Reason vs. Emotion.

[Diogenes]

Betruger has indicated he is tired of the drug argument, and I have to admit i've always detested it. (It is an annoying distraction compared to more dire issues facing the USA.)

One of the subtopics brought out in the discussion was the notion that people can be more readily moved by reason rather than emotion. I have found this to be the exact opposite of my own experience. Emotion trumps reason any day of the week. History is full of countless examples of it, and plenty of examples where reason failed. Sometimes reason works, but emotion almost always works. When it fails, it's because the rational arguments are just too obvious to ignore.

Today I was listening to the Radio, and I heard a quick synopsis of the story of Temple Houston. Temple Houston was Sam Houston's youngest son. He left Texas and came to Oklahoma to practice law. In probably his most famous case, he was given ten minutes to prepare a defense for a woman accused of being a prostitute. This defense became famous as the "soiled dove" defense.

In 1899, Houston delivered the Soiled Dove Plea on behalf of a hopelessly guilty prostitute, Minnie Stacey, in a trial in Woodward, Oklahoma. That plea is considered by many attorneys to be an example of a perfect closing argument.

If the prosecutors of the woman whom you are trying had brought her before the Savior, they would have accepted His challenge and each one gathered a rock and stoned her, in the twinkling of an eye. No, Gentlemen, do as your Master did twice under the same circumstances that surround you. Tell her to go in peace.

The Jury acquitted her immediately.



http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Soiled_Dove_Plea

[Betruger]

The prostitute/Jesus analogy is bunk. It's an appeal to religion which isn't necessarily emotion. You can have religious faith and righteousness out of nothing but reason. It's not a good example to support the argument that, in debate, appeals to emotion in general are better arguments than appeals to reason.



The argument proper is a play on semantics. Emotion and reason are the same thing: the brain connecting the dots. If you aren't affecting someone who's "emotionally motivated" by reasoning, either your logic is flawed (doesn't connect the dots) or off target (wrong dots), or that someone's corrupt (rejects correct dot connections). It might take talent to reliably do it successfully in practice, but transparently demonstrating an argument's fitness with no appeals to emotion is never less correct than pushing people's buttons. There's no exceptions to this, but there's a common pseudo counter argument. *

The only irreducible difficulty in reasoning is explaining to someone something too difficult to understand (e.g. esoteric technicalities). But even that can be done in a completely transparent and airtight way. Extreme example: the Pioneer plaque. So the difficulty is usually not exceeding the other guy's patience.

Why would the other guy have less than infinite patience? Mostly if he's got priorities that trump knowing the truth. IOW someone who fails to concede to such a "perfectly" articulated correct argument is someone who's corrupt.

* The only "exception" is if the objective isn't getting to the truth but to cause someone to do something regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I.E. having an agenda. For a number of reasons (incl. the ethics of not making people do things, i.e. the same ethics that exclude big govt solutions like the war on drugs "for people's own good", "because people don't and can't know any better", etc) this is wrong. The proper way to do things is to inform people and let their free will take it from there.

An example: People don't live in caves nor live purely selfish lives (e.g. killing, hunting, etc, all for themselves with no ethics whatsoever) as cavemen did because they now know for a fact that the sacrifice of some selfish wants and needs are the price of civilization, and in turn civilization allows continuous progress in quality of life; incl things that satisfy those selfish wants and needs. A good return on investment.
This is all the consequence of knowing better. Of learning, of rationality. The opposite of entropy, of chaos.

The culture change that Tom Ligon alluded to is the only solution to the "drug" "problem" in the USA. Opposing this progress is opposing a better future. So is perpetuating the idea that prohibition must continue, esp. for bogus reasons like "people can't possibly understand that the risks of drug use are akin to playing Russian roulette with 3/4 of the cylinder loaded."


