The Logic in Emotions
A feeling is real as an experience, but it does not make an associated belief true. Cheng argues that understanding the reasoning and concerns behind an emotion can make discussion more productive than telling someone not to feel it.
THE IDEA
THE LOGIC IN EMOTIONS
Feelings are not facts. Or are they? It depends what we mean. If I “feel” that 1 + 1 = 3 that doesn’t make it true in normal life. (There is a mathematical world in which it is true, but that’s a different matter.) Similarly if I “feel” that someone arrested for a crime is guilty that doesn’t make it true.
But there is an important sense in which feelings are facts: feelings are always true. If you feel something then the fact that you feel it cannot be argued down by logic. There is rarely any point trying to persuade someone that they “should not” feel something, if they simply are feeling it. Emotions are very powerful at overriding logic.
A more productive process is to find the explanation behind the emotions, uncover the difference between that logic and one you are trying to convey, and use emotions to help bridge that gap. In this way instead of pitting logic against emotions, we separate out emotions and logic in the situation, and only pit logic against logic and emotions against emotions. In a way this is exactly what the process of teaching maths well consists of. If a student gives a wrong answer, it rarely helps just to explain the right answer to them. First you have to uncover why they gave the wrong answer, understand the thought process behind it, and somehow convince them that your thought process is more sound.
The reason the emotions are so strong can often be traced back to some fundamental fear. But fear works in strange ways. Sometimes fear works to persuade people of something, and sometimes it doesn’t. People who believe the evidence about climate change are typically very afraid about the future of the planet, so feel that it is extremely urgent that we do something about it. Those who do not believe the evidence are typically not afraid of climate change and so don’t do anything about it. But why are we not able to make those people afraid enough to want to do something about it? Why by contrast are some people so easily whipped up into a frenzy of fear about refugees even though there is no evidence that refugees are more dangerous than, say, white Americans with guns? Why are some people not at all afraid of gun violence, or at least, not afraid enough to want to have tighter restrictions on guns?
Saying that political views are driven by fear is thus not really an explanation as it doesn’t work in all cases – it is an analogy but at the wrong level of abstraction. Perhaps a better analogy between those situations is to do with action. In the case of climate change, taking action against climate change requires some personal sacrifices (better use of resources, which might be expensive). Likewise taking action against guns requires some people’s personal sacrifices (giving up their guns). Whereas with refugees, it is being unafraid of refugees that requires personal sacrifices – giving up resources to look after refugees, accepting them in the community. Perhaps it is not so much fear that drives these arguments, but personal beliefs around sacrifices.
In this imagined argument we have used a key technique for engaging other people’s emotions: the use of analogies.
When to use it
Persuading a colleague to adopt a new process: Instead of dismissing their resistance as irrational, uncover the fear behind it and address that logic.
Teaching: When a student gives a wrong answer, understand their reasoning before providing the correct answer.
Political debates: Recognize that emotional reactions often stem from differing beliefs about necessary sacrifices, not just fear.
Personal relationships: Validate your partner's feelings while discussing the logic behind them.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Math Error
A student gives a wrong answer in math class. Simply explaining the right answer rarely works. You must first understand the student's thought process and then convince them that your reasoning is sound, using the logic behind their emotion of frustration or confusion.
Climate Change vs. Refugees
Cheng compares reactions to climate change, guns and refugees to explore why appeals to fear work differently. She proposes looking at the sacrifices people associate with action or inaction. This is an analogy for examining a disagreement, rather than proof of one motive behind everyone’s political views.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time when someone tried to argue you out of a feeling. How could they have instead uncovered the logic behind your emotion?
How can you use analogies to bridge the gap between differing emotional reactions, like in the climate change vs. refugee example?
When you feel strongly about something, what underlying fear or belief might be driving that emotion?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- The Art of Logic How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn’t (Eugenia Cheng)