Hacker News Reader

Comment by skunkworks | Hacker News Reader

> I find that someone who doesn't work well with emotions is typically bad at reasoning too, because the arguments they make end up expressing their feelings in obtuse ways.

This is an interesting explanation. Do you think that people bad at understanding their emotions are less aware or mindful of their unconscious biases?

View on HN

Yeah, more or less. I think that whatever is unconscious (read: lost, forgotten, dissociated, unfelt, or unthought) ends up getting expressed anyway, in yourself or in your relationships. Seeing this expression clearly in the world requires working with your emotions. If you cannot do that, then it's very difficult for any of your strongly held "rational" views to change, because doing so would require dealing with some pretty heavy emotions.

The upshot is that it gets really tiresome to argue in situations where you've realized this is what's happening. In my experience, most of the time that you see hardcore polarization on an issue, where all appeals to reason seem to fall on deaf ears, it's actually due to some kind of emotional blockage like this. At this point, practicing empathy and asserting firm but flexible boundaries is often the only way out.

So, pay attention to your emotions, they're trying to tell you something.

I agree wholeheartedly that unconscious desires find ways to express themselves, but it's novel for me to correlate those who are disconnected from their emotions (i.e. push them into their unconscious) with those who are more likely to fall victim to cognitive biases, dissonance, etc. It makes a ton of sense; for example, it takes all of my mindfulness to stop myself during a discussion/argument and ask myself honestly whether I'm open to hearing someone's argument or if I'm just feigning openness while trying to get a point across that I've tied my ego to. Oh, the inertia of preconceived thoughts and biases.

This is very useful to know, so thanks for the light-bulb moment. It'll be easier to step away from discussions when I can recognize that someone will live and die with their agenda because A) they lack the mindfulness to divorce their emotions from their stance, B) their identity and ego is built upon this stance, and C) no one will let you come by and sweep away their identity/ego without a fight, especially when their emotions, repressed or not, are swarming.

I guess it's easier to trust the judgment someone who's aware of their emotions than someone who's got a glaring blind spot.

Cool, glad my perspective was helpful. Sometimes stepping away from an argument, while it gets you away from being locked into either attachment to the argument or aversion to the argument, can turn into the third poison of disinterest in the argument. Detached engagement is the antidote here. If it's somebody I care about that I'm close to, or if it's myself, often I will ask about and validate associated feelings with the hope but not the expectation that it loosens whatever strongly held stance a little bit. People are a lot less rigid in their thinking when they know that they've been heard both intellectually and emotionally. Most of the time this approach won't actually change anything, but once in a while you'll get to witness a miracle.

Yet another good point re: disinterest in an argument being a potential third poison. I can see how detached engagement at least gives you an opportunity to have your voice be heard without the angst of fully-attached engagement. I think I have a tendency to walk away from arguments with unreasonable people, which seems like a good thing at first but is probably suboptimal from a professional standpoint. Thanks again, friend.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com