At what point does someone's opinion define them ?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Good grief... I'm at a bit of a loss what to say at this stage.

They are. Look up reason in a dictionary and let us know if that's how you arrive at your emotions. I've grasped what you're saying, it's just that it's nonsense.

Um.... look... there are various ways one can arrive at their emotions... and yes sometimes it is cognitive and sometimes it is not.

You haven't at all grasped it because you are falling into the mind/body dichotomy and one which has been proved wrong by neurologists. If you want to ignore science then be my guest.

I never said we "should" do anything. Please don't put words in my mouth. But it's ridiculous to think that rational discussion does not only provoke but has emotional inputs.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that people have psychological problems if they have emotional responses to ideas. Even your responses to me or anyone else here have an emotional impulse at the back. "I feel the need to speak."

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you can rationally decide to feel angry?

Cognition may stimulate an emotion, just as physical stimuli may, but it does not create it. Emotion is ultimately a involuntary psycho-chemical phenomenon. You cannot logically make yourself happy or sad or angry, only try to stimulate those emotions.

Thank you. Finally it's getting though. You can however restructure your thought processes into alternative habits of interpretation which can shift you out of loops. This is what cognitive therapy does. It has a high success rate, though not everyone is on board with it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you need to actually explain and put forward sources to this 'science' you speak of, as you appear to be throwing this rather fuzzy claim around a lot.

Investigate somatic markers and look at te work of Antonio Dimasio. He is a leading neuroscientist.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you have never suggested that those emotional inputs should (note; should not are or they can creep in upon occasion) be accepted as part of rational discussion? If so, no argument there.

Of course, but I never said that. I said that if they are incapable of ever (never suggested always) controlling how those emotional responses to ideas, then they likely do have psychological problems.

No you said people who cannot control their emotional responses to ideas have psychological problems. Your language did not include any modification to imply anything but a universal abstract statement about this.

I suspect you are confounding emotional responses with how they are regulated and manifested. Example, I am not ticklish. Most people are. I have no control over this abberation just as people who laugh when they are tickled have no control over theirs.

The proposal that the LESS you understand an abstract idea will make you more likely to have an emotional response is also flawed. Example if I have a child in ICU and I am a doctor who fully understands what that means, I am going to have far stronger emotional response than someone who has no idea what that means and thinks it's all hunky dory.

Some ideas [which themselves can be generated by feeling] are dangerous and have real consequences. Time and time again we see how ideologies can destroy lives. And some ideas make people really happy. Either response is going to feed into whatever discourse manifests, but it might not be to your liking. It's going to be present. Here, it's text and text carries all sort of nuances and in real life it happens all the time. I can see the other side too, where libraries ban books, and the Vatican no no list, and people being demonised for new ideas.

So at what point does the idea and the person merge? And how far can one go with their emotional responses- or even behavioral responses. Well, if I came across someone who supported NAMBLA for example, despite whatever their behavior was and it was pure ideology, I think I would seriously struggle with not having an emotional response, even if that response was just to stay clear. And I don't think that means I have a psych problem, despite what you say.

You might find it incredibly FRUSTRATING that they cannot do it to your satisfaction however.

There are probably two reasons why someone may be defined by their opinion on something the way you describe it.

One reason is because they are holding a very unpopular opinion. And I mean very unpopular. Like 911 is a scam or Holocaust never happened or women need a good slap every now and then.

The second reason is if their opinion on a matter is all you ever hear from them. And the subject need not be as controversial as the above. Could be anything but the thing is it goes on forever. No matter what kind of night out, meeting, occasion, X will end up talking about religion sooner or later. Or Israel. Or whatever. Like they're on a mission.

I don't think there is much more to it.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I get the second one but why would the popularity of the opinion come into it?

If someone holds an opinion so outrageous that people describe him by that opinion. Like Greg is an alright guy but he believes the Martians invaded us'.

I knew a fella like that once. He went to school with me in Berlin and he was the biggest Nazi/Hitler fan you'll ever meet. His parents were from Turkey though, he was a second generation immigrant.

I knew him because we were in the same history/politics class and when a discussion on the subject arose I pointed out to him that Hitler most certainly wouldn't welcome him. That the Nazis would have thrown him out of the country, if he was lucky. And I asked him how he deals with that particular dilemma in his view of the world.
His is answer was that he understands and in fact considers himself unworthy too. So if he ever found himself in Hitlers position (long shot thank god) a parallel goal of his would be to identify a suitable successor to himself while rising to the top. And once his desired system / society was in place he would remove himself and hand over the fascist dictator business to this person.

Bear in mind we weren't kids anymore, this was last year secondary, we were 18, 19 and this was the history / politics honours (Leistungskurs) class.

After that I couldn't ever look at the guy and not view him as the person who expressed that crazy opinion.