emotion in motion

How is it that emotionally derived opinions are sufficient even in the face of facts and logic that would suggest otherwise?

We see issues creating divisiveness where an emotional wave will roll over the bedrock of truth in arriving to a perceived majority consensus. These issues of climate change, asylum seeker policy, gay marriage, mining, the economy and now a fractured multiculturalism are at the forefront of public and political debate during this dark chapter.

Never mind that more than 90% and up to 97% of reputable climate scientists agree that the planet is warming due to human activity. origin of graphic from skeptical science

with 2 being unsure and 1 saying no.

One half of the people would rather listen to Tony Abbott or Alan Jones, neither who have any expertise in this field and dispute the findings as if scientists had some secret global agenda.

Tony also questioned the quality of our economists when they said a carbon tax or emission trading scheme was a responsible and efficient way for this nation to respond and move forward towards a greener economy.

From The Australian - Opposition leader defies economists on Carbon Tax 

Is he an economist as well as a climate scientist? No, so why do people listen to him? Not for facts and logic that's for sure so it must be that he appeals to the base emotions of many. And those many believe they know better, why?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5ia5qZrU21qify48o1_500.jpg

Just because we don't want a carbon tax (not that the public pays it - we are compensated for the rise in cost of living that the top polluters pass down to us from the impact of a carbon tax on them). 

I'm more concerned with the other cost they are passing down, the commodity of fear. With no rational foot to stand on they use their clout to sow seeds of doubt and pull at the heartstrings of fear. It's Un-Australian. They're taking our jobs. We can't afford it in this GFC (despite not being in recession and one of the richest countries per capita in the world).

Advocates for climate change can and do use fear to drive their cause as well and I hate it when they do that because then we end up downriver from the bridge to change in a quagmire of emotion, slinging mud at eachother.

And what of the asylum seeker debate? Our two major parties seem to have settled for offshore processing and long stays within detention centres as a detterant to refugees seeking asylum in Australia. They claim with emotion (much of it genuine) that this is to prevent the tragedy of refugees drowning at sea. The detterant has been shown to be somewhat effective but only when we treat refugees so abhorrently as to cause such mental anguish that we see numerous suicide attempts in detention and people sewing their mouths shut. And on all indications they say they are going to keep coming. 

Tony Abbott (leading the way again) refers to these people as illegal immigrants which is factually incorrect, and he uses it in such a way as to be imflammatory. He also had the gall to refer to them as un-christian for entering through the back door despite Jesus himself being a refugee and the principles of christianity calling on followers to love thy neighbour and care for the poor and downtrodden. They are often referred to as queue jumpers even though it has been widely acknowledged that there is no queue for them to join. How do you apply for asylum when in some war torn countries like Afghanistan it is normal for our embassy to move place from day to day to avoid becoming a target for insurgents. So what are the facts?

There are really only two ways to stop drownings at sea - gain a reputation for treating asylum seekers so abhorrently that no one will want to come, or create a queue that asylum seekers would see as worthwile joining. I'm for the latter option because our identity as a fair, just and compassionate nation is easily worth the extra people that we will have to accomodate. And if you welcome people with open arms then they're more likely to be grateful and want to contribute than to feel seperate and resentfully and barely tolerated.

Our emotions are primitive. We can be tribal with them and just last week we saw a tribal mentality riding on a wave of emotion lash out with ugly repercussions. Does this mean that I'm suggesting that our human emotions are bad and we should dispense with them and all become Spock-like characters?  ...Problem solved - let's party!!!...

Our emotions are important and part of what makes us human but I don't want to see emotions riding roughshod over rationality. Or our emotions being manipulated so easily for that matter. What happened to the inbuilt Australian bullshit detector? Emotions without logic can lead to crimes of passion and punching holes in walls. Logic without emotion is generally referred to as being psychopathic. Either on its own can be very destructive.

Wisdom comes from when our emotional and logical bearings are brought together to form opinion or to make a decision. Nelson Mandela said 'a good head and a good heart is always a formidable combination.' Shouldn't that be something worth striving for?

We need to ask ourselves why we stand where we do on certain issues. Is it emotion, fear or love that drives us? Are we deceiving ourselves? Are we leaning on our own understanding? Are we only listening to what we want to hear?

The Collective Wisdom

I read an article on the opinion site 'The Punch' the other day that was discussing the failings of a right and a left wing perspective and the division and hatred that has been brewing between the camps. I too have been concerned with the growing bitterness that is dividing the nation. The author sort of summed up the differences by saying that 'At its most basic level it’s a battle between heart and head.' While that may be a generalisation and an over simplification of the make up of ones political leanings I think there is some truth in that statement.

On the battleground of the heart and head or the emotional and the rational insults are flung. Lefties are called bleeding hearts and can claim the high moral ground by pointing to the right wing's agenda as one of self interest or xenophobia or any other myriad of phobias that threaten the self interest. The conservative right can put down the left as self righteous communist radicals. On a leftist publication I saw someone say “I've always wondered if the reason people on the right apear loony is because they are all secretly a split personality. Democracy is by its very nature collectivist and the right are by their nature individualist. Therefore if you stick a group of people who's only cry is "me me me me me me me" into a room and expect them to discuss "us" they just lose the plot and go spontaneously bonkers.”

As much as I chuckled I think It's more complicated than that. I think a right perspective can be more personally an honest perspective whereas to have a left perspective you have to battle with your own selfish nature to hold everyone elses interests ahead of yours...does that make the lefties the ones with the split personality? Either way I'm not sure that any of this characterisation and character assasination is helpful, the fabric of our society is being worn thin with people treading over one another disrespectfully. Scientists and Economists are dismissed by one man who claims to know more than them all put together for example, but I digress.

Why are we choosing to be right or left at all, shouldn't every issue be addressed on its merits where an individual can come to an independent conclusion?

“At its most basic level it’s a battle between heart and head.”

To the ancient Hebrews wisdom was when the heart and the head worked together to evaluate and inform the worth of an idea or a decision. Maybe the most whole individuals are those with a bit of right and left in them...or failing that we should at least recognise that together we can have wisdom. I think we all want to see wise decisions being made so let’s meet in the middle, not let the middle be a warground. And we can have robust debate around it so long as robust isn't used as an excuse for offensive.

Rational vs Emotional...the answer isn't just somewhere inbetween, the answer is when you can say yes to both.

I think we are at our best when we are helping others and through doing that I've seen it to be the most effective way of helping yourself to be happy (not necessarilly rich though). Maybe that's the secret. To fulfill our self interest, to make us happy, we have to help others. Self interest is about winning but winning doesn't have to come at the cost of someone else losing. Even right wing folk understand win win situations, it is what an economy thrives on (that or oppressing others). But it has to be a global economy that thrives not a national one. National interest is self interest under another name and it too can have winners and losers or winners and winners.

Am I convinced by everything I say here...not sure...maybe I need a friend opposite me on the spectrum to debate respectfully with...who wants to be that friend?