re: Rational v. Emotional thinking: the posi-nega distinction

quote:

---

Talk to any nueroscientist and they’ll tell you: affect (i.e. emotion) and cognition (your “rationality”) are interlinked.

---

this thread is about the methods of formulation, primarily between a set of binary choices (either we are implementing a strategy for elite results consistently or we're not. either we're imlpementingt hat strategy efficiently or we're not)

we're not making a decision among multiple variables like those studies analyze

quote:

---

“Emotional thinking” is a perfectly normal form of “rationality” within the psychology literature.

---

in the day to day world where emotions (due to social interaction) matter. when you're dealing with a strict strategical analysis removed from humanity, then emotions aren't nearly as important so that combination of the two is suboptimal. i'll give you an example of a setting where this also exists: game theory optimal strategy. w

quote:

---

Cute post, but it’s neither as scientific nor as brilliant as you thought.

---

this post is nowhere close to "brilliant"

it's dumbed down so CheeriOs can understand one of their common talking points are completely illogical and i'm trying to educate them to understand what they refuse to

quote:

---

Any big win? There was Auburn, who was a very hot and cold team. We barely squeaked out a Florida win, who in retrospect was a dumpster fire this year.

---

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A win over a team that defeated both teams in the National title game is now trivialized since Auburn was "hot and cold."

quote:

---

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence...Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions

---

Both sides are guilty of this. I'm a "realitiger", but I'm also not throwing my lot in with the people that are claiming that by hiring E we're winning 5 games next season.

quote:

---

of course it's possible

---

You must not have been in those threads where I even mentioned it as a possibility of ending up like Texas/Tennessee and got absolutely murdered

quote:

---

and also probably messed with you and said why do you have to be so negative

---

That absolutely happened

Wait:


You attribute the "negatigers" attitude to evaluating the circumstance and coming to a "negative" outcome prediction. You suggest that they are not "hoping" for bad outcomes.

Then you say the "positiger / CheeriOs" must be "hoping" for good outcomes.

Why is impossible (to you) for the positive ones to have simply evaluated the situation and come to the conclusion that GOOD outcomes are ahead? The opinions are equally valid. Each disagrees with the other. But both GOOD and BAD projections may me expected by different groups evaluating the same data. This is NOT mathematics.

quote:

---

Explain the change then from people who were negatigers and now positigers

---

cajuns

quote:

---

and vice versa

---

they've seen the light

quote:

---

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A win over a team that defeated both teams in the National title game is now trivialized since Auburn was "hot and cold."

---

But they were hot and cold. They dominated Georgia in one game, then got dominated in the other game. They lost to an LSU team that was itself nothing special. They lost to UCF and looked like they couldn't run the ball at all. On the other hand they made Bama look like they didn't belong and gained 168 yards on the ground.

Great win for LSU, but I still don't really know what to make of what Auburn did this year.

quote:

---

There is a lot of confusion by the pro-Orgeron faction about what being a "negatiger" really means. I'm here to enlighten you all so hopefully you stop making the same logical errors when trying to make your points. the biggest distinction between the CheeriOs and the negas is based in the type of thinking being used.

Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence...Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. For example, a test-taker may feel insecure about their understanding of the material even though they are perfectly capable of answering the questions. If he (or she) acts on his insecurity about failing the written test he might assume that he misunderstands the material and therefore might guess answers randomly, causing his own failure in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Making a rational decision, on the other hand, involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). The process is the most important part of rational thinking. A sound conclusion (output) requires high-quality inputs (e.g., accurate information and access to the right people) and a high-quality thinking process. Focusing on the inputs is not enough to ensure success; we need to give equal attention to the process or what we do with the inputs—how we collect, organize, and analyze them.

People are labeled as "negatiger" because they are seen as desiring a negative outcome for the LSU program. However, what the positigers miss is that negatigers are actually analyzing the current state/direction of the program as being sub-optimal. Due to this analysis, they rationally assess the likelihood of a positive outcome being decreased. They are not HOPING for a negative outcome; they are EXPECTING a negative outcome. The positiger/CherriO factions have trouble understanding this mindset because they are subjectively and emotionally hoping (and praying, to quote O) for a positive season. You have created a biased view of the world where you see people "hoping" (emotional thnking) and not "analyzing" (rational thinking), and you confuse the two. Expecting a mediocre-bad season due to rational analysis is not the same thing as hoping for a bad season due to emotional desire.

This ties in strongly with the process-oriented v. results-oriented strategies that we can discuss later. To summarize, positigers are results-oriented and negatigers are process-oriented. There are strengths and weaknesses to both, but only a process-oriented decisionmaking tree along with a good plan and detailed execution will lead to long-term, consistent results. This is what Saban described as "the process" when he was coach here and it's what he's using at Alabama to create the greatest dynasty in the history of CFB. That's the only way we will compete with his programs consistently.

---

You're correct, of course...but there are FAR too many words, and many of them are multisyllabic so you're going to get drilled by most of the folks to whom you're addressing this.