How in tune are you with your emotions and rationalisation? Do you tend to lean towards one more than the other?
2007-12-23 05:17:29 · 35 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Lioness: Maybe or maybe not... I'll keep the mystery in the air, hehe. ;-)
But all joking aside, it was meant as a poll/survey, as I was wondering how commonly do people experience crushes on Y!A. :-)
2007-12-23 06:03:13 · update #1
Wow, I know that this is a personal matter for each individual, as each one of us expresses our emotions and rationality (thanks for correction Gnu) in our own ways, but I really like your answers, some well articulated and all are candid.
Thanks everyone!
2007-12-27 07:30:32 · update #2
First, I think I need some clarification. I've noticed elsewhere you use "rationale" when you seem to mean "rationality" (the capacity for thinking rationally). And here you are using "rationalisation" (which refers to the coming up with reasons for what you feel or do, after the fact) when you seem to again mean "rationality". Or at least, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense.
I believe that I am very in turn with my emotions, though I am also inclined to set them aside or dismiss them as being irrelevant when I believe that ethical or prudential reasons trump my personal feelings. I've noticed that many man tend to say "I think" even when asked about their feelings, but I am not one of them. I am quite willing to describe my feelings honestly, but unwilling to let them dictate my thinking.
But rationality always ultimately rests on feelings. It's a matter of how far back the reasons go. For example, if you ask me to justify a particular view on current government policies, I can give clear reasons for my views, but if you were to ask me something like, "But why is torture wrong?" I can only appeal to my visceral sense that the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on a helpless human being is wrong.
On the other hand, I'd stand by that principle even though, if I saw Osama Bin Ladin being tortured, I certainly wouldn't feel any sympathy and I'd even feel inclined to join in. So my feelings of vengeance don't trump the principle, though they can trump the general sense of empathy on which the principle against torture rests.
2007-12-26 03:25:55 · answer #1 · answered by Gnu Diddy! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It takes a pretty big jolt to get an 'emotional' response out of me, and even then, I'll shift the emotional gears down, until I've calm, control, and orientation time to find the best line to steer. Some people, at first meeting, find me a little too cool for their liking, too little revealing of self--on the other hand, these same people, later, find me candid and forthright and MEASURED in my responses. Clearly, I favor reasoned response over merely emotional response.
But this answers your question only for those historical and routinely foreseeable situations I've been in. In novel situations, I gotta fly by the seat of my pants, just as anyone else does. In novel situations, my emotions must drive the vehicle my reason has built--in 'as is' condition--and stay at the wheel until my reason (which must have time to work) can prudently take over. (Reason doesn't often fight on the battlefield; it picks the battlefield, though, and trains, marshals, and deploys the forces it has procured and supplied. But enough military metaphor; it leads us to saying occasionally that people we don't like sometimes think reasonably well.)
2007-12-27 07:18:24 · answer #2 · answered by skumpfsklub 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that I balance the 2 well. I am very 'in touch' with my emotions, which is just as well being a mum, but I am a great analytical thinker and I rarely make decisions based on emotions - apart from affairs of the heart of course! Mostly I find other women have a lot of good common sense, but not so much of the analysis, and that is probably why I am not that friendly with that many women.
But I think it is perfectly possible to rationalise emotionally - the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Emotions are needed to make a lot of decisions - eveni if it is simply 'will doing that make me happy?'
2007-12-24 16:56:18 · answer #3 · answered by Fanny Blood 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm much more of a rational person. Things don't really evoke much emotion from me; it takes quite a bit to get me irritated, and it's an extremely rare occasion in which I get seriously angry. But really, I think the two are very closely related. Sometimes I can have an emotional thought as a reaction to something, but, by thinking in a rational way, I won't act on that emotion. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm just babbling on here...
