EMOTION VS. REASON AS STYLES FOR MAKING CHOICES
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 3-25
There is considerable value to understanding the differences between people who prefer to make choices based mainly on emotion and those who prefer to make choices based mainly on reason (even while we acknowledge the risks of overgeneralizing). We see this difference in the MAGA movement, many adherents of which make choices based mainly on emotion, and in “the left,” in which many adherents prefer the reason approach. To understand this would give all of us a better “feel” for those in groups that we don’t belong to. As we discuss this, bear in mind, too, that most of us can use each of these methods—that usage depending on the nature of the decision required, but as individuals we use our favored approach much more of the time, and we “believe in” it as the proper and correct way to function.
To some extent, we could say that “emotion people” are more swayed by considerations of the heart while “reason people” are more swayed by their heads, so that “emotion people” feel a pull to make their decisions congruent with their feelings about the people involved (which could be themselves and their immediate families only, depending on how large their circle of in-group people is), and “reason people” look to their reasons for a given decision and are more impressed by statistics and facts. (A few people, including myself, try to always use both. I usually think an issue through rationally and then ask myself how all the different people affected would view my conclusions from an emotional perspective.)
Reason people are more interested and swayed by facts and what seems to be true, while emotion people are less certain about what facts and truth are and hence are more willing to trust their “guts.” When Kelly Ann Conway seemed to be trying to justify “alternative facts,” she was unconsciously voicing this uncertainty, which is buttressed by widespread lack of trust in society’s institutions and representatives when they present “facts.” Emotion people value loyalty more than reason people, especially loyalty to authority figures and established, non-governmental institutions, because of their emotional ties to those figures and institutions.
When dealing with the issue of foreign aid, the “emotion people” would be more swayed by pictures of those being helped (the grittier, the better), while the “reason people” are more swayed by the numbers of those who received food, medicines, etc. Emotion people would be more likely to give to the cause of children with cleft palates based on the TV ad pictures, while reason people are probably more suspicious about whether the charity doing the advertising is using the donated money for the right purpose. Those who respond by sending money in response to TV news stories about the impact on a family of a crime committed against one of them are more likely to be emotion people. Regarding the current downsizing of the Federal bureaucracy, emotion people will be more concerned about the disruptions in the lives of those fired (if told about them), while reason people will be more concerned about damage to the ability of the government to provide its usual services.
Emotion people are more likely to vote for candidates they can relate to (which forms an emotional bond), while reason people are more likely to vote for candidates who present good platform kinds of values and proposals. Emotion people are not as concerned as reason people about the statements of candidates. Most Trump voters realize that some of Pres. Trump’s statements are untrue or don’t make sense but still support him, while most reason people are aghast at them and therefore couldn’t possibly support him.
From these generalizations about facts, truth, and loyalty, we would predict that reason people would be more likely to hold their children and other family members to societal norms and punishments (by informing the police, for example, about the illegal behavior) in order to quell their cognitive dissonance about not reporting, while emotion people, since loyalty and relationships are higher priority to them, would be more likely to withhold information about their family members’ crimes and protect them from legal punishments. (This seems to be accurate to me, but I don’t know of research evidence for it.)
Which type of decider are you—emotion or reason? Do you see any downside to your choice in that regard? What advantages do you see to your chosen method?
The advantage of the reason method is that the person is less likely to be led astray by claims of relationship or by false claims of need or innocence, and his/her decisions are more likely to take into account all of the circumstances and all of the people who will be affected (instead of only those they care about). The disadvantage of the reason type is that in rationalizing, reason people may lose awareness of the daily experience of the people who will be affected by the decision. The advantage of the emotion type is being able to cut through excessive or misleading rationalizing and get to the core of what really counts (to them anyway). The disadvantages of the emotion type are trusting people who shouldn’t be trusted, being more easily led astray by emotional claims with no evidence, and ignoring the impact of their choices on those who are not in their in-group circle. The members of a lynch mob are more likely to be emotion types, while encumbering laws and regulations more likely to be promulgated by reason types.
The most salient problem stemming from the existence of these decision inclinations is that both types have considerable difficulty dealing with people of the other type. Reason people get exasperated with emotion types because they seem to neglect the facts, and emotion types get exasperated with reason types because they seem to be heartless.
DOING BETTER AT GETTING ALONG
It does no good to reject or criticize people on the basis of their type choice (fundamentally preferring reason or emotion). Neither is “wrong.” Both types are important for a society to be able to reach the best possible decisions, because each represents a style of self-care (getting things right) that many people prefer and with which large numbers of people are comfortable. Facts are important, and emotions are important.
If you prefer reason and you point out that a person who prefers emotion is ignoring some facts, they will tell you that your facts don’t matter, because they know in their hearts (or guts) what the solution or outcome should be. If you prefer emotion, and you point out to a person who prefers reason that they are ignoring what really counts for your outcome (which is people’s feelings), they will tell you that you couldn’t possibly be right because “look right here at these facts.” Actually, there is no authority out there to say that only one of these approaches is “right.” (Right now this will be harder to accept for reason people because science is so prominent right now, and science is all about reason, but in other eras of human existence, the opposite would have been the accepted wisdom of the time.)
In cases, like politics, in which both kinds of people are going to be affected, the only fair thing to do is to express the outcome you hope for, listen to the outcome that the
person with the other preference wants, perhaps explain how you each got to those conclusions (if either of you cares), and figure out the best possible compromise—the one that gives you both something desirable but gives neither of you everything wanted. This is exactly what Democrats and Republicans must do to deal with their different policy preferences, but it is equally applicable for decision within families.
Don’t think that that the compromise outcome is unfair because the “facts” or the people involved were ignored. That’s life. The other person has a different operating procedure than you do (with different priorities). Both are legitimate.
Both emotion and reason people would be more balanced in their decisions if they practiced empathy more, which would require remembering to do so even while unconsciously continuing to use their favorite method. People of both persuasions could be more empathic toward legislators’ difficulties in considering and passing legislation in Congress. In our current political situation, the MAGA people have felt mistreated and are trying to take care of themselves now in their politics and so naturally are empathy-deficient regarding others who are being hurt in the course of redressing their grievances, and the leftists are so put off by the non-reasonableness of the MAGA people that it’s hard for them to be empathic regarding the MAGA people’s problems.
Something that would make this process easier for both reason and emotion people is to voluntarily do both! Resolve to look at the issue from the other perspective (reason or emotion) or from the other person’s perspective before you discuss it. Take responsibility for considering the other person’s legitimate viewpoint, even if that gives a different outcome than you would get using your preferred method. To do this, you will have to accept that while you are not “wrong,” you are not “right” either, but this it the only way for democratic decisions to be made with which all parties feel “heard” and respected. If we all could do this, it would erode our need for having opposed political parties duking it out, because each would be acknowledging and taking into account the views and choice style of the other!
Our human species is built to have many kinds of variance (differences between people), and this is one of those variances. It may be to some extent genetic or it may be totally what seems best to each individual based on that person’s experience. Regardless of which it is, we are capable of understanding another person’s different choice-making preference, and that is what we must do for the sake of everyone’s respect and dignity.
You just might make better decisions if you incorporate both of these two major approaches to deciding and prioritizing (meaning that your decisions will take better account of the people involved and will have you using your brainpower to benefit everyone)!
Essays\reasonvsemotionindecisions