What you're trying to do when swaying people's emotions is a separate thing from reasoning them. It doesn't matter whether someone refuses to do the reasonable thing after they've learned the true, reasonable facts. It only matters that they're informed of that truth. If they choose to do the wrong thing then, it's willfully, regardless what the emotional justification is. Emotional motivation is a separate thing from intellectual understanding of right and wrong. A crime of passion is a crime nonetheless.

Drinking and then piloting and crashing a loaded 747 because of same alcoholic impairment is a crime.
Taking drugs that one knows will similarly (to larger degrees) derail one's behavior for the worst is no different. It's willfully that you relinquish "control" of your actions.
The biochemistry of drugs is complex. Prohibition neither accommodates that complexity nor conforms to genuine American principles. Not least of which freedom to act and bear the consequences. Whether someone integrates these facts into their emotional motivations or not is a separate thing from understanding them. Once informed, the burden of doing the right thing is on them. They give up the right to plead innocence due to not knowing any better.


And I'm not tired of the drug argument. I have no influence on US drug policy, and I'm not informed on the logistics (i.e. drug biochemistry) to do more than argue the fundamentals of policy. So to me it's just mental exercise.
What I don't have patience for is arguing with you specifically. I wouldn't mind arguing with others who have your position, more or less, (IIRC Kiteman, Skipjack, Choff), but none of their arguments are compelling to me either, and all my arguments are at least as well articulated by Tom Ligon, TallDave, MSimon and others.

Prohibition is as bad a solution as abstinence is.

[choff]

Regarding reason vs emotion, I've actually had experience on debating teams, know how to research and prepare to the point where I can anticipate every statement in advance, turn my opponents arguements inside out, even cause opposing team members to change positions. It's just that after a lifetime of seeing the damage drugs have done in my corner of the world, emotion completely overwhelms reason.
Emotional self-detactment is no longer possible, the drug debate is divisive, but it's very hard to contain myself when I see the reality on the street and then read the fantasy online.

[Betruger]

Personal liberty and accountability are fantasies. I frankly don't know what to say to that. But then you admit yourself that you're emotionally motivated, rather than rationally. IOW corrupt. What makes those people who suffer due to the injustices of the war on drugs less deserving of fair treatment than those who suffer due to starting drugs of their own volition?


"Do the right thing." There is no substitute.

[Diogenes]

The prostitute/Jesus analogy is bunk. It's an appeal to religion which isn't necessarily emotion. You can have religious faith and righteousness out of nothing but reason. It's not a good example to support the argument that, in debate, appeals to emotion in general are better arguments than appeals to reason.

The point is reason wouldn't have worked.

The argument proper is a play on semantics. Emotion and reason are the same thing: the brain connecting the dots. If you aren't affecting someone who's "emotionally motivated" by reasoning, either your logic is flawed (doesn't connect the dots) or off target (wrong dots), or that someone's corrupt (rejects correct dot connections). It might take talent to reliably do it successfully in practice, but transparently demonstrating an argument's fitness with no appeals to emotion is never less correct than pushing people's buttons. There's no exceptions to this, but there's a common pseudo counter argument. *

The only irreducible difficulty in reasoning is explaining to someone something too difficult to understand (e.g. esoteric technicalities). But even that can be done in a completely transparent and airtight way. Extreme example: the Pioneer plaque. So the difficulty is usually not exceeding the other guy's patience.

Why would the other guy have less than infinite patience? Mostly if he's got priorities that trump knowing the truth. IOW someone who fails to concede to such a "perfectly" articulated correct argument is someone who's corrupt.

I disagree completely with that last sentence. I have known countless people who believed in their beliefs so strongly, that nothing you could say would shake them from their faith. (I argue with many of them on this forum. ) This is not being corrupt, it is cognitive dissonance. They are simply unable to see their beliefs in a critical light. (and perhaps I am one of them.) Much of the rest of what you said seems reasonable. I think much of my difficulty in trying to convey ideas is that the ideas are not always simple, and sometimes people don't have the necessary knowledge to see the idea clearly. As you said, people don't have "infinite patience" and I don't always know what bit of critical knowledge is missing.

