At what point does someone's opinion define them ?

Awkward Badger

The title may not be very clear, to expand on it a bit I'm wondering at what point should peoples opinions affect how others think of and deal with them on a personal level ?

With Richard Dawkins recent comments and a lot of people coming out on the side of either Palestine or Israel in relation to the conflict I've noticed a lot of people coming down heavy on individuals for simply having an opinion. The responses to Dawkins comments were mostly very personal and dismissive and one poster here called him a dangerous man with dangerous ideas. Those that are pro Palestine or Israel are usually supporting peace but blaming either one side or the other for the inability to find a peaceful resolution. Yet quite often they are dealt with on a personal level and labelled anti semetic from the point of view of some or apologists for murderers by others.

Its the same with other things but those two kind of highlighted it for me. I know that everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions. And once you talk about those conclusions you open up your rationale to scrutiny and your conclusions to criticism. That's fair enough, if you are going to express your beliefs you are inferring others are wrong and you should be able to back up your view.

But is it right to then go one step further and judge the individual on a personal level simply because of a stance or belief on one particular issue ? Should someone who thinks its ok to perform a certain act be viewed the same as someone who actually performs the act ? Does expressing such an opinion bring them from personal belief into active involvement ? Or is it a form of thought crime in a way ? To judge and punish by dismissing them as a person because of what they think ?

diveout

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The title may not be very clear, to expand on it a bit I'm wondering at what point should peoples opinions affect how others think of and deal with them on a personal level ?

With Richard Dawkins recent comments and a lot of people coming out on the side of either Palestine or Israel in relation to the conflict I've noticed a lot of people coming down heavy on individuals for simply having an opinion. The responses to Dawkins comments were mostly very personal and dismissive and one poster here called him a dangerous man with dangerous ideas. Those that are pro Palestine or Israel are usually supporting peace but blaming either one side or the other for the inability to find a peaceful resolution. Yet quite often they are dealt with on a personal level and labelled anti semetic from the point of view of some or apologists for murderers by others.

Its the same with other things but those two kind of highlighted it for me. I know that everyone is entitled to come to their own conclusions. And once you talk about those conclusions you open up your rationale to scrutiny and your conclusions to criticism. That's fair enough, if you are going to express your beliefs you are inferring others are wrong and you should be able to back up your view.

But is it right to then go one step further and judge the individual on a personal level simply because of a stance or belief on one particular issue ? Should someone who thinks its ok to perform a certain act be viewed the same as someone who actually performs the act ? Does expressing such an opinion bring them from personal belief into active involvement ? Or is it a form of thought crime in a way ? To judge and punish by dismissing them as a person because of what they think ?

No because this is a debating forum and people throw ideas out there to test them out. It doesn't even mean the person who says them holds fast to them or believes them with any certainty themselves. That is what debating is.

And one could take an opposing view just for the sake of testing out the idea. Back when I was in secondary we were often assigned to debate sides and it didnt matter whether you supported that side or not, it just mattered that you could defend it and source the axioms of the opposing arguments and destroy them.

There are limits of course to what this kind of dialogue can achieve, it definitely is not one that will find you creative solutions, but it has its limited place and value.

Once you start personalising, it's all over.

Thoughts are one thing..... and yes there are theories that your thoughts lead to action...but no I don't believe in thought crimes. I think that is insane.

Manach

It would be a case of Acta non Verba, so to paraphrase. Leaving aside current examples, the Philosopher/Historian Paul Johnson pointed out that the key to understanding the strength of an opinion and its application depends on how well the person who exposes it lives by its tenets.

Awkward Badger

diveout wrote: »

No because this is a debating forum and people throw ideas out there to test them out. It doesn't even mean the person who says them holds fast to them or believes them with any certainty themselves. That is what debating is.

And one could take an opposing view just for the sake of testing out the idea. Back when I was in secondary we were often assigned to debate sides and it didnt matter whether you supported that side or not, it just mattered that you could defend it and source the axioms of the opposing arguments and destroy them.

There are limits of course to what this kind of dialogue can achieve, it definitely is not one that will find you creative solutions, but it has its limited place and value.

