Are Humans Emotional Creatures or Are We Rational? | Yale Psychologist Paul Bloom | Big Think

Are Humans Emotional Creatures or Are We Rational?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale psychologist Paul Bloom likens empathy to a spotlight, shining down brightly to illuminate an actor on a stage. The analogy brings together two opposed camps: those who feel empathy is essential to making good ethical choices, and those who, like Bloom, feel that empathy is just another word for bias. As he explains, bias can be good or bad, but it always emphasizes the suffering of a small group at the expense of a larger set of people. Empathy moves us, but it may move us to make an unethical decision. Conversely, says Bloom, dehumanization is not the ultimate evil we typically assume it to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL BLOOM

Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology at Yale University. An internationally recognized expert on the psychology of child development, social reasoning, and morality, he has won numerous awards for his research, writing, and teaching. Bloom’s previous books include Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil and How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like, and he has written for Science, Nature, The New York Times, and The New Yorker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:

Paul Bloom:  So we have all sorts of biases to favor our own group over others. Some of these biases I think are morally respectable. I’m not embarrassed that I love my children more than I love other children. Or love my life more than I love other people. But others are less respectable. We have biases about skin color, about national origin, about even sports teams where these things may seem kind of arbitrary and not very important. But they play a huge role in our lives. We’re hugely biased creatures. We’re naturally carve the world into in group and out group. I do some research on babies and I would argue that this in group, out group distinction comes naturally to us. That you could see it in babies before their first birthday. Even if empathy were to be stripped from our heads. If you were to take a pill that would blot out your empathy you’d still be biased. You’d still favor yours over another group. There are many sources of bias. It seems to be wired into all of our emotions, all of our decision making. But empathy is particularly vulnerable to bias. I use the analogy of it as a spotlight and, in fact, many of the fans of empathy use that analogy as well because it captures the apparent good that empathy can do. It zooms you in and makes you care.

But a spotlight only illuminates a small area and a spotlight only illuminates where you point it. And so empathy is exquisitely subject to bias because our bias tells us where the spotlight is pointed to. I could try to do a rational cost benefit analysis and I can do a pretty good shot at being unbiased and fair adding up the people who suffer from the people who benefit figuring out a solution. But once empathy comes into the mix bias is inevitable. And so empathy making decisions based on empathy exaggerates our in group, out group bias. It brings it to the fore and makes it very hard to override.

So it’s a great question what goes on when we’re so rotten to other people. And one ingredient of it I think really is dehumanization. It’s when we think of the out group not as a people but just as things. And this doesn’t necessarily motivate cruelty. You’re not cruel to things. You’re not cruel to nonhumans but it motivates a sort of moral indifference. And so if you want to ignore the fates of people dehumanizing them is a great way to do so. I’m somewhat skeptical though about the importance of dehumanization in atrocities. I used to think this played a huge role. I was convinced by people who do wonderful work like David Livingston Smith who argue dehumanization is at the core of all evils. But now I’m less certain. There’s been critiques of this work and a lot of critiques point out that the people we hate the most, the people we torment the most, cause them to suffer the most aren’t people we don’t view as people. Because if you don’t view them as people why would you want to make them suffer. It’s people you hate. In other words it’s not people you kind of dehumanize but it’s rather people who you acknowledge their humanity and this is why you want to make them suffer. This is core to wanting to make them suffer.

I was on the radio earlier today and before me there was a segment on revenge porn. And it was chilling. It was typically men in relationships and ...

[cybersekkin]

I love the way he appeals to people's egos (makes an emotional appeal) while claiming it is about rationality. He even talks about how others do such things while pretending he is not doing it to the listeners here.

[Vgpl]

It's best to be rational. Emotions are literally hormones. You can manipulate them, or choose to have them manipulate you. Not saying you shouldn't be emotional, but I'd prefer to be in control over myself rather than be a byproduct of my hormones.

[kodafynest]

we are both rational and emotional creatures. and based on nature or nurture. it would determine which would drive out descions.

[ravenchild]

Both. But I think the most important one is emotions and empathy, because without emotions life is meaningless.

[pRopaaNS]

But rationality is an attained way of thinking, not inherited from birth.

[lumba_lumba_lumba]

The comments in a nutshell "Everyone that disagrees with my political views are emotional"





Ironically they don't realize the comment that they made is actually emotionally driven, so is this comment that I just made.

[Mnogojazyk]

People are a combination of emotion and reason. If one can combine the two into a unified whole, that is a great thing. Unfortunately, so often people emphasize one or the other. They often become unbalanced in their behavior and others suffer as a result. I wish we could get back to being a unified whole, but I fear that the prevailing climate does not permit this.

Perhaps I have been too influenced by the news, especially the more sensational and salacious aspects of many new reports; I hope that is the case. If that's the case -- and I suspect it is -- the only true thing I can do is to stop allowing myself to be so swayed.

