Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
One point on the debate
I made science and I did not use emotions to do it.
I haven’t paid a ton of attention to Kamala and Kamala’s campaign because almost anything else is more interesting. But after watching the debate, I get Gad Saad’s comedic podcast and I better understand his essay.
Gad Saad makes the point that Harris’s style of persuasion is all emotional. He rightly explains how powerful emotions are and how she is basing her campaign rhetoric on emotion.
Many of Trump’s voters are going to vote based on emotions, too, but the Harris campaign has cynically embraced a very specific view of human behavior—that our natural inclination to make decisions is largely based on emotion rather than substance and data. And she’s hoping it will carry her all the way to the White House.
Is she right?
In some sense, she is. There’s actually a deep tension between our emotional or “affective” systems and our intellectual or “cognitive” systems when we make decisions. And it turns out, we humans are cognitive misers when all is said and done. We’re intellectually lazy: Thinking is too effortful for most, so we rely on effortless, automatic mental shortcuts—in other words, emotions—to arrive at a decision.
Throughout the debate, Kamala said, in essence, “I care about you and I have a plan to help you.” She skimmed on policy specifics and focused on vibes as much as anything. Trump said in essence, “I will protect you from China, illegal immigration and crime. Pay attention to what I have done in the past.”
I wish we could go back to actually debating policy but Trump seems like a nerdy Political Science Professor compared to Kamala Harris and I doubt that even the biggest Trump fans would call him a professorial wonk.
I buy the modern neurological insight that emotions are invariably connected to decision-making. I would prefer it if we could become Aristotle-quoting androids like Data from Star Trek but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. The best human beings can do is struggle to elevate our cognitive systems above our affective systems. Or to put it in simpler terms, we need to value logic above emotion. Even if it means denying our nature.
Published in General
This is so very true. And the emotions contain so many outright lies too. She lies so well they almost slip your notice. Almost.
Amen, brother! Preach it!
Gad Saad is brilliant and I admire his thinking. I think we need to rely on both emotion and reason, and we also need to know which to favor depending on the situation. I think that’s the biggest problem: people discard reason when it doesn’t fit their emotions. Good post, Henry.
It all goes back to a discussion I had years ago with a twit in CA. He began by saying, “I feel . . . ” I can be impatient sometimes, so I said, “[Fornicate] what you feel. What do you think?” He replied, “What you think is dictated by what you feel so I don’t see a difference.”
And that is why we will have President Harris and the country will swirl down the toilet.
I’ll wave to them as they swirl down. I did okay with FJB, actually better in some ways than with Trump, but I know that Trump is better for the country, and the world.
But if they want to elect FJB-in-a-pants-suit I can just smile as my income goes up due to inflation while my fixed mortgage payments stay the same… while the people who voted for her STILL can’t afford a home, etc.
What business are you in where Democratic policies actually help you?
Your friend is correct that human opinions are motivated by our human emotions. However, we can struggle to uplift our reason against our emotions or at least mitigate our irrationality through logic. It’s not a natural thing to do but our reason need not inevitably be a slave to our passions.
“Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to overcome.” Rose Sayer (Katharine Hepburn) in The African Queen
I don’t mean they did it on purpose. And most of them don’t affect me at all, really. Taxpayer funding for “Transition” or abortion, etc. I’m not a customer for those myself, nor is anyone that I know. And I’m not a renter, unlike my youngest brother still is after ~40 years as an adult. (He recently turned 60.) But Social Security income went up significantly during the Biden years, while my mortgage payments stayed the same – fixed interest, etc – and food bills didn’t go up that much… I’m not in California or other states where energy costs have perhaps doubled or more… Water and other costs haven’t changed much…
Correct. Reason need not be a slave to our emotions, and it is dangerous when it is. See also the nigh-innumerable explorations of this problem in literature.
Emotions are good allies of reason when they’re done right. We shouldn’t be like Data or Spock.
Everyone’s invited to read Lewis Pearson here.
Spock was at his worst when he tried to be purely logical. Although even “pure logic” should have worked out better, if he’d used it right. “Pure logic” such as “the total cannot be greater than the sum of the parts” ignores things like nitroglycerin.
Data was no better, of course. Far from being “emotionless” it was just a pretense, largely unavoidable since all such characters are, by necessity, written by and portrayed by humans. Same with the holo-doctors etc.
That’s the real problem, isn’t it? Getting reason and emotion to work in harmony with each other and with moral logic.
Exactly what the Bible story of Adam and Eve teaches us not to do.
Alternative energy companies. Investment banks. Any large company that benefits from stricter regulations that raises the cost of starting up and doing business which eliminates competition. Government employees. The Dems do a lot of good for a lot of well connected people.
I think it is an insult to emotions to say that Kamala is doing an emotional appeal. She is pretending to understand that which she does not and believes herself to be perceived as lovable while doing so. It is less an emotional connection than an expectation that the listener with insert substance in her incredibly ambiguous verbiage because of her wonderfulness.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Sm61Fau9w7k?si=lIhTPs2E5lMJ1jBE
I take reason over emotion every time.
Trump was asked if he would veto a national abortion ban. He didn’t give a straight answer. Is that a smart move in terms of garnering more votes? I’m not sure how it plays in terms of emotions and reason.
If one is antiabortion it is the right move. If you want to end all abortion and IVF then the best you can do an be electable is the Trump position. I suspect the only way to get rid of abortion is to create sex robots so that people can engage in the sex acts they want without creating pregnancies.
But why didn’t Trump simply say that he is the pro-life candidate in the race and he will do whatever he can, as president, to protect unborn life? Is side-stepping an abortion question the reason-based way to go, because the topic is so controversial?
Yes. Because even if he becomes the President. He won’t be able to get a Federal abortion ban because abortion is so popular. It is also just in terms of jurisprudence to leave it to the states.
Trump has said in the past that after Dobbs, it is a matter left to the states, which is accurate. But if he repeats that now, with a slew of states having abortion related items on the ballots this November, he will be badgered to respond as to every single ballot measure across the nation. Sidestepping might thus be a wise position at this stage.
I’m far from well connected, but I’ve tried over the years to insulate myself from the stupidity of others. Which includes those who vote Democrat.
In an interview in the early 1990s, a member — maybe former member — of the SCOTUS showed pure arrogance by saying that the abortion issue was “tearing the nation apart”, and SCOTUS had to step in to settle the issue. We see how that played out. For the federal government to step in again to try to settle the issue via legislation would have the same result I believe. The law would be repealed in a few years; lather, rinse, repeat. It ain’t pretty, but it will be fought out at the state level.
Every time I see arguments like this, I replace “abortion” with “slavery” and I wonder how serious people are.
But this means that abortion will remain legal in places like California and New York.
It’s called facing reality but go ahead if you got the juice. Pass the law and see how long it takes for it to be repealed.
Eventually there would have to be a nationwide standard, as with slavery. Maybe people are unwilling to admit it now, for political reasons, but they should understand it inside.
You have to make the moral case, and a significant portion of the electorate has no interest in hearing it. From a purely tactical viewpoint, if the law is passed, what punishments will be dealt out to those breaking it? Will abortionists be locked up in federal facilities? How about the woman? Lock her up too? Six-week ban or fifteen-week ban?
Trump might think that he gains more votes than he loses by taking a pass on the issue of whether he would veto a national abortion ban. If he said he would veto a ban, he might lose pro-life votes. If he said he would sign a national ban, he might lose pro-Trump, pro-abortion votes. He refuses to answer and wins both sets of voters? This would be reason-based, not emotion-based.