Once you start personalising, it's all over.

Thoughts are one thing..... and yes there are theories that your thoughts lead to action...but no I don't believe in thought crimes. I think that is insane.

That's probably a bit clearer here online with anonymous discussion where we all accept that its discussion itself that's the priority and not the person making any particular point under threat of having our ability to post limited or removed.

It seems a different story in every day life when someone's clear identity is involved and the argument can be linked to that individual. Then it seems hard for people not to personalise it. Even on here when its a public figure linked to a position the argument will be personalised as they don't fall under the "attack the post not the poster" rule. Its not a position its somebodies position.

And its not just on twitter or facebook where the standard of discussion wouldn't be very high at times and personal attacks being made in anger and frustration. There are examples of people in all walks of life being questioned and dismissed based on what they personally believe. Even in relation to scientific papers an authors agenda or bias may be called into question. Facts and data may be judged to have been interpreted differently because its a certain individual who drew the conclusions. People's reputations may be ruined over something completely unrelated to their career.

It just seems like an inherent thing in relation to opinions that when expressed you are linking your identity to it and opening yourself up to being judged as a person based on one particular view. And it seems in that case people often get demonised for what they think.

diveout

Awkward Badger wrote: »

That's probably a bit clearer here online with anonymous discussion where we all accept that its discussion itself that's the priority and not the person making any particular point under threat of having our ability to post limited or removed.

It seems a different story in every day life when someone's clear identity is involved and the argument can be linked to that individual. Then it seems hard for people not to personalise it. Even on here when its a public figure linked to a position the argument will be personalised as they don't fall under the "attack the post not the poster" rule. Its not a position its somebodies position.

And its not just on twitter or facebook where the standard of discussion wouldn't be very high at times and personal attacks being made in anger and frustration. There are examples of people in all walks of life being questioned and dismissed based on what they personally believe. Even in relation to scientific papers an authors agenda or bias may be called into question. Facts and data may be judged to have been interpreted differently because its a certain individual who drew the conclusions. People's reputations may be ruined over something completely unrelated to their career.

It just seems like an inherent thing in relation to opinions that when expressed you are linking your identity to it and opening yourself up to being judged as a person based on one particular view. And it seems in that case people often get demonised for what they think.

Ok now I get you. Yes in real life it can be really tricky.

I can respect difference in opinion abstractly absolutely, but when it trickles down into personal and its coming at me, then it's different.

For example, I have a good friend who doesn't immunize her kids. Now personally I think this is nuts, but I don't tell her that. She believes all that Wakefield stuff, so I stand back and let her have her opinion....until she tries to give me unsolicited medical advice and then it gets very difficult. I don't demonise her for what she thinks, I just think she is misguided, but when it crosses a line into trying to convert me then that pisses me off. As in I'm not taking med advice from someone who believes that Wakefield stuff. So yes I think I am guilty of that too where I will invalidate an opinion based on the other opinions someone will hold.

" Even on here when its a public figure linked to a position the argument will be personalised as they don't fall under the "attack the post not the poster" rule .Facts and data may be judged to have been interpreted differently because its a certain individual who drew the conclusions. People's reputations may be ruined over something completely unrelated to their career."

This is ad hominan and strictly speaking a no no. It's very tempting at times though and easy to give into. Have done it myself.:)

Yeah I think people are judged for WHAT they think, but we can only know what they think by what they say....so maybe it's more about what they say and how it is delivered and how we choose to interpret it?

The Corinthian

Ever see the Fr Ted sketch where he's trying desperately, and unsuccessfully, to explain to Dougle the difference between 'small' and 'far away'? Ultimately you have to remember that the IQ scale is based upon a normal distribution curve, with 100 as the median or average. This means that there are as many people with under 100 IQ points as there are with over.

Regardless of how you view how intelligence is measured, one thing never changes though - there's a lot of really stupid people out there. Even those who cannot grasp the difference between 'small' and 'far away'. We tend not to notice because we're streamed in with other people of similar levels of intelligence from an early age - starting with school and eventually in our chosen careers. It's only on those occasions where we're all mixed in together, such as the military, boarding school or the Internet that we witness it.