[selfelements]

I like the analogy between humans and computers which again serves as a perfect illustration to the problem of "language programming" or "human conditioning" through cultural implementation, but quite honestly I think this discussion could've been a tad deeper, touching on topics such as what makes up the 'reality tunnel' for the subjective individual and how can one go against such programming or conditioning, thus tracing the roots of both emotion and rationality. If you think about it, emotion is rational too, you don't feel something without a cause, it's a biological response to subjective/objective stimuli. The issue here I perceive is one of morality; who can determine what is right or wrong when nature, free of any kind of programming or conditioning, manifests itself everyday as a violent and often deadly interplay between opposite forces. But of course, this is just one way of looking at it - there are countless other perspectives to consider too.

[serciusbrightstar]

Emotions are irrational and in turn can burn or build ourselves and the people around us.Rationality and reason is the capacity of choosing how we react and what "emotion(s)"we use to express ourselves in situations.

[RickDelmonico]

The intellect is fine for the average task but for a great challenge, heart and soul will be required.

[rampagebuddy]

I disagree with Paul Blooms conclusion that in the long run it is the reason that triumphs. Even I disagree with David Humes version that our short term decisions are guided more by emotions/passion. Because first there can be no generalization of this kind on so many diverse issues and for so many diverse individuals. Though if we are to make a practical empirical observation, we can conclude:

- In the short run based on personality people go for utilitarian decision or compassionate decision based on their upbringing- which becomes the part of their natural instinct to respond to situations. (thus more related to cultural setup and neither of reason or passion which are largely individual level concepts)

- In the long run it is always passion/ compassion that triumphs because they are only truth. For reason has its limitations and it itself is logical, on the other hand emotions are something that are driven by a desire- it is the human tendency then to fabric a reason around it (something which Hume would have agreed with)- thus it tends to go forward even when it seems illogical. Example: All the social changes of the world are primarily driven by this idea of compassion including end of racial discrimination (which too had reasoned backing then), dictatorial monarchies (towards liberal democracies of today), etc.
To solidify my argument consider:
- The highest level of moral reasoning is the justice system where it is said "justice can never be done, it only can be seem to have been done." Thus the primacy of feeling/ emotion even at this level.
- two good lawyers can continue to argue over a point till eternity, using reason alone in front of the judge. Thus no certainty of the reason alone to lead to an end.
It is evidence, rather than reason alone, that can solve matters of Boolean scientific analysis hence the examples of scientific success in various fields. But when it comes to abstract ideas with personal differences reason becomes handicapped. Try explaining modern art through reason. Justice and other social dialogue are like art which are driven by compassion. Thus the emergence of ideas like environmentalism and veganism.
(P.S. please forward it to those who understand it)

[notrningwheels]

Emotions aren't bad. Low Emotional Intelligence is bad. The problem with reason is that people frequently use it to rationalize torture, rape, slavery, genocide, and deceit.

To me, a degree of peaceful anarchy is necessary for reason to be more valuable than emotional intelligence. The internet is a great example and contrast to countless systemic modes of interaction (like racism) that we are trying to break free from. On racism and emotions - people knew in 1865 that it didn't feel right, but science pushed it forward until people saw the photos from the Nazi Death Camps.

[MikiMaki]

rationality is a "side effect" of consciousness, and it is a recent trait in human history. we have been monkeys far longer than rational beings, we should not deny the facts. our reptilian brain still rules and it takes a lot of effort (meditation, inner work, study) to overcome the instincts through wisdom.

[emmanuelstyles]

We are rational when it comes to small things, but for the most part we lead with our emotions. Some people like to pretend that they don't have emotions. Those are the people who end up with a lot of problems in their personal life because they don't know what to do with themselves. Stop trying to be a robot YOU'RE HUMAN and you have emotions.

[thstroyur]

So I heard this guy once, at my place, proclaiming his research group found unquestionable evidence that we are essentially irrational beasts, all sage-like...
I for one do not have a particular love for the word 'pessimism' - I'd rather call it 'optimism with reserves' ;)

[bamlett]

I just came here to comment " depends on if your talking to a man or a woman" *flies away*

[anon]

See I hate this, because I have empathy for literally any living being, not just someone who fucking looks like me. I even have empathy for the concept of A.I., yes empathy can lead to negative or irresponsible actions but is it all bad?

[miguelangelguerrero]

The human being is a species that moves in meaning (according to authors as Jacques Lacan), experiences the anguish, due to the same "reason" (the anguish of consciousness), so that to eliminate that anguish always needs a motivation, a sense. We are emotional because we always need a meaning. The same pleasure for the culture or to argue well are conditioned to a motivation.

[MeeCee]

We are emotional creatures who rationalize and justify our emotions.

[FPOAK]

One of the reasons it's better to use rationality rather than empathy to guide decision making is because our feelings of empathy are handicapped by scope insensitivity. There have been studies asking people how much money they would be willing to donate to help alleviate some problem, and the amount often stays about the same or actually decreases when the scope of the described problem is increased. It's easier for us to feel empathetic towards individuals than towards large groups, even when it's not rational.

Another case might be emergency triage scenarios with limited resources. A doctor acting on empathy could end up doing harm as a result. It's easier to feel empathetic towards a patient right in front of you who will die without being given some type of medicine than for multiple unseen patients elsewhere whose lives could be saved with the same amount of medicine.