Back in 2008 when I still had Facebook a California judge threw out the law that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Someone I knew posted her great joy over this ruling. I asked her (privately -- not to get in a public debate) why she was so happy about it. She said, "Well, I just know how bad I would feel if I wasn't allowed to marry the one I loved."
Now, I wasn't setting out to correct or debate her, but I thought, "Wow, don't think that through. If you do, you'll discover that this kind of position would require legalizing polygamy, polyamory, incest, bestiality, and "object sexuality". The logic of the position breaks down too easily. But I didn't pursue it because that would require logic and she wasn't using logic; she was using feelings.
Normally, how we think determines how we feel. If I think "X is a good thing" I will feel good about X and if I think it's a bad thing, I'll feel bad about X. Simple. That's a perspective driven by thinking. A perspective driven by feeling, however, works quite differently. While the same mechanism exists -- how we think determines how we feel -- if we start out from an emotional position that determines how we think going forward, we end up in this impenetrable loop. My friend, for instance, could not think her way out of that "gay marriage" paper bag because it would require thinking outside of her comfort zone, so she would refuse. Her premise was "how I would feel", so "how I think" is subject to the premise. On the other hand, a person who begins with how they think is able to think through "how I feel", analyze the facts, and potentially change "how I feel".
We are largely a society today driven by how we feel over against how we think. We start with "How does this make me feel?" and then figure out what to think from there instead of figuring out what's right and wrong first and then adjusting our thoughts and resulting feelings to match. We even do it self-consciously, arguing "I have to follow my heart rather than my head." It's heroic to be emotional rather then reasonable. This is why so many of us are finding that well-reasoned, carefully presented arguments, logic, and evidence fall on deaf ears so much of the time. It's because they're not thinking, they're feeling. If you don't start there, they won't hear you. It's a product of eyes blinded by the god of this world.
8 comments:
When emotion rises, intelligence falls. This plays out in so many ways that one would might imagine it is a basic rule of thumb that guides us all. Sadly, it is not the case. It's now at play in the immigration debate, particularly the emotional response to the family separation aspect. I don't know if total cold, calculating objectivity is appropriate 100% of the time, but it's a far more reasonable and effective position from which to begin solving problems, real or perceived.
How much of it do you think is calculated? I mean, for instance, which has a greater impact -- "border enforcement" or "separating families"? Is the latter chosen intentionally to create a non-thinking response? (Because the thinking person would have to respond, "I need more information on that 'separating families' claim. Are they really families? Are they really seeking asylum? Do we really believe that all who come 'as a family' are really families and all who are 'seeking asylum' are really seeking asylum? Should we have some process to evaluate or verify any of this?" See? Too many questions. Let's just go with "separating families" and we can spark hate all around. Is it on purpose?
I think it’s almost 100% calculated. It’s intended to short circuit the rational thought process and proceed straight to emotion driven reaction.
I think that the vitriol and expletives are intended to do the same thing to some degree.
For example, what if you added the word “temporarily” to “separated from families”? Why do they use “ripped from their parents arms” instead of “separated”?
I think the problem at the border is a problem, but I get the impression that most of these responding to it don't ... think.
It clear that we need to evaluate our immigration system and deal with the problem legislatively. The problem is that when you start from emotional reactions to “fake news”instead of evaluating the actual problems you’re not going to get solutions, just hand wringing. In this case, the “problem” has been addressed (EO, Judgement, legislation), yet you keep hearing people act as if nothing has been done.
It is indeed calculated, and the difference is between those doing the calculating and those susceptible to its effects. The latter of the two often joins in with the public lamentations in their own calculated efforts to bring about the thoughtless solutions that are a result of their emotional response to the situation.
Craig's comment provides a good example of how the calculation manifests. That "ripped from mother's arms" shows up everywhere and has for years.
Yet, the same folks would probably object to “ripped from their mother’s womb”, even though it’s a much more accurate statement.
Excellent observation, Craig.
Post a Comment