* The only "exception" is if the objective isn't getting to the truth but to cause someone to do something regardless of whether it's right or wrong. I.E. having an agenda. For a number of reasons (incl. the ethics of not making people do things, i.e. the same ethics that exclude big govt solutions like the war on drugs "for people's own good", "because people don't and can't know any better", etc) this is wrong. The proper way to do things is to inform people and let their free will take it from there.

And here is the crux of the discussion. Firstly, I contend that interdiction is not about just stopping people from using drugs themselves, it is to keep them from infecting others with the meme. A Direct harm.

Secondly, I contend that the knowledge of the effects of tampering with your own physiology cannot be had without doing it, at which point you can no longer make a rational decision. Ergo, it is impossible to make an informed decision before the fact, and it is impossible to make an informed decision after the fact. To simplify, it is impossible to make an informed decision about tampering with your physiological processes.

An example: People don't live in caves nor live purely selfish lives (e.g. killing, hunting, etc, all for themselves with no ethics whatsoever) as cavemen did because they now know for a fact that the sacrifice of some selfish wants and needs are the price of civilization, and in turn civilization allows continuous progress in quality of life; incl things that satisfy those selfish wants and needs. A good return on investment.
This is all the consequence of knowing better. Of learning, of rationality. The opposite of entropy, of chaos.

The culture change that Tom Ligon alluded to is the only solution to the "drug" "problem" in the USA. Opposing this progress is opposing a better future. So is perpetuating the idea that prohibition must continue, esp. for bogus reasons like "people can't possibly understand that the risks of drug use are akin to playing Russian roulette with 3/4 of the cylinder loaded."

We've covered this before. The "culture" is highly sensitive to official sanction. Prior to 1973 when the Supreme Court rammed abortion down the nation's throat based on lies and false claims against the 14th amendment, the vast majority of the public was absolutely against it. Now that it has been proclaimed "Legal" for all those years, and now that the term "fetus" has replaced the term "baby" , it is far more accepted by the public than it once was. And now we are hearing noises all over the nation for official sanction of "gay" marriage. In 1973, it was considered a mental disorder. Now it's considered a new entitlement group.

Do not discount the consequences of argumentum ad verecundium. It does influence how the public regards things. Yes, the culture needs to change, but official sanction is a force that would retard beneficial change.

What you're trying to do when swaying people's emotions is a separate thing from reasoning them. It doesn't matter whether someone refuses to do the reasonable thing after they've learned the true, reasonable facts. It only matters that they're informed of that truth. If they choose to do the wrong thing then, it's willfully, regardless what the emotional justification is. Emotional motivation is a separate thing from intellectual understanding of right and wrong. A crime of passion is a crime nonetheless.

I ask you how informed a person can be when it doesn't sink in? Mouthing words in front of another does not equate to comprehension. Take Obama for example. People repeatedly warned that he was inexperienced, having never ran so much as a lemonade stand. They warned that he associated with some unsavory characters and had a completely hidden past. They warned that he was reckless, spiteful and vengeful. They warned that he was indecisive and had poor instincts.

What did people hear? "Oh my god, how wonderful it will be to elect a BLACK President!!!!! We can show everyone how non-racist we are!!!! It's Historic!!!" The thought that they were promoting a moron on the basis of his color simply didn't occur to them. They were moved by emotion and inspiration, not logic and reason. They couldn't even hear the logical arguments against him. All they could see was Rainbows and Unicorns.

Drinking and then piloting and crashing a loaded 747 because of same alcoholic impairment is a crime.
Taking drugs that one knows will similarly (to larger degrees) derail one's behavior for the worst is no different. It's willfully that you relinquish "control" of your actions.The biochemistry of drugs is complex. Prohibition neither accommodates that complexity nor conforms to genuine American principles. Not least of which freedom to act and bear the consequences. Whether someone integrates these facts into their emotional motivations or not is a separate thing from understanding them. Once informed, the burden of doing the right thing is on them. They give up the right to plead innocence due to not knowing any better.

