Hacker News Reader

Comment by hectord | Hacker News Reader

Both you and the author of the blog post assume that rationality is better than being able to show our emotions. The scientific paper doesn't say anything about it.

A few decades ago we expected women to "show emotions" and men to be strong. We are now trying to change this cliché since it hurts all of us. What we see in the paper is that this change is taking place. I think it's good news.

The idea that rationality was more prevalent until the 1970s since we "believed in science" is compelling. Since the 1970s we focus more on our emotions as you say. What's interesting is that this change took place before the era of social networks. Social networks might be an amplifier but it's definitely not the root cause.

View on HN

It's sad to see this in popular culture, but reationality does not mean total suppression of emotion. To be more accurate, modern concepts of rationality means that you are aware of your emotions, and that you can effectively process them in the correct context. So, crying in a support group is a completely rational thing to do, crying in a finance meeting, or during open heart surgery, much less so. It also means that you acknowledge and take responsibility for the care and upkeep of your emotions, and don't pawn these duties off on those who have not consented to it. Spock, while a fascinating character for a space opera, is not a good example of either rationality or emotional maturity. (At least not in the human sense.)

Yeah.

Adding to this, emotion informs rationality. There is no purely rational reason to do anything. It wouldn't be rational to avoid death if we didn't fear it. It wouldn't be rational to eat food if we didn't desire it. Rationality requires feelings like for example desire, disgust, fear, anger, hope to motivate performing any action what so ever.

It's essentially the is-ought problem, without feelings, rationality alone only presents us with things that are, not what ought to be.

If Spock was purely rational and void of any emotion, he'd be catatonic. He wouldn't eat, he wouldn't sleep, he couldn't do his job. If someone pushed him, he'd fall over and then he'd lay there with a blank stare.

Reason allows us to act in more complex ways than knee-jerk reactions, allows us to predict outcomes that may override desires and fears, to prioritize among the perceived goods, to figure that every promise may not hold up.

This is probably what people mean when they speak of acting rationally, applying rationality to the outcome of desires and fears are they really good/bad for us, or are they deceiving us into acting against our interest. This is basically Socratic ethics.

> Both you and the author of the blog post assume that rationality is better than being able to show our emotions

I didn't say this. If it's not clear, I think it was a great thing and I benefited from it. I value both reason and emotion. It's not a novel or revolutionary topic. Gene Roddenberry explored it with the logic of Spock and the gut intuition of Kirk.

I've since learned it goes back even further:

The romantic writers and poets made a genuine break with the rational, orderly thinking of the eighteenth century Enlightenment. While we still think of Voltaire as a symbol of the power of reason, his contemporary, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was one of the early, prominent voices of nineteenth century romanticism

https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/Eli/Eng252/Bb_version/StudyGuide...

My own theory is that WW2 and the subsequent struggle with Communism over-emphasized the rational as a survival mechanism and the 70's were a time when we stopped doing that.

Edit: We got to the Moon with rational systems thinking (we also got Silicon Valley) so I'm not saying it was bad. Also, I enjoy Adam Curtis documentaries that explore these topics, esp. All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.

Maybe tangential but that makes me think how opposing mathematics/science/rationality to art/intuition/emotions with people falling in one or the other category seems a relatively recent phenomenon, whereas in the past (Ancient Greece or Renaissance with Da Vinci being the obvious example) that distinction was not present.

Yeah, there's a long current in art, across all media, since at least the Industrial Revolution of antipathy to perceptions of modernity, technology, and hyper-rationality. Which then metastasized after the wars in the early 20th century, especially the Great War (WWI). Some of it -- especially the response to the wars -- is fair critique; some is rose-colored and reactionary. And this notion of "science" on one side, "art" on the other, course spread to the wider culture.

I think the personal computer and digital art have been healing that divide somewhat.

> A few decades ago we expected women to "show emotions" and men to be strong. We are now trying to change this cliché since it hurts all of us. What we see in the paper is that this change is taking place. I think it's good news.

This cliche only hurt women, now it will hurt all of us. Repressed emotions meant people at least tried to repress their worst, but look at boomers and their unrestrained narcissism. Who can look at that and see progress?

> Repressed emotions meant people at least tried to repress their worst,

It means that people act irritated and have angry outburst at moments unrelated to original source of issue. It means acting cold toward closed ones and children in particular. It means that blame gets placed pretty much randomly, at whoever is around and weak. It also means more of rationalizing of bad behavior and less empathy towards others.

Repressed emotion dont mean better behavior.

People shouldn't excessively bottle things up, but at the same time I believe personal boundaries are essential to a functioning society.

That was the negative side of it yes, but the positive side was very strong, now we see the negatives of doubling down on emotions instead of reflecting and controling them properly and it's much worse.

Have you considered the difference between "hide emotions" and "repress emotions"; or on the flip-side.. "show emotions" and "accept emotions".

Personally, the "show emotions" should always be reasonable and proportional to to the current situation, whether you are a man or woman. Children being the exception, as they're still learning about all this stuff, and their rational minds do not fully develop until 25 years.

Socially-appropriate radical honesty.

There is value in not showing emotions when it would harm others. Little kids shouldn't have to deal with mommy or daddy's problems because it's traumatizing and damaging.

Life is suffering. Spreading suffering by inflicting baggage on others is emotional BS. One can learn to cope and deal with things themselves in constructive ways. This is one aspect of maturity.

Thanks. That's the other word I was looking for.. appropriate. Socially appropriate. Reasonable. Proportional.

Why do we think this cliché hurts all of us?

Because women should be free to show strength and men free to express emotions. And if they cannot without being judged or shamed then we're all worse for it. Cliches like those stifle our humanity and increase suffering.

Not to mention limit information dispersal.

Men tend to suicide more often than women. Men are also more likely to killed/be killed (although this is slowly changing).

Is it because men are intrinsically more violent than women? Or is it because of the way we bring up our kids? It's still unclear.

I went through a depression a few years ago. I noticed that my suicidal thoughts were related to my inability to express my feelings. I don't think I'm the only one.

The Beatles said it best "It's the fool who plays it cool." Rationality without empathy often leads to psycho- or sociopathy.

Neither is more important in the mixed, messy bag of the human experience.

I was wrong =) bad sourcing.

You appear to be describing antisocial personal disorder and/or a lack of emotional self regulation, not necessarily psychopathy. The fundamental difference between sociopathy and psychopathy is conscious vs. unconscious behavioral patterns to deceive, manipulate, gain power, and control others. The psychopath doesn't know why they do it, the sociopath intends antisocial behaviors to achieve goals.

Oh, on further reading I was wrong. The dictionary was off, but psychological journals are a better source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com