Hacker News Reader

Think of it like this. Two men both have a condition where if they see flashing red lights, they go into a psychotic rage.

One man chooses to ignore the condition because going into a psychotic rage is bad, therefore he should pretend that he does not have the condition. He considers the condition impolite to talk about.

The other man chooses to acknowledge and confront the situation. He insists (sometimes rudely) that hosts and workplaces avoid flashing red lights at him.

Which of these is the path to civilization?

This seems like an incredibly bizarre analogy. If somebody is going into a psychotic rage because they see red flashing lights, then they would be an extreme danger to both to everybody else and to themselves. This person would need to be institutionalized until we can be convinced they're not suddenly going to go on a murder spree because they saw a blinker.

More generally though, civilization is little more than people agreeing to work in close proximity under a shared code of laws. There is extensive written evidence of this going back to at least ~1800BC, though it's certainly been the basis for practically all civilization throughout our existence. People who cannot obey these laws are excluded from society. So for instance all civilizations have banned theft, yet kleptomania is certainly a thing - people who have no need to steal yet have an incredibly strong urge to do so. Nonetheless, they will face the same consequences as any other. If they cannot control themselves, they will not remain a part of civilization.

For issues with no clear right or wrong, such as flashing red lights, there's another issue. One individual has an irrational dislike of flashing red lights, another has an irrational like of flashing red lights. Who does society choose to adjust itself to? This is yet another reason why the onus of emotional control is on the individual, and not on society.

I understood you as saying that we should choose to "rise above" emotional persuasion. You have good intentions but your advice is bad: our susceptibility to emotional persuasion is not something we can consciously remove, no more than the man can choose to rise above his condition.

The analogy to the 2nd man would be: standing up against emotional manipulation. For example, demanding laws against emotionally manipulative advertisements. This, I propose, is the path to a better civilization. Not just ignoring the problem.

Your emotions are just another part of your body that you can control. It's an extremely important part of countless careers such as investment banker, fighter, lawyer, judge, doctor, clinical scientist or researcher, or even things such as an air traffic controller. It's not that the people in these fields do not have emotions, but that they consciously work to control them. I've achieved as much thanks to a career long in my past as well, and it changed me radically for the better.

I think we are quick to discount things that we cannot visibly see. For instance, if somebody of normal health told you that it was just physically impossible for them to bench press more than 100 pounds, you'd probably find their statement quite ridiculous. Of course the reason is that we can see our muscles and how they change and develop (or atrophy) in response to how we train them, and we can precisely measure changes in our ability to lift. With emotions you cannot so easily measure them, and it's not really clear how to train them. But that certainly does not mean it's out of your control.

---

But on point here, consider the notion of trying to prohibit emotionally manipulative advertisements. The first question would be why? Apple's 1984 [1] is one of the most famous and effective bits of marketing. It's also almost entirely an emotional piece. You're certainly not excited about the specs there! I don't see why such things should not be allowed. And if you're going to try to ban emotionally exploitative marketing, why stop there? What of news, or even media in general? Politicians? Even individuals in our ever connected world? And on top of this how do you define what is emotionally exploitative?

It's just not a realistic solution, and sounds quite dystopic in any case. By contrast starting to help people learn to control and manage their emotions is something that seems entirely practical. Of course not everybody will achieve the same results, as in anything, but today we make absolutely 0 effort to teach this in any sort of way. For that matter, at times we even seem to be going in the opposite direction and, at least implicitly, encouraging emotional response.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA

We encourage emotional response when it's the "right" response, and discourage it when it's the "wrong" response. For example, buying Apple products is "right", while voting for Brexit is "wrong". Many people are currently calling for restrictions on the type of emotional ads which they claim led to the latter. I suspect your 1984 commercial would not be so beloved if it were an ad for Monsanto or Exxon or something.

While I agree with you that reason is better than emotion for making decisions, we should be very aware that what we think is a reasonable and rational argument could be subconcious post-hoc justification of an emotional decision.

>As far back as the Ancient Greeks Socrates wrote extensively on exploiting emotions to achieve success in argument

I'm guessing you meant Plato, Socrates was likely illiterate.

We could argue forever about what is human nature. I consider is to have risen above only our animal nature in building things up instead of tearing them apart. Where animal nature may be unthinking selfish greed (there are certainly exceptions, but I think those are considered surprising cases of animals acting human), human nature is the ability to suspend that first level instinct to protect our provide for ourselves and those close to us. Human nature encompasses war and capitalism, and the rallying of others for a common cause or against a common enemy. Accept it and harness it instead of acting like it doesn't exist.