And that is all semantics. I contend that it is impossible for someone to understand the consequences before they happen, and it is impossible to make any informed decision after they happen. (for such people as addiction is a problem. Others who might be genetically immuned are not so affected.)

And I'm not tired of the drug argument. I have no influence on US drug policy, and I'm not informed on the logistics (i.e. drug biochemistry) to do more than argue the fundamentals of policy. So to me it's just mental exercise.
What I don't have patience for is arguing with you specifically. I wouldn't mind arguing with others who have your position, more or less, (IIRC Kiteman, Skipjack, Choff), but none of their arguments are compelling to me either, and all my arguments are at least as well articulated by Tom Ligon, TallDave, MSimon and others.

I thought Kiteman was on your side? In any case, I have never liked the drug argument, but it is the unavoidable consequence of MSimon bending every conversation to it. Funny thing is, before when I wouldn't argue with him regarding it, he mentioned it constantly. Now that I've started pounding the theoretical underpinnings of his philosophy, he hasn't felt like discussing it much lately. He still keeps repeating his "conservatives are just as much advocates for big government as are liberals" meme though.

Anyway, this thread wasn't supposed to rehash the drug argument. It was intended to point out how much easier it is to move human minds with emotion as opposed to reason.

Prohibition is as bad a solution as abstinence is.

Abstinence is the victim of government interference with normal social conduct. Before the government came along and rescued girls who got pregnant outside of wedlock, unfortunate girls served as negative examples to other girls who might have been contemplating pre-marital sex. The observation of the misery suffered by girls who had to care for a child by themselves (without government assistance) was enough to discourage many of them from following that path. Now that the government actually makes it somewhat desirable to get pregnant outside of wedlock (Free housing, free food, free electricity, free everything and you can move out of your parents house.) a lack of abstinence no longer has a down side.

Abstinence also requires self control. A trait that is lacking in people inclined to reckless sex and drug use.

[Diogenes]

Just for kicks and grins, I thought people might like to hear about another case where emotion trumps reason, and not just for a member of the hoi polloi, but for a scientist.

One of the most outrageous purveyors of fraud, up until recent times at least, was Vrain- Lucas, a French forger of the 19th Century. Born in 1818?, he produced over 27,000 letters from historical personages such as Judas Iscariot, Julius Caesar, Alexander of Macedon, Cervantes, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Cicero, Herod, Attila, Abe’lard, and Vercingetorix and sold them to Michel Chasles (1793-1880), an eminent geometrician and member of the Acad’emie of Sciences in the years between 1861-69. The letters were sold for over 140,000 Francs during the nine year period.

Chasles was a respected man of science, yet he accepted the letters on faith from Lucas; despite the fact that all the letters were written in French, except for the Galileo letters that were written in Italian. The fact that the letters were also written on modern paper was not considered either, so great was the selling ability and charisma of Lucas.

In 1867, Chasles presented the letters to the Acad’emie, they were received with gratitude; however, glaring errors were perceived by the Acad’emie, some of the most obvious were those of chronology, Newton would have discovered the laws of gravitation at ten years of age. This illogical fact began to arouse suspicions as to the authenticity of the letters.

Lucas spent two years in prison for this fraud and upon his release, he once again resorted to fraudulent letter writing and returned to prison for another three years.

Chasles was humiliated and the obvious fraud probably contributed to his demise.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/09/06/ ... more-44559

[Betruger]

The point is reason wouldn't have worked.

Again you only say this, not showing evidence either in principle or practice; it's at best an appeal to authority. You don't tie this in to the main arc of debate: that a free people minimally governed could or couldn't flourish, with COMPREHENSIVELY regulated but generally legalized (not blindly prohibited, no "war on drugs") chemical compounds as a characteristic instance.

