Impartiality

Something that's been wracking my brain lately:

I answer this question a lot with my own assertion usually, but I guess the truth is, I don't really know the answer..and I never really explore it enough.

What do people really mean when they say they to 'remove emotion' from your beliefs? I've never 100% understood what is really meant here. I've arrived at objective truths, but I'm sure it's always been born through emotion. Often that lucidity or clarity stems from some feeling attached to it. I see knowledge and emotions as being inextricably linked. One can assume the position of neutrality, but even that neutrality is an emotion itself. I see very often that logical thinkers speak in a very halting manner; flat affect etc. ...but they're still quite obviously emotional.

So usually when I try to remove emotion for the sake of objectivity, I'm actually choosing an emotion that feels like no emotion. If that makes sense.

Obviously I'm not talking about 'truths' that I glean that come from someone's subjective assertion (though I'd argue that all information probably, initially starts with a subjective assertion), but actual, empirically proven things that presumably exists independent of any subject's interpretation of it.

Presumably we're talking about removing types of emotion so strong and blinding that it could distort the truth. Not all emotion altogether. We usually give people **** for extremes of emotion; I have to believe that's what's being referred to here (merely irrational emotions?). Though perhaps not.

Any takers here?

As a follow-up question:

It's pretty obvious to me, as has been proven time and time again and corroborated, that biased - yes, emotionally-based - arguments or assertions that appeal to others' senses win out in favor of cold, hard facts usually. So my question is for those of you who believe you are more impartial reporters of the facts --- what sustains your steadfast (though steadfastness and impartiality may seem mutually exclusive) beliefs in the face of great unpopularity...and how do you remain 'confident' knowing that knowledge is so plastic.....that so few immutable facts exist? Merely knowing that I might possess the truth is never enough for me, because I know that I'm dealing with what might otherwise be robots stuck on auto to believe what they believe. Sure, there's the Buddhist tenet of accepting what you cannot change, but I've never subscribed to that. I believe in resistance at all costs.

This is something I have thought about. It frustrates me when I see emotions get in the way of opinions and decisions. It is so illogical.

But as to the question, what's your take?

I'm not sure I understand. I thought I had conveyed that in my post. My take being that it is illogical to not be able to put emotions aside. I admit i hold contempt when i see the failure to do so. I can only guess that it is a matter of choice not to ignore emotional responses. I get frustrated when i see illogical emotionally effected choices and opinions. That frustration is itself emotional but again i manage to withdraw the emotions from my ensuing responses.

The questions posed were:

What do people really mean when they say they to 'remove emotion' from your beliefs?

And for context I said: I've never 100% understood what is really meant here. I've arrived at objective truths, but I'm sure it's always been born through emotion. Often that lucidity or clarity stems from some feeling attached to it. I see knowledge and emotions as being inextricably linked. One can assume the position of neutrality, but even that neutrality is an emotion itself. I see very often that logical thinkers speak in a very halting manner; flat affect etc. ...but they're still quite obviously emotional.

Presumably we're talking about removing types of emotion so strong and blinding that it could distort the truth. Not all emotion altogether. We usually give people **** for extremes of emotion; I have to believe that's what's being referred to here (merely irrational emotions?). Though perhaps not.

Right, exactly. This is sort of along the lines of what I'm talking about. Even when we're lamenting lack of emotions we're employing some kind of emotion.

I fail to see how neutrality is based out of emotion. It is a decision to rise above it. I suppose i have little or no experience with looking through rose colored glasses of emotions.

Well, if complete neutrality is defined by the complete absence of any emotion, I don't really see how it could exist. But that wasn't even the main point I was driving at. My point is that everyone has emotions regardless (even psychopaths possess emotion in some capacity). So, I'm trying to ascertain what is really meant when people say to take emotions out of the equation to remain impartial or...objective, when clearly moments of insight to, say, grasp logic stems from types of emotion. I guess I'm approaching this from a more literalist perspective.

I think when people say to "take emotions out of it," they mean that something must be done/believed despite our feelings against it. I agree with you that emotion exists in some degree with anything, but, I think the categories of emotion, thought, perceptions, belief, instinct, etc., have some overlap and blurred boundaries. Some people say, "I feel that..." while others say, "I think that..."
I do think it's possible to take the focus off a particular emotion, let other parts of the brain kick in, and then a more suited emotion will come in eventually. But, it's not so easy as just deciding to make that process happen, sometimes.

I see. Yes, well that would make a great deal more sense (some would have you believe it's some kind of Vulcan-like state). I like that answer; I hope it's true, as I'd like to not be able to compartmentalize so much. My idea of a 'detached' state is almost stress-inducing, which I guess ultimately defeats the point.

Oh yes. Certainly not easy. To rationalize your way out of strongly held emotions is one of the most difficult things to do, and I'm not always clear on which, if any, of my more passionate emotional states are even warranted.

True. Some passionate emotional states are purely harmless. But, in my experience, some emotions are based on faulty beliefs, bad programming or habit, and led me astray or into painful confusion. When I guide myself away from these unhelpful emotions, surprisingly I get more clarity right away. It's empowering to know where to draw the line.