To dismiss a person’s argument by simply saying, “Don’t get too emotional,” or worse, “Stop being so emotional” is more than offensive. It is also paradoxical: we argue because we are emotionally invested; we argue because we care. If we had no emotional connection to the argument, we would not argue in the first place. To sideline emotion is to remove the impetus for arguing.
The paradox stems from the mistake of assuming logic and emotion are distinct from one other, when usually quite the opposite is true. Emotions can be logically based, and logical arguments can have emotional outcomes. Frequently, an obvious logical rationale explains our emotional state. I was ecstatic when I won the lottery. I was despondent when I lost the winning ticket. Logical arguments can also set off personal triggers that evoke strong emotional reactions.
Too, we can use logic to help process the cause, effect, and validity of our emotions. Logical investigation can reveal why we feel the way we do.
The distinction between logic and emotion is often made out of desperation, the last resort of a defeated speaker needing to terminate the conversation. Many women, in particular, have all too often experienced their arguments being labeled and dismissed as emotional, most notably by those ineffective at counterargument.
Emotion strengthens the audience appeal of any logical argument. If you were to advocate for the adoption of stronger measures to prevent human trafficking, for example, you might first note studies showing there are more slaves today as a result of human trafficking than ever before. This fact helps support your logical argument why change is needed. Additionally, the pervasiveness of human trafficking and slavery should evoke sadness, disgust, outrage, and more. As such, it must be spoken about in a way that reflects the appropriate emotional response it warrants. Anything less diminishes its impact.
Emotion can also augment your credibility when the emotion you express is perceived as sincere. Emotion humanizes you, and, hence, elevates your credibility. By the same token, high credibility increases the likelihood your show of emotion will be seen as authentic. Whereas a speaker with high credibility will be viewed as having credible emotion, a speaker with low credibility may find their expression of emotion called into question, the audience wondering whether it is genuine and whether the speaker is emotionally credible.
Sometimes the lack of emotion can diminish your credibility. If, for example, you were to discuss the rise in teenage suicide without exhibiting even a morsel of emotion, you would risk appearing cold and unfeeling. Your credibility would be discounted by the audience.
Emotion and logic at times may seem diametrically opposite. We often describe people as either logical or emotional. However, logic and emotion, as noted, are intertwined. Emotional expression can drive home the logic of your argument, while logical argument—when dramatic and compelling—can elicit strong emotional response.
Simon Kern contributed to this post.
I'm frustrated because sometimes someone will let emotions get in the way of problem solving. There, I said it. I've found this to be particularly true in certain females, but not all. It happens when they're upset about a negative experience--something that could be attributed to "shit happens" but which engenders a PTSD type of reaction. They're smart enough to know what actions to take but they're processing instead.
Too many times women's perspectives are disregarded as being too emotional. Thanks for raising this point and explaining how logic and emotions interconnect when we communicate.