How is this relevant to your question? Because while emotion and irrational prejudice may get the better of any of us, upon occasion, there are actually a lot of people for whom the difference between an abstract concept and a passionately held belief are as impossible to grasp as 'small' and 'far away' were for Dougle.

diveout

I don't agree that this has anything to do with IQ or intelligence. It's human nature. If you say things that make people uncomfortable, they are not going to like that feeling, and they are not going to like you because you were the one who provoked the feeling.

I saw this demonstrated among a private lecture for philosophy professors who hearing, in my opinion an honest assessment of the operations of compassion, really did not like anything he was saying and you could see their disapproval. I felt bad for him, he really didn't deserve it and I made a point of complimenting him on his astuteness and told him I really enjoyed his talk.

These were PHDs and philosophers, not idiots with IQs of 100. It's all about how people feel, no way around that.

So yes, OP I do think we are judged very much so on our opinions, but only in so far as to how that makes others feel.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

I don't agree that this has anything to do with IQ or intelligence. It's human nature. If you say things that make people uncomfortable, they are not going to like that feeling, and they are not going to like you because you were the one who provoked the feeling.

I never said that this is not often the case, we can all fall into that trap, although if one does so too easily, then we're talking about a psychological, rather than intellectual issue.

However, some people genuinely cannot understand abstract concepts. More than you'd think.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said that this is not often the case, we can all fall into that trap, although if one does so too easily, then we're talking about a psychological, rather than intellectual issue.

It's not either/or. It's both/and. The OPs query is both psychological and intellectual, just as IQ itself is both intellectual, neurological and intellectual.

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, some people genuinely cannot understand abstract concepts. More than you'd think.

How is that relevant? Do you assume once people "understand" the abstraction that the person promoting the idea will suddenly be liked and not judged for it? What does IQ and the ability to understand abstractions have to do with it?

Being understood doesn't immunise the person from other people's anxiety over what they are saying-it very possibly could increase it.

Valmont

Manach wrote: »

It would be a case of Acta non Verba, so to paraphrase. Leaving aside current examples, the Philosopher/Historian Paul Johnson pointed out that the key to understanding the strength of an opinion and its application depends on how well the person who exposes it lives by its tenets.

I fully agree with this more eloquent rendering of the idea of 'put your money where your mouth is'.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

It's not either/or. It's both/and. The OPs query is both psychological and intellectual, just as IQ itself is both intellectual, neurological and intellectual.

I think you're confusing psychological with emotional.

How is that relevant? Do you assume once people "understand" the abstraction that the person promoting the idea will suddenly be liked and not judged for it? What does IQ and the ability to understand abstractions have to do with it?

If they're still judged on it, then the person judging them is not too bright, or frankly has psychological problems.

Being understood doesn't immunise the person from other people's anxiety over what they are saying-it very possibly could increase it.

Then they are using emotion to judge intellectual arguments. Says more about them than the person they're anxious about.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing psychological with emotional.

If they're still judged on it, then the person judging them is not too bright, or frankly has psychological problems.

Then they are using emotion to judge intellectual arguments. Says more about them than the person they're anxious about.

Please explain further. Nothing here makes any sense.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Please explain further. Nothing here makes any sense.

You asked "once people 'understand' the abstraction that the person promoting the idea will suddenly be liked and not judged for it?" Thing is, if they truly do 'understand' the abstraction, what are they judging the other person for?

After all, they are simply arguing an intellectual point, something they may not only not believe in, but actually oppose. They may be using it simply to illustrate a separate point, or to act as Devil's Advocate. And if the other party understands this abstraction, what are they really judging them for? That they would even dare to play Devil's Advocate? That they've broken some taboo (a Monty Pythonesque Jehovah)? That's emotion, not reason.

Given we've decided that they understand the abstraction, such suppressing of the rational mind by emotive and irrational prejudice is not indicative of a healthy mind. It simply has no place in rational discourse.

Or as I've contended in the first place, more often they don't understand the abstraction in the first place.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

You asked "once people 'understand' the abstraction that the person promoting the idea will suddenly be liked and not judged for it?" Thing is, if they truly do 'understand' the abstraction, what are they judging the other person for?

After all, they are simply arguing an intellectual point, something they may not only not believe in, but actually oppose. They may be using it simply to illustrate a separate point, or to act as Devil's Advocate. And if the other party understands this abstraction, what are they really judging them for? That they would even dare to play Devil's Advocate? That they've broken some taboo (a Monty Pythonesque Jehovah)? That's emotion, not reason.

Given we've decided that they understand the abstraction, such suppressing of the rational mind by emotive and irrational prejudice is not indicative of a healthy mind. It simply has no place in rational discourse.

Or as I've contended in the first place, more often they don't understand the abstraction in the first place.

Well for example, when a politician presents an idea for policy, such as Obamacare off the top of my head, and people react with anger and start protesting, I certainly would not lump all these people with having psychological problems because they react with anger. That would be CRAZY!

I think sometimes the LESS people understand the idea, the less emotional they can be and the more they do understand it, the more reactive.

You might be falling for Descarte's error.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Well for example, when a politician presents an idea for policy, such as Obamacare off the top of my head, and people react with anger and start protesting, I certainly would not lump all these people with having psychological problems because they react with anger. That would be CRAZY!

Personally, I would lump many of them as being dumb, others as irrational and others again as falling into herd mentality. With a combination of the above being common, of course.

Then again, I wouldn't consider vox populi to be rational discourse, which is what the OP was aspiring to, as I accept that everyday mob we call democracy is just what we have to live with - the worst system of government, except for every other one, as the expression goes.

I think sometimes the LESS people understand the idea, the less emotional they can be and the more they do understand it, the more reactive.

On what basis do you 'think' this? That is only true if you have little or no control over your emotions or cannot differentiate between an abstract argument and a belief.

You might be falling for Descarte's error.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descartes'_Error

I've come across that book. It's a steaming pile of self-indulgent excrement.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I would lump many of them as being dumb, others as irrational and others again as falling into herd mentality. With a combination of the above being common, of course.

Then again, I wouldn't consider vox populi to be rational discourse, which is what the OP was aspiring to, as I accept that everyday mob we call democracy is just what we have to live with - the worst system of government, except for every other one, as the expression goes.

On what basis do you 'think' this? That is only true if you have little or no control over your emotions or cannot differentiate between an abstract argument and a belief.

Yeah I don't really see it that way. It was anger that brought about the civil right's movement for example. Rosa Parks was pissed off and had enough. She wasn't having a debate at the literary historical society.

Even rational discourse has emotional inputs and there really is no way around that. The science is there.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Even rational discourse has emotional inputs and there really is no way around that. The science is there.

No one is disputing that we are prone to getting emotional from time to time, but let's not use that to pretend that emotion is a legitimate source for rational argument. It's not.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one is disputing that we are prone to getting emotional from time to time, but let's not use that to pretend that emotion is a legitimate source for rational argument. It's not.

I don't think you are really understanding me. That is not what I am saying. The science is there to show that neurologically, emotional impulses inform and feed rational thought. There is no way of getting around that.

If a neurologist taped you up to a machine, while you are in the middle of a "rational debate" a neurologist could detect and measure the inputs into your thoughts. It doesn't mean you are out of control and getting all passionate... although it could mean that but also you are able to abstract them into a language that doesn't manifest an overriding passionate response.

There have been several times for example in the last few posts of yours where I find myself laughing because I think they are funny. Shrug. Obviously that physiological response is going to input into synapses which influence or perhaps determine how I reply.

If it turns out that the person who is tied up to the various neurological measuring technology has NO emotional inputs, it might flag a deficit, depending on your perspective.

I don't think OP is too concerned about the influences of emotion here, but is asking an assessment of how far one's opinions are tied into the self and self hood, and how much we let them define ourselves and others, emotional inputs or no emotional inputs.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

I don't think you are really understanding me. That is not what I am saying. The science is there to show that neurologically, emotional impulses inform and feed rational thought. There is no way of getting around that.

