Re: General advice beyond Org

[Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net>]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 01:10:06PM -0700, Eric Abrahamsen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> For anyone who's paying attention to US politics (I hope it's not
>> ruining your day) [...]
>
> There are so many ways to get one's day ruined... ;-)
>
>> positions that are held for emotional reasons only get stronger the more
>> you attack them.
>>
>> Knowing nothing more about your adviser than what you've written in this
>> thread, it sounds like it might be an emotional issue for her (as it may
>> be for you, and certainly is for many of us here!). Meaning, she's
>> likely to respond to any perceived "attack" by doubling down.
>
> <old guy's rant>
>
> I read that between your lines, but I think it's worth being stressed:
> mainstream discourse has for a long time painted "emotional" (as
> opposed to "rational") in a negative light. Since we perceive better
> those emotions that are not ours, we tend to misuse that to detract
> our opponents ("they are irrational") -- this verges on intellectual
> dishonesty, and has IMO helped to reach the situation we have these
> days. It's an echo of the reaction to the Age of Enlightenment that
> Romanticism was.
>
> The sensible (heh :) way out, IMO, is to accept that the "other" has
> as much right to her emotions as we have, and that our position only
> *seems* more rational to us, because we can't see our emotions as
> well as we can see the "other's". Or something.
>
> That doesn't mean to give up on one's position, nor to give up on
> convincing the "other" -- but it includes (and that's the painful
> part :-) accepting the possibility to be convinced by the "other".
>
> </old guy's rant>

I certainly didn't mean to dump on "emotional"! I think most of us are
working from emotional impulses most of the time; I think that's normal.