

The other flaws are deficiency that should be "cured" or be "balanced" right? It "sounds" right but *is* it right? Think a little while about that. I might magnify the problem and you'll say "don't be so serious" and that would be a reaction that didn't fit your common sense and after a while it's time to withdraw from the problem -- it's not worth the effort is it? But yet perhaps my statement weren't serious in intent and you took it as serious while at the same time something other statement you choose to admit to were in fact dead serious but you perceived it as "not" serious and because of that makes my validity of my statement none because it didn't follow your measure of "don't take it so seriously"... but I don't take it seriously but you didn't take that into your consideration of factors... and perhaps the one you think was not serious was indeed serious.. but you didn't know the factors... or perhaps it weren't important... to you.

I would say search deep within yourself because you are a part of the world and you have the ability to affect it and many factors are at play so please question and reflect once more about your actions and self. People aren't static. The experiences that you could hold of much value might be of importance but don't disregard others experiences if you don't deem them as not important. It's not only a matter of improving oneself but rather something else... of course if I would give you that answer if I had it. Even if I gave you my answer would you accept it? Would it matter -- to you? Of course don't listen to me -- I'm regarded as somebody without common sense.
Wow. Kysinor, I feel like I'm cheating you out of $15.99 if I read this book without paying for it :wink:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
223 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I personally think there's more factors than either intellect or emotion that plays into mind of what is important. I don't think these things are mutually exclusive and extremes of either will exist regardless of what is important. In addition what is important remains subjective yet what is important *is* important. I shall now demonstrate relation *swallows red pill*.

The most optimal answer would of course be a "balance" because it sounds logical. Yet now I question the status quo of such thing of why it's considered to be a balance and it could be considered "idiotic". Maybe it's idiotic and far from important but the matter of choice I'm opening up a possibility to see things a different way. As I question it a reaction would come up by the one who reads it.

I attempt to neither use intellect or emotion to "think outside of the box". It will mostly be frowned upon as it doesn't match the common sense of others. You didn't take into consideration of the ability to think outside the box and in the same way as I didn't take into consideration other factors that I don't know of. Well actually maybe you did but I wouldn't know. Yet in reality there's no such thing as a box that I am in and if you take my words in literal terms you'll probably think that I'm some sort of nutjob that needs to be placed in a prison (which in a way, is a box). I have one definition of nutjob and you have a definition of nutjob.

Perhaps the ability to "think outside of the box" in the medieval times where considered to be lunatic because you know in those times what was important that you had a large piece of land or a large sack of nuts and certainly didn't your ability to think outside of the box take into consideration by anybody. Yeah a good balance would be the ability to have a moderate piece of land and sack of nuts. A good balance indeed -- and if you had anything of these two extremes you were frowned upon but your ability to think outside of the box remain unnoticed and hence not important because it weren't taken into consideration -- it weren't important for anybody else and the matter of what was important was more important. Hell you didn't see those virtues and vice things come up for nothing. Your concept of "important" was subjective. (wait! that weren't my sack of nuts!)

We take it for granted that it's a matter of balance and we convey focus on that which sounds best. We form a conclusion about that we know of but we do not take into conclusion that which we don't know of. Perhaps I take the ability to be introspective as a thing that "is a matter of importance" -- perhaps even more important and while in the process of doing so I ignore other factors that I didn't knew of -- I thought I was "right". Now I form two extremes -- the ability to be patient and the ability to be confused. Now set a "balance". Damn you if you aren't both confused and patient.

Perhaps something more important that I didn't convey focus on was lying somewhere I didn't knew. But that doesn't matter does it? It's a matter of balance after all of the factors that I did take into consideration. Maybe you formed a very high bias without even being aware of it -- perhaps a bias of what others considered a matter of no bias. Yet the conclusion remains there while we search for other more sort of "important" things such important things that we deem important of what we value. Like climbing the social ladder, gaining power or getting a faster car -- yeah that's more important isn't it? So long as what is important follows these values things are important... everything else that I don't deem important is an obstacle to overcome or if anything not even notice those things if they aren't in the way... right?

There are more than just one type of intellect and emotion. Even though there might be different intellect and we've been trying to categorize it remains that we know very little about ourselves. I would say that the reason we know so little is one of our advantages because if we didn't we'll never find anything new. We come to the conclusion that neither these types of intellects are "separated" from each other and finally rather as a whole in some kind of way. Not as an intellect or emotion but as a person or a living being. Maybe one month ahead you'll come to a different conclusion. But why should you think about this problem one month ahead?

For example say if there is a certain problem that needs to be taken care of. Two of the opposing sides are arguing to death without coming to a single conclusion. Yet when I come up with a sort of statement that contradicts the common sense of the norm it will be considered too much of a "risk" and for some strange reason just when I communicate such statement the problem is withdrawn. The possible suggestion and statement I came up with didn't satisfy the values and common sense of others most likely because they didn't know where I was coming from. Perhaps I wasn't too cool enough. If I were your best friend maybe your reaction would be different.

