Reason, Emotions and ‘Being Right’

Lincoln Stoller, Ph.D. and principal at Mind Strength Balance

Maybe we've learned -- or not — of the cost to trust, reputation and relationships for the insistence on being “right.”

There is even a term for it, even if it is not widely used: right-fighting.

It seems though that we rarely, intelligently talk about this topic.

There is the question of whether people should, at least with some disagreements or points, strongly consider the near future as well as the long term when they are emotionally committed to communicating with conviction what they believe is correct.

This might especially hold true when what is being communicated as being “right” is not being received in a way that is proving helpful. It’s helpful to understand the foundation of perception, emotions, reason and how we process thoughts and feelings.

“Intellect is rational, intentional and causal. Emotions are situational, instinctive and foundational,” says Lincoln Stoller, Ph.D. and principal at Mind Strength Balance.

“One considers with intellect. It tells you how to proceed. It is like a map and compass. One considers from emotions. Emotions situate you in a universe of perspectives. They set your starting point. Well-understood emotions tell us what to consider about the near and long-term future. We use our intellect to navigate from this point,” he says.

Communicating what we believe is correct in a manner that is likely to be received, if not more positively, then at least less negatively, can prove challenging, frustrating and maybe, at times, infuriating.

The issue Stoller observes in society is misunderstanding what is helpful and what is required to communicate well.

“The growing problem in our increasingly interconnected world is that people mistake organization for reliability,” he says. “We're distracted by the idea that if things work together, then they're doing their job. As if working well together is the same as succeeding in the goal.”

Reliability has two meanings, he asserts. “One meaning is that something is deserving of our reliance, as a structure that will support us. The other meaning is that of accuracy and honesty, of being authentic in presentation.”

The cost of that, he asserts is, “As a result, we see people becoming more organized and interconnected, while becoming less invested (emotionally) and self-aware.”

The more extensive our personal world becomes, the more we need to recognize we develop different personalities in each of these areas.

He proposes an answer to the predicament.

“Begin by separating thoughts into their separate areas,” Stoller recommends. “We apply different criteria and standards to personal, social and economic relationships.

“The more extensive our personal world becomes, the more we need to recognize we develop different personalities in each of these areas. Like emotion itself, we develop different emotions for different situations,” he says.

Stoller has a suggestion for how to interact in difficult conversations.

“Allow yourself to think and feel differently and communicate the differences you feel to others,” he says. “Feelings are not ‘either or.’ Both feelings are valid. Reason aims toward answers — but emotion doesn’t and should not.”