Wrong. It's called self control; being mindful of not allowing irrational impulses cloud our judgement. We may never eliminate 100% of these impulses, but the point to rational discourse is that we do not accept them as legitimate as you appear to be doing so.

They're not and the moment we accept them as such, the discourse ceases to be rational.

I don't think OP is too concerned about the influences of emotion here, but is asking an assessment of how far one's opinions are tied into the self and self hood, and how much we let them define ourselves and others, emotional inputs or no emotional inputs.

I disagree. He asked why opinions are tied into the self and self hood, and how much we let them define ourselves and others. Irrational emotion, or prejudices, are one reason for this, which is precisely what he is concerned about.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Wrong. It's called self control; being mindful of not allowing irrational impulses cloud our judgement. We may never eliminate 100% of these impulses, but the point to rational discourse is that we do not accept them as legitimate as you appear to be doing so.

They're not and the moment we accept them as such, the discourse ceases to be rational.

I disagree. He asked why opinions are tied into the self and self hood, and how much we let them define ourselves and others. Irrational emotion, or prejudices, are one reason for this, which is precisely what he is concerned about.

No it really is not. The science is there, and to not accept that, is irrational- it's fantasy.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

No it really is not. The science is there, and to not accept that, is irrational- it's fantasy.

Let me understand; you're saying that you cannot ignore emotion or the irrational because it is part of human nature. Fine, I never said you should.

Are you thus saying that emotion or the irrational should be accepted to be part of rational discourse? If so, I disagree with this oxymoron.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Let me understand; you're saying that you cannot ignore emotion or the irrational because it is part of human nature. Fine, I never said you should.

Are you thus saying that emotion or the irrational should be accepted to be part of rational discourse? If so, I disagree with this oxymoron.

What I am saying is that emotion is part of the rational and irrational. It is inescapable.

There is no point in NOT accepting it, it's like a refusal to accept the world is not flat. That is irrational thinking.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

What I am saying is that emotion is part of the rational and irrational. It is inescapable.

Sorry, emotion is not rational. Even, instinct, however accurate it can be, is ultimately not reasoned as reason requires the conscious mind. While emotion and instinct may provide demonstrable evolutionary benefits, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever, that I am aware of, that it linked to reason - which by definition is arrived at through deduction. It is the antithesis of reason.

I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting is simply untrue.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, emotion is not rational. Even, instinct, however accurate it can be, is ultimately not reasoned as reason requires the conscious mind. While emotion and instinct may provide demonstrable evolutionary benefits, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever, that I am aware of, that it linked to reason - which by definition is arrived at through deduction. It is the antithesis of reason.

I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting is simply untrue.

Well if emotion is not rational, and it cannot do anything but infiltrate the rational (according to current neuroscience) , then there is no such thing as rationality in any perfect manifestation. It's a pipe dream, fantasy, delusions of mastery. Falling for Descarte's error.

Why are you bringing instinct into it?

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Well if emotion is not rational, and it cannot do anything but infiltrate the rational (according to current neuroscience) , then there is no such thing as rationality in any perfect manifestation. It's a pipe dream, fantasy, delusions of mastery.

Straw man. I've never argued that one must be perfectly rational to practice rational discourse, only that rational discourse seeks to be rational and thus cannot willingly accept the irrational.

Falling for Descarte's error.

You keep on bringing that up as if it's a real thing. It's not.

Why are you bringing instinct into it?

Because emotion and instinct are closely related.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Straw man. I've never argued that one must be perfectly rational to practice rational discourse, only that rational discourse seeks to be rational and thus cannot willingly accept the irrational.

You keep on bringing that up as if it's a real thing. It's not.

Because emotion and instinct are closely related.

Look, the science is there. There are emotional impulses driving everything, regardless of this delusion of rationality. I feel like I am arguing about whether the world is flat or not.

Descarte's error is a real thing. I'm not really interested in instinct and that is a distraction.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Look, the science is there. There are emotional impulses driving everything, regardless of this delusion of rationality. I feel like I am arguing about whether the world is flat or not.

You're arguing about whether the world is flat or not in a discussion about whether the sky is blue or not. You've introduced a pointless straw man.