You are basically arguing that people don't and can't mature emotionally (asking oneself what the premises are for one's emotions, and checking them against reality), beyond some helpless level where they can't function in an environment full of liberty's pros and cons: both opportunity and hazard, but all predictable because bound to the laws of causality. You're setting the stage for a stagnating country, at the very least a country that's not true to the USA's founding principles.

Refusing reason as the fundamental element of policy is a divider not a uniter.
It leaves no common ground to resolve disputes because it takes all differences of opinion that are "bourne from emotion" as inherently unreconcilable.
It's the basis for perpetual polarization and entrenchment (and what's worse not limited to only a few factions, i.e. fractal splintering into fundie groups none sensible to reason) that's dividing the USA not in the manner of healthy debate, of reasonable checks and balances, but of fundamental theology with no room for rational resolution.

Someone who refuses to hear reason that shows his emotional basis as incorrect in whatever way, is someone who is wrong. Period. You can't polish a turd and you can't absolve people from the responsibility of knowingly and willfully drugging themselves to ruin.

Saying that people act stupid and thus both govt policy and public culture should conform to this trend while doing nothing to resolve it is stupid. Like saying your car just lost a wheel, and therefore the solution is that you should drive in such a way as to keep the car balanced so the bare axle-end doesn't touch the ground; not that you should replace the wheel.

[MSimon]

Reason vs emotion is a red herring. People without emotion can't reason. There are numerous studies and I will let you look for them.

I want to go into why - we are not intrinsically reasoners. We are pattern recognition systems. Emotion is a signal of pattern recognition. If you have trained your pattern recognition system well you can do a tolerable job of reasoning.

======

BTW another big defection from the drug war. In case you don't read the article McKay was a top prosecutor in the Seattle area who just finished a high profile case against a Canadian seed exporter:

Our marijuana policy is dangerous and wrong and should be changed through the legislative process to better protect the public safety," he wrote.

Marijuana prohibition "has utterly failed," McKay concluded. "The demand for marijuana in this country has for decades outpaced the ability of law enforcement to eliminate it," he declared, ready to throw in the towel.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... ction.html

You will note that he did not speak out until after he was retired. So much for integrity. Or as I would rather put it - the Drug War is a jobs program. And you can't keep your job if you tell the truth. Nice set of incentives we have.

So D is it possible you are being lied to by people who just want to keep their phony baloney jobs? How is this any different from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd lying about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack?

=====

So what is the pattern evidenced here? Government will lie to keep the money coming. Or as I like to put it: a wallet extraction scheme.

[Betruger]

It's a red herring but the pattern those words refer to do exist. Hadn't you said that emotionless people can reason, only not make choices hinged on personal import? E.G. can figure out how socks are woven, but not which ones they want to wear.

Either way, appeal to emotion is fallacious.

[MSimon]

So where does D go wrong in his pattern recognizing:

There is no problem so complex that it can't be solved by putting a gun to people's heads.

1. Not true - excesses in that direction lead to revolutions.
2. If there is not excess you merely get black markets.

It is an anti-liberty stance to be sure. Liberals of course take the same stance (that should be a clue right there of the inherent defect of the position). The objects of their desire for power and control are just different from the conservatives. The impulse is the same. (I see a pattern).

So let us look at the not excess case further. Opiates.

At the time before the Harrison Narcotics Act when the drugs were over the counter, opiate use in America was 1.3%. After nearly 100 years of opiates being outlawed in America opiate use in America is 1.3%.

In other words several trillions of dollars have been spent to no effect. And yet our D who claims to be no supporter of government programs now thinks that the waste has some good effects. Like keeping some people who would be harmed away from opiates.