2007-12-23 05:23:38 · answer #4 · answered by Kristinabelle 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My thought: You women are wonderful. And so are men. I wish we could all stop fighting (not just for one day, but forever) and live in peace. Now, I know that's impossible, but a kid can dream ... Not all men are rapists/abusers/molesters by birth, and we do get hurt as easily as you do. Not all of us want to lock women up at home and dominate them, and I certainly am not a misogynist. Those are the thoughts I wish to let people know. ---------------- ------------------ ---------------------- ----------------- Well, I did promise jokes today to keep spirits up, so here's the first one: Now, we all know science has proved men die 7 years earlier than women on an average and has discovered so called biological reasons for it (height, metabolism, immunity and the like). But it took me less than a minute to figure out the real reason: If you put a woman on a pedestal and try to protect her from the rat race by keeping her at home ... you're a male chauvinist. If you stay home and do the housework ... you're a pansy. If you work too hard ... there's never any time for her. If you don't work enough ... you're a good-for-nothing bum. If she has a boring repetitive job with low pay ... this is exploitation. If you have a boring repetitive job with low pay ... you should get off your lazy behind and find something better. If you get a promotion ahead of her ... that is favoritism. If she gets a job ahead of you ... its equal opportunity. If you mention how nice she looks ... its sexual harassment. If you keep quiet ... its male indifference. If you cry ... you're a wimp. If you don't ... you're insensitive. If you make a decision without consulting her ... you're a chauvinist. If she makes a decision without consulting you, she's a liberated woman. If you ask her to do something she doesn't enjoy ... that's domination. If SHE asks you ... it's a favor. If you appreciate the female form and frilly underwear ... you're a pervert. If you don't ... you're gay. If you like a woman to shave her legs and keep in shape ... you're sexist. If you don't ... you're unromantic. If you try to keep yourself in shape ... you're vain. If you don't ... you're a slob. If you buy her flowers ... you're after something. If you don't ... you're not thoughtful. If you're proud of your achievements ... you're full of yourself. If you don't ... you're not ambitious. If she has a headache ... she's tired. If you have a headache ... you don't love her anymore. So, why do men die first? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO!!! -------------- -------------- ------------------- ---------------- mystery meat, I took your quote quite seriously, and though I'm in no relationship with anyone, I'd like to ask you something. What do you think of me? This is my chance. I'm always curious about what other people think about me, though I know I shouldn't be.
2016-05-26 01:04:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know I have suppressed the emotional part too hard...so sometimes it's just ready to be unleashed and I don't know how to handle that. I'm dealing with an issue right now, last night I was leaning towards the emotional part but I just knew I have to wait and give it some thought... this morning... I woke up with a clear mind and knew there is no room for getting myself caught up with feelings. My logic almost always wins, which is why I don't find myself in bad situations too many times. But this is at the expense of never relaxing and being emotionally cold when I'm not supposed to. This can be hurtful to people around me.
I need to find a balance. I have gone from one extreme to another.
Great question!
I read your other question in polls, I wonder if they two are related? LOL
EDIT:
Grayure is so right. True happiness comes when there is no conflict between your logic and emotions.
2007-12-23 05:24:48 · answer #6 · answered by Lioness 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The process of tuning into emotions and working with them rationally is perpetual for me. I do my best to integrate, yet mostly it is a process of evaluation and response.
I am learning that sometimes movement, and acting is more important that either emotion or rational. When the geography and geometry of life change, all thoughts and reasons change with them.
A leap of faith taken in an act of love defies all logic and reason. Defies fear and trusts the process.
I can think about how I feel afterwards.
2007-12-23 10:29:50 · answer #7 · answered by Twilight 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
This is how it works for me: I feel the emotion or a gut reaction first. Then logic comes into play.
Sometimes the two live happily together, other times they conflict.
I am in tune with both. I am able to make conscious decisions without impediments.
2007-12-26 03:32:12 · answer #8 · answered by Marguerite 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well Gypsy,
I am an intuitive and emotional person. If I care about something then I must control my feelings if I am to think clearly. It is easier to be intellectual when I haven't invested any feelings. I feel more myself when I can follow my heart.
About two years ago, I did what I thought best and went against my emotions. There is a lot of pain you must heal from when you do that. But, I think I had no real choice.
C. :)!!
2007-12-23 10:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by Charlie Kicksass 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I tend to rationalize everything. True story:
When I was about 5 years old, I asked my parents how could Santa Claus deliver presents all the way around the world in one night? I said, "Let's say he spends 5 minutes at everyone's house, he's not going to have time to go to everyone's house." The only explanation they could come up with was if I wanted presents, then I just had to believe he could do this.
They should have told me how can make time stand still instead.
My point is, I believe there's a rational explanation for everything.
2007-12-23 05:22:37 · answer #10 · answered by Rainbow 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