"Emotions are a rudimentary form of decision making and processing."
Well said! We agree then. Rudimentary vs Advanced decision making in a rigged test where rudimentary happens to work better, doesn't really mean anything.
We are, as they say, in violent agreement as to our interpretation of the article. You, however, still maintain there is value in this emotional information, because a rigged test indicates there is, when as a species we've done really well by painfully learning to minimize emotional information in our decision making activities.
Now, let me throw you a bone. There are definitely cases where it's good to know our body and it's responses, so that we make better decisions. Absolutely! Thousands of them. Knowing this is vital, if you're a day trader in stocks. It's also pretty important when you're making a sale, or being sold to. There are tons of times, when the knowledge that you are being influenced by your cortex will help you.
But that's exactly the reverse situation. "Bodily Awareness" allows you to ignore your body's panic so you can make better decisions. The article implies that you should "tune in" to your body, and listen to it. This just isn't true. The instinctive "fight or flight" responses of the body are important, of course. They get us out of jams that our conscious mind is too slow to logic it's way out of.
But if you actually have time to think "I wonder what my body's opinion of this is?", than you are in a situation where your body is much more likely to be wrong than you are.
I disagree. All learning and decision making is emotional. If it wasn't then computers would be quite good at it. I have yet to see a single digitial, rational decision maker that is as good at learning from mistakes as humans and other emotionally driven animals are.
I have made my case, and with your help, made it even more clear. I think you are completely wrong in your position ... but then again, emotion may be clouding my judgment!
The rules of the market change quite infrequently and even your algorithms will be quite poor at predicting market panics and other changes that deviate drastically from the rules. Such predictions still require a holistic approach that only well trained humans are capable of. If you think I've helped make your case then good for you. I was simply trying to clarify my stance on the issue and at no point was I trying to be correct or incorrect.
Well said! We agree then. Rudimentary vs Advanced decision making in a rigged test where rudimentary happens to work better, doesn't really mean anything.
We are, as they say, in violent agreement as to our interpretation of the article. You, however, still maintain there is value in this emotional information, because a rigged test indicates there is, when as a species we've done really well by painfully learning to minimize emotional information in our decision making activities.
Now, let me throw you a bone. There are definitely cases where it's good to know our body and it's responses, so that we make better decisions. Absolutely! Thousands of them. Knowing this is vital, if you're a day trader in stocks. It's also pretty important when you're making a sale, or being sold to. There are tons of times, when the knowledge that you are being influenced by your cortex will help you.
But that's exactly the reverse situation. "Bodily Awareness" allows you to ignore your body's panic so you can make better decisions. The article implies that you should "tune in" to your body, and listen to it. This just isn't true. The instinctive "fight or flight" responses of the body are important, of course. They get us out of jams that our conscious mind is too slow to logic it's way out of.
But if you actually have time to think "I wonder what my body's opinion of this is?", than you are in a situation where your body is much more likely to be wrong than you are.