Again, I've never argued that one must be perfectly rational to practice rational discourse, only that rational discourse seeks to be rational and thus cannot willingly accept the irrational. So no one has suggested that the World is flat, only that saying so is irrelevant to the discussion.

What you are arguing is that because one can never be completely uninfluenced by emotion or the irrational, then one should accept emotion or the irrational in reasoned discourse, which is utter nonsense.

Descarte's error is a real thing.

Just because a coffee table edition claims it is does not make it so. Otherwise we might as well accept the World was created in six days, like the Bible says.

I'm not really interested in instinct and that is a distraction.

It's not, because like emotion instinct is an evolutionary trait designed to aid our decision making without the need for actual thinking - indeed, our emotions can be said to be very much a product of our instinct.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're arguing about whether the world is flat or not in a discussion about whether the sky is blue or not. You've introduced a pointless straw man.

Again, I've never argued that one must be perfectly rational to practice rational discourse, only that rational discourse seeks to be rational and thus cannot willingly accept the irrational. So no one has suggested that the World is flat, only that saying so is irrelevant to the discussion.

What you are arguing is that because one can never be completely uninfluenced by emotion or the irrational, then one should accept emotion or the irrational in reasoned discourse, which is utter nonsense.

.

It does not make sense to me to not accept something that is very much part of reality.

Regardless of how apparently rational something is, there are emotional impulses there. The refusal to accept that, means that what you want from the world is complete silence.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

It does not make sense to me to not accept something that is very much part of reality.

Regardless of how apparently rational something is, there are emotional impulses there. The refusal to accept that, means that what you want from the world is complete silence.

Yet what you are arguing is akin to saying that because aggression remains part of our makeup, no matter what, violence should be an acceptable tool of peaceful negotiation.

In rational discussion we choose to reject the emotional, the irrational, and instead attempt to reach a conclusion based upon reason alone. We may falter or fail as, being human, our emotions and prejudices may could taint our judgment, but that would be a failure on our part, not on the principle and aims of rational discussion.

Instead, you seem to think that we should include the irrational into rational discussion, which basically means it is no longer rational discussion. It's just vox pop.

diveout

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet what you are arguing is akin to saying that because aggression remains part of our makeup, no matter what, violence should be an acceptable tool of peaceful negotiation.

In rational discussion we choose to reject the emotional, the irrational, and instead attempt to reach a conclusion based upon reason alone. We may falter or fail as, being human, our emotions and prejudices may could taint our judgment, but that would be a failure on our part, not on the principle and aims of rational discussion.

Instead, you seem to think that we should include the irrational into rational discussion, which basically means it is no longer rational discussion. It's just vox pop.

Um yes and no. Yes aggression is part of our make up... aggression however does not always manifest in in violence. Violence is not always an inappropriate response or impulse either... and thirdly there are acceptable outlets for aggression, like movies, video games etc. So I'm not really sure what your point is. Without aggression, there could be problems couldn't there?

No you are getting so confused and I just don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. You are equating emotional with irrational and they are not the same thing.

The Corinthian

diveout wrote: »

Um yes and no. Yes aggression is part of our make up... aggression however does not always manifest in in violence. Violence is not always an inappropriate response or impulse either... and thirdly there are acceptable outlets for aggression, like movies, video games etc. So I'm not really sure what your point is. Without aggression, there could be problems couldn't there?

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

No you are getting so confused and I just don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. You are equating emotional with irrational and they are not the same thing.

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.

diveout

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

diveout wrote: »

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that people have psychological problems if they have emotional responses to ideas.

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.

diveout

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.

Black Swan

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The title may not be very clear, to expand on it a bit I'm wondering at what point should peoples opinions affect how others think of and deal with them on a personal level?

Henry David Thoreau suggested that one can change their opinion from one day to the next, given new information that would inform that change. And that such a person open to change should not be subject to criticism or thought lacking in character, integrity, or disingenuous. Unfortunately, there is sometimes a stigma attached to a former opinion that may follow the person, even if they have had reason to change their perception based upon new compelling data.

Boskowski

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

Boskowski wrote: »

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.

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

Boskowski

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.