You wonder why did I get that off tangent anyway -- you deem that unimportant while what I deem that important. I have this concept of "Skvbilsd". I don't know what you are talking about to the exact terms either when you use such human made concepts such as "intellect" and "emotion" since our definition of such might be different. You would ask me what my definition of "Skvbilsd" was and ask me to elaborate. Well apparently the concept of intellect for me could be emotion and the concept of emotion could be intellect. But now when we're talking about the discussion at hand we come to the conclusion that it's not a matter of either that is important. We could for example now deem the concept of "Skvbilsd" more important than the concept of either emotion or intellect -- this tells us something.

Just look at the society today -- neither extreme empathy or extreme intellect are valued and of course we could wonder why it is such as this. Yet It's funny to admit that when there's now no clear definition of what is either empathy or intellect is we subconsciously choose to "not make it too extreme" and frown upon our own created concepts of such that weren't clear.

We'll always find a flaw at another being just so long as it follows our values. I could for example say that if you aren't good at math you are not good in my book. Or if you don't have the same haircut as me. But then if I notice that you haven't the same values as me then you should go fix it right? Because I'm right aren't I? It were in my "book" that these things were important and they were scrutinized to the point of no regard to others.

For example being a sociopath would be *important* and being kind to others wouldn't because you know being a sociopath would most likely bring you power and climbing the social ladder. Being kind is of no important and hence if it isn't important and if it doesn't follow the universal rule of what is *important* it isn't important isn't it? We've come to the *conclusion* that it is like this but is it really? You didn't see it coming.

The other flaws are deficiency that should be "cured" or be "balanced" right? It "sounds" right but *is* it right? Think a little while about that. I might magnify the problem and you'll say "don't be so serious" and that would be a reaction that didn't fit your common sense and after a while it's time to withdraw from the problem -- it's not worth the effort is it? But yet perhaps my statement weren't serious in intent and you took it as serious while at the same time something other statement you choose to admit to were in fact dead serious but you perceived it as "not" serious and because of that makes my validity of my statement none because it didn't follow your measure of "don't take it so seriously"... but I don't take it seriously but you didn't take that into your consideration of factors... and perhaps the one you think was not serious was indeed serious.. but you didn't know the factors... or perhaps it weren't important... to you.

I would say search deep within yourself because you are a part of the world and you have the ability to affect it and many factors are at play so please question and reflect once more about your actions and self. People aren't static. The experiences that you could hold of much value might be of importance but don't disregard others experiences if you don't deem them as not important. It's not only a matter of improving oneself but rather something else... of course if I would give you that answer if I had it. Even if I gave you my answer would you accept it? Would it matter -- to you? Of course don't listen to me -- I'm regarded as somebody without common sense.
In other words, truth is relative. :dry:
 

·
Iron Fist
Joined
·
3,684 Posts
Sometimes an emotion is the driving force to gain the knowledge.

1 Example of many;

Curiosity is an emotion related to natural inquisitive behaviour such as exploration, investigation, and learning, evident by observation in human and many animal species. The term can also be used to denote the behavior itself being caused by the emotion of curiosity. As this emotion represents a drive to know new things, curiosity is the fuel of science and all other disciplines of human study.Curiosity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robots need external programming.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
223 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Yes, this leaves room for the "objectivity of logic" to function a little easier, but tbh, I find logic to be much more subjective than it claims to be (most of the time--not always) because it depends on how its used. Tho, I'm not undermining it, I think there are some people who over-emphasize its usefulness.
It often seems that true intellectual engagement cannot take place without putting aside emotional involvement, since logic and reason over feeling and emotion should be considered the foundation for making and supporting good argument. But this, I believe, is a fallacy. We've long accepted the idea that feeling is antithetical to logic and reason, or we've been told that they are not good complements. It's one or the other. It has been repeated so often over the centuries that it is accepted as fact. This was used to render women "weaker" than men. So, the argument goes, women are too emotional or subjective and not capable of seeing reason (of course).

In fact, the connection between intellect and emotion depends on the individual. For some, intellectual engagement is enhanced by their emotional involvement in the subject or issue. For others, emotions are a hindrance or a curse, because of the degree to which they are affected by it. Everyone is affected by emotion differently. For some, it's a positive, for others, not so much.

Emotion is easily misunderstood.

But, unfortunately, there is a belief in this false general rule that emotions and intellectual productivity are not highly compatible.

It's pretty sad we believe that. :frustrating:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
188 Posts
I like to think of my intelligence as driven by emotion, but when my emotions might end up causing me trouble, I put them under strict control. Certainly the two rely on each other, but it's how you use them that makes you what you are.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
How do you think emotion and intellect are related?

Intellectuals have a tendency to think that emotion and intellect should be separate in order for the intellect to become more productive. I've found the opposite (in my own experience).
Its called balance, everything in proportion. Too much emotions will block out your thinking, and too much thinking will block out your emotions. Its not healthy to separate these two because then you will have unrational emotions, and yes there is such thing. And thinking without emotions in a social setting will make you appear cold and distant, who wants to talk to a stiff dick?
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top