Anger Between Different Mental Types

Postby Leo Volont » Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:15 am

Recently I was trying to persuade someone that “standing up for one’s self” or trying to convince those who doubt us of the reasonableness or justness of our Opinions is usually a Lost Cause, and mostly because other people don’t care, and are simply bothered by one’s trying to ‘argue’ with them. Yes, I still believe that to be true, but it does come across as very cynical. So I thought about it some more and decided it probably was a bit more Complicated than I had presented it, which is generally the case about such things.

What dawned on me was that People often have different Styles of Thinking, and that the Different Mental Types will then necessarily have difficulty communicating between each other. I was thinking of primarily Two Ways of Thinking – there is the Rationalist Intellectual Way of Thinking which involves Proofs, Demonstrations, Anecdotal Examples, and just plain Logic; and then there is the Emotional Intuitive Aesthetic Way of Thinking where Things are Evaluated largely on how they Make Us Feel.

Of course, an Intellectual can get quite Emotional when presenting his Viewpoints, but this is because he or she may be heavily emotionally invested in their Rational Argument, but in such an event the Emotionality is just incidental. Also we may have Intellectuals who See that a Good Rational Argument bears a kind of Aesthetic all its own (for instance, an Intellectual may say that a certain very fine and well-turned Argument or Solution to a Problem is ‘elegant’). But still the Basis of their Thinking and Decision Making is primarily Rational and Intellectual.

Likewise the Emotional Intuitive Sentimentalist may present his or her self calmly. You see, Emotions do not always have to be all aflutter. So we may have instances where the Intellectual, because he or she may feel ‘threatened’ by the resistance to their Ideas, may be acting out Emotionally, but that the Sentimentalist may be quite collected and calm. So in order to distinguish between the Two Different Mental Types one has to listen long enough to determine how each makes their Decisions, not on how they just happen to be behaving. And making such a determination as to Thought Process is usually quite easy. The Intellectual is necessarily full of Arguments, Details, Logical Progressions and so forth. Often Intellectuals will be so rude as to Interrogate the people they are trying to convince, which only works for them if you give them the answer they expect, but if you don’t they nearly always react poorly (this form of Debate was pioneered by the Philosopher Socrates who is remembered in Plato’s “Dialogues” which were edited carefully enough so that everyone always gave the Answer Socrates was looking for. But the Truth of it perhaps can be better discerned by the Fact that, as we may recall, Socrates was given the Death Penalty by the Athenian Legislative Assembly for being so Rude and Obnoxious). The Aesthetic Sentimentalists, on the other hand, simply has Their Opinion. Usually their “Argument” for anything they value or appreciate goes only so far as to say “I Think it is Good”. It is not just an appraisal based on sheer Appearances, but on an entire range of factors which probably mostly involve how the Thing or Idea can be expected to appeal to their Social Group, or the Social Group to which they aspire. So you see that in such a style of Decision Making that Intuition would be largely involved. But it is nothing that can be Argued With.

So you see, if you yourself are a Rationalist Intellectual and find yourself in disagreement with somebody that you soon discover to be an Intuitive Sentimentalist, then it should certainly make All the Sense in the World for you to Drop your Argument and to admit that Their Opinion does in fact hold a certain Aesthetic Appeal, which it probably does or the other person would not be so convinced of it. To indicate that you still believe what you believe, you can assert that you still believe that your own ideas are ‘pretty’ too. This is kind of like what people mean when they say “Everyone is Entitled to their Opinion” which drives Intellectuals crazy because it seems to say that Being Wrong has the Same Value as Being Right, but to the Aesthetic Sentimentalist, where there is no Rational Test for being Right or Wrong, it makes perfect sense that Varying Opinions may have some a certain equivalent value depending on who is appraising Them for whatever Benefits they hope to expect from Them (how they could Bolster Social Acceptance within a Group, for instance).

Now it may be more difficult for an Aesthetic Sentimentalist to appease an Intellectual once a Difference of Opinion becomes an Issue. Indeed, it could be Problematic if One Aesthetic Sentimentalist takes Issue with another Aesthetic Sentimentalist. You see, while Intellectuals may argue the facts, and on the strength of the facts convince reach a New Consensus (yes, it has been known for One Intellectual to Convince another Intellectual by employing a rational and logically convincing Argument. Arguments among Intellectuals are not necessarily Futile), well , with the Aesthetic Sentimentalists, they can only resort to discussions along the lines of “Is Too!” “Is Not!”, which they really need to resolve by both agreeing that each is “entitled to their own opinion”. The Real Resolution occurs when One or the Other is Cut from the Social Circle. It may be the Case that many Social Groups require a Sameness and Unity in what they Believe In… like belonging to a Fan Club. There is no Real Right Or Wrong, but you can be either In or Out.
User avatar
Leo Volont
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 73


#1

Postby laureat » Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:45 am

Nice topic there Leo Volont: i would also like to add

If people would be perfectly fair to each other and intelligent enough to reach agreements we would not need a court

The court is based on the evidence and logical reasoning: which cannot be rejected ,
laureat
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:45 pm
Location: Kosovo
Likes Received: 102

#2

Postby Leo Volont » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:50 am

laureat wrote:Nice topic there Leo Volont: i would also like to add

If people would be perfectly fair to each other and intelligent enough to reach agreements we would not need a court

The court is based on the evidence and logical reasoning: which cannot be rejected ,


Hi Laureat,

Interesting observation about Legalism and the Courts. Yes, if people would only be fair to each other, we could all stay out of Court. But that is difficult to do in both the British and American Legal Systems, where the Judges largely ignore whether the contending parties were intending to be Fair to each other or not, and where the Winner Wins and the Loser Loses and perhaps has to pay only the amount of Damages, and at worst would have to pay legal fees. With so Little to Lose everybody, that is everybody with Money enough to feed those Shark Lawyers, constantly go to Court over anything, and often simply as a means to Harass ones Competition or as a means of Extortion ("give me a Million Dollars now or I'll tie you up on Court for the next 5 years"). But in Europe, where the Legal Code is based more on the Code Napoleon, an outgrowth of a Liberal Revolution, than on English Jurisprudence where the Law was fabricated by the Rich and for the Rich, the Judges, or I should say Magistrates behave entirely differently. Firstly, the European Magistrates are less cozy with the Lawyers (American and British Judges will Swoon over a well crafted but obviously disingenuous Argument because they still see themselves as Lawyers, though Glorified in their Robes, and so tend to appreciate "Winning" arguments over Pure Justice), and the Magistrates will not wait to be Spoon Fed by the Attorneys but will have their own Staff People do Fact Checking. Before Trial there will be Mediation Proposals put forward by the Magistrate, as a means of Warning the perceived Losing Party ahead of time to Back Off before Trial. And Then, if It Does Go to Trial and one of the Parties is found to have acted with Unfair Intentions, then, WHOA! European Magistrates will Punish such behavior with Fines and even with Jail Time.

In Britain and America you have a certain hard distinction between Criminal Courts and Civil Courts, and the Civil Courts are just Arenas for Rich People to Screw with each other, or for Rich People to Screw with Legally Defenseless Poor People, where the only thing at issue is Money. But in the European Magisterial System the Lines between Criminal and Civil are more blurred, and if anybody is seen to be Exploiting the Legal System or using the Legal System for Extortion or Harassment, or to delay fulfilling a legitimate Contract ("If you want your Money, you will have to Sue Me") the Magistrate can Fine them into bankruptcy or even send them to Jail. Oh, and the European System pays for itself. IF a Party choses to Ignore the Pre-Trial Mediation recommendations and then Loses in Court, then the Magistrate can say "It isn't like I didn't Warn You" and then that Party can be required to Pay all Court and Administrative Expenses, as well as a Fine... and the Magistrates will insist on being paid before the Lawyer. The Magistrates have little sympathy for Lawyers who can't convince their clients to accept Mediation, and if their Client pleads inability to Pay because the Lawyer got all the Money, well the Magistrates have the Power to Fine the Lawyers!

So the Magisterial System has some strong advantages over English and American Jurisprudence. In England and America there is a Huge Drain on the Economy which has to support the Costly Civil Justice Courts and the Millions of Lawyer who feed off of it. In Europe people tend to settle among each other because everyone knows that you just can't Screw Around with those Magistrates.
User avatar
Leo Volont
Preferred Member
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 73



  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Anger Management