Well the evidence is in: prohibition doesn't matter when it comes to affecting opiate use. Those who want them get them. Those who don't want them don't get them. The big con is that by enacting a prohibition law some people actually fooled by words believe that prohibited means: unavailable. When what it actually means is available outside legal commercial channels. Wm. Burroughs calls this effect of words: "the word virus". The scary part? Liberals AND Conservatives are addicted to the word virus. The evidence is in: no matter how many times their plans fail those addicted to the word virus press on. Liberals can't learn from the failures of socialism and conservatives fail to heed the lessons of the USSR (where many items of commerce were prohibited) and alcohol prohibition.

I wrote about it:

Heroin Has Been Destroying America For 100 Years

You can check on the source I cite and look at how good his stats are.

[choff]

I've walked past a number of Marc Emory's protests and demonstrations on the street while on business. As with all protest groups on Vancouver streets, I play a game of trying to pick out which member of the group is the VPD infiltrator and which one is the CSIS infiltrator, the two aren't aware of each other.

If the guy was moving over 5 tons of cocaine or over 40 pounds of heroin through the right airport in the US, and had the right connections, and got caught, he would be a free man with his drugs returned to him by the authorities to dispense with as he pleased.

http://madcowprod.com/

There was a documentary on the tube, a training film for police from the late 40's, early 50's. The claim was make that pot was being sold by organized crime at very low profit or no profit in relation to the jail time risked. The motivation was that people who experimented with pot would be more willing to experiment with harder drugs with the aim of experiencing different or more potent types of high. That would be where the profit kicked in. So in theory Marc could be stuck with more time that his business was worth.

[chrismb]

If the prosecutors of the woman whom you are trying had brought her before the Savior, they would have accepted His challenge and each one gathered a rock and stoned her, in the twinkling of an eye. No, Gentlemen, do as your Master did twice under the same circumstances that surround you. Tell her to go in peace.

The Jury acquitted her immediately.

A prostitute, in 1899 small-town Oklahoma?

Of course this defence would work. The all-male jury had probably already known her!? "Cast, ye, the first stone who is free of guilt!" There could be no better defence!

That plea is considered by many attorneys to be an example of a perfect closing argument.

...providing the jury [feel that they] have participated in the same nature of the crime themselves. If someone were to have been shown to do dastardly deeds to a small child before slaying it, then I hardly thing the "hey, my client may be guilty - but aren't we all guilty of something?" approach would go down very well as a 'perfect defence'.

[MSimon]

It's a red herring but the pattern those words refer to do exist. Hadn't you said that emotionless people can reason, only not make choices hinged on personal import? E.G. can figure out how socks are woven, but not which ones they want to wear.

Either way, appeal to emotion is fallacious.

I agree with you on that point. Essentially people without reason can't choose: come to a conclusion.

On the rest of your argument - yes. An appeal to emotion only is an attempt to short circuit reason.

We are fortunate to be alive in the final stages of the Drug War. Once it is over a LOT of believer's heads will explode when they find out how bad it has really been.

Here is a fine example of the level of corruption we will find all around America:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... l_headline

[MSimon]

...providing the jury [feel that they] have participated in the same nature of the crime themselves. If someone were to have been shown to do dastardly deeds to a small child before slaying it, then I hardly thing the "hey, my client may be guilty - but aren't we all guilty of something?" approach would go down very well as a 'perfect defence'.

At some level (below the level of reason) most people understand the difference between vice and crime.

[chrismb]

At some level (below the level of reason) most people understand the difference between vice and crime.

Well put!

Yes, I think that is the distinct difference. 'Normal' folks are, indeed, prepared to forgive for vices, peccadillos and other bizarre and deviant behaviours that adds, let us say, 'colour' to society that doesn't add trauma and damage to it. The Authorities on the other hand seem to use people's weaknesses as an excuse to prosecute and keep the people subjugated.

I don't think I have really considered that before. I think it is right. Various 'crimes' fit that bill - speeding, getting drunk, being a bit offensive, throwing eggs at politicians... breaking into a bank and stealing money (!?) - do these *need* to be made out to be crimes?

Is it the French who have 'crimes of passion'? I suppose that heads towards such a distinction.