A clarification or an apology? Think of it as one of those
choose-your-own-adventure stories…
Regarding the criticism directed towards me for my last blog
(in which I defend the business strategy of Abercrombie & Fitch) it has
become clear to me that, generally speaking, people place more value in
emotions than in analyzing issues with intelligence. This is not to say people
who place more value in their emotions are unintelligent, simply that their
lives are less governed by reason. In saying so, I suppose it seems obvious
that I place less value in reacting emotionally to life’s various situations, preferring
to analyze situations before reacting or making decisions. Naturally, it is not
always practical to act in this manner, but I generally do so with situations
that allow it. As such, I tend to accuse others of being oversensitive, whereas
I have been accused of being unsympathetic or lacking empathy towards others. Having
taken some time to reflect upon this disconnect, as it were, I found myself
asking this question: Is it better to approach life emotionally or with reason
(more precisely, with more emotion than reason or with more reason than
emotion)?
On the surface, it may seem that taking the latter approach
to life robs a person of the many immediate pleasures any given moment may
offer. To a certain extent I agree as there are certainly situations in which
it is enjoyable to stop thinking and enjoy the moment. I suspect this is why
people place such a high value on emotions. I’ve certainly been told that
emotions are what make us human, but hearing this much makes me wonder if the
advocates of emotions think we became intelligent (notice I didn’t say reasonable) by accident or as some kind
of afterthought. As humans, we are both emotional AND intelligent; the question
is whether one of these aspects of our existence should be held in higher
regard than the other.
In thinking about this – since I invest more time reasoning
than living emotionally – I’ve come to a conclusion that surprised me. That conclusion
came about by reflecting on the state of the world; at any given time in
history, even now, the general state of the world has been one of misery, certain
perspectives be damned. (Perhaps that is why optimistic people are in such
short supply.) So, I thought, what has caused the world to be so miserable? At
first I thought that it was because people tend to react to the world without
thinking. All of humanity’s worst qualities such as anger, arrogance, bigotry, dominance,
entitlement, tribalism – people assume these traits too often before giving the
slightest thought as to why they act in the manner they do. Though we do
cooperate when it benefits us (when we reason),
think of how often we act benevolent with each other when we stand nothing to
gain. I’m not saying people never act kind without expecting some kind of
reciprocity, it just happens less than when cooperating is more than a zero-sum
game. I do not believe people are basically good; given the chance to take
advantage of another, more people give into the temptation than not, as several
notable experiments have borne out. [e.g. the Stanford prison experiment, the
Milgram experiment, etc.]
Next, I began to think about all the good human intelligence
has wrought please insert sarcasm here. The advancement of atomic energy came
at the behest to weaponize the technology, cars which get us to the restaurant faster
so that we can eat a steaks (both contribute to our poisonous atmosphere), genetically
modified plants that cannot reproduce on purpose; it would be easy to get
carried away here. But when we think of the most recent tech “advancement,”
Google Glass, I discovered the common denominator between emotions and
intelligence that puts the human race at a disadvantage: People tend to apply
emotion and intelligence before applying REASON to life’s myriad of situations.
It’s not hard to think of what the unintended consequences of Google Glass
might be, but did its inventors stop to think it might do more harm than good?
No, I’m sure they automatically assumed the benefits of Google Glass outweigh
its possible downside. (That is to say, it’s all about the money.)
While I said earlier that human beings are both emotional
and intelligent – weakly implying that both are important aspects of our
existence – I think either on its own without any application of reason has
been a bust for humanity. I think it is okay to be emotional…but not without also
being reasonable. It is also okay to be intelligent, but not without being reasonable.
And so I have discovered that reason trumps both emotion and intelligence.
This, I believe, is where much of my dissatisfaction with my opponents in the
Mike Jeffries debate came from, my belief that they were being unreasonable
which they often took as an attack on intelligence. To be fair, I didn’t make
this clear though I’m not sure saying, “I’m not attacking your intelligence, it’s
that you’re not being reasonable,” would have helped. Or perhaps it would have
if we as a species took the attitude that we need to stop, collaborate, and listen
to each other. We need to stop perceiving that disagreements are attacks. We
need to think about things before assuming all those ugly human traits I
alluded to earlier, myself included.
I suppose it’s up to the individual to be more emotional
than reasonable or more reasonable than emotional, but I certainly believe that
abandoning reasoning altogether is one of the worst things a person can do not
only for themselves, but for the world. I will not apologize for taking umbrage
in instances where reason is abandoned when it is needed most. Not now, not
ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment