Many seem able to respond to problems only emotionally, but the work of solving problems requires rationality.
For instance, China's one-child-per-family policy was was a rational response to that nation's increasing population. Its success is arguable.
The Democrats here in the US have been getting the shit kicked out of them by the Republicans for the past 35 years precisely because they've tried to deal with things rationally.
Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Loren, I've read nothing by Heinlein but I agree with him.
Did he identify any problems being addressed either emotionally or rationally?
Not certain, Tom. I should reread Starship Troopers and get the context for the above statement. For that matter, I DO recommend RAH highly. He was a very keen observer of the human condition.
That, Bert, requires evidence:
1) that Democrats have been getting the shit kicked out of them,
2) that Democrats haven't been helping Republicans do the kicking,
2) that the kicking has been happening for the past 35 years, and
3) that Democrats have tried to deal with things rationally.
You will find evidence:
1) that Dems have occasionally had shit available for kicking,
2) that Dems have occasionally helped Repubs do the kicking,
3) that the kicking occasionally happened more than 35 years ago, and
4) that Dems have occasionally not dealt with things rationally.
But evidence of its having been done occasionally does not support your hypothesis.
BTFW, can you identify any problems being addressed either emotionally or rationally?
Are you placing relative values on addressing issues emotionally v. rationally? Aren't all problems addressed both ways, depending on who's doing the addressing at which times? Homo sapiens has been doing both for quite some time, and judging by our present state of affairs, neither is particularly effective.
...judging by our present state of affairs, neither is particularly effective.
P e s s i m i s t !
...placing relative values on addressing issues emotionally v. rationally?
In a sense, yes. Those who report problems may be reacting emotionally to them. Those who solve problems, rationally.
Here I'm asking people to identify problems that are being addressed one way or the other. America's gun violence is one such problem. The anti-evolution bills being introduced in state legislatures is another.
An optimist and a pessimist are walking together down the street. The optimist says "This is the best of all possible worlds!" The pessimist heaves a heavy sigh and says, "Well, you're right."
A nearby skeptic hears the optimist and asks, "Where is your evidence?"
Right. The pessimist don't need no stinkin' evidence.
The nearby skeptic, like the universe, denies the existence of best and worst.
"Such concepts," says the universe, "exist only in the minds of drunken hockey fans, who insist on applying those words to the teams they are watching on bar room televisions."
One should always eschew obfuscation. (It's the new This statement is false.)