How many react from feelings instead of respond to facts

Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum

Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Unless you're in a debate or doing science... it can be useful to react this way. I used to react to facts or what I thought were facts, but I realized that's not the appropiate way in relationships with others.
 
Yeah most of the time I go by feelings alone. I never really notice facts until I have a moment to think.
I've always been an emotional person so this doesn't really surprise me in the slightest. However I do look at facts too, once I've calmed down I always try to look at it in a different light. Cause I'll be the first to admit when I get upset or go by my emotions I sometimes can over react a bit.
 
Feelings are true, feelings are there and don't lie in any way. Feelings and truth are two different things that are somehow linked together. The examples you mention are either born from ignorance or weakness, neither of which can be called feelings.
 
It sounds like you feel different about it... but it doesn't change the facts.... Does it ?

One can only succeed is by conquering ones fears... and the only thing makes a victor , is he does what a coward won't.... Fear or not.

An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . .
 
To be honest, I consider emotions to be useless more often than not. Feeling enters into one's motivations of course, & what one decides to do in life. Once you've figured out your motivation, however, reason & logic are much better for achieving whatever you've decided is worthy of your efforts. Emotional reactions just get in the way.
 
6a00d4141f7a3b6a4700d09e59b461be2b-500pi.jpg


If you want know more about your emotional page, i recommend this book.
I'm reading now.
 
onlysoul said:
6a00d4141f7a3b6a4700d09e59b461be2b-500pi.jpg


If you want know more about your emotional page, i recommend this book.
I'm reading now.

Thanks for posting this up. I need to get my hands on that book! :)
 
WallflowerGirl83 said:
onlysoul said:
6a00d4141f7a3b6a4700d09e59b461be2b-500pi.jpg


If you want know more about your emotional page, i recommend this book.
I'm reading now.

Thanks for posting this up. I need to get my hands on that book! :)

Before anyone actually takes what they read to Heart.... I suggest you read the reviews and Critical review of his book by other known and Accredited professionals in the field. And also take a little peek behind the mask !! Guru's are everywhere, you know ?

Here is what others had to say ? This is a complete review of all of his works, and views.... And compared beside Known scientific methodologies .....

http://eqi.org/gole.htm
 
We should not believe everything thats right! Commend(praise) critical approach ! Something is true, something not. But if it helps people why not ?
 
onlysoul said:
We should not believe everything thats right! Commend(praise) critical approach ! Something is true, something not. But if it helps people why not ?

Then I suggest the Bible read it, learn it, live it, love it.

I said nothing of not reading it... I suggested reading reviews.

I take it you didn't read his reviews, or even the titles of his other books... like "Chant and be Happy"

He is not honored among his peers, and is a known manipulator, and deceptionist. He's a QUACK and that's a FACT !! That's the whole point I am trying to make, because your feelings don't have anything to do with that.

1. He makes unsupported claims about the power and predictive ability of emotional intelligence.

2. His own, self-created definition of emotional intelligence includes aspects of personality and behavior which are not correlated to emotional intelligence as it is scientifically defined. He also interchanges terms such as emotional literacy, emotional health, emotional skill, and emotional competency. He never defines any of these other terms, but he equates them all to emotional intelligence.

3. He tries to make us believe he is presenting something new, when in fact much of what he is reporting has been studied for years under personality research.

4. He implies that anyone can learn emotional intelligence and fails to acknowledge either the relatively fixed nature of the personality traits he includes in his definition of EI or the differences in innate potential among individuals.

5. He presents himself as the sole expert in emotional intelligence and fails to give adequate credit to Mayer, Salovey, Caruso and others.

6. He represents his work as "scientific" when it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

7. His personal beliefs about what is "appropriate" contradict the academic theory concerning the value of our emotions. He still seems to regard emotions as largely something to be controlled and restrained, rather than something to be valued.

8. He has claimed that his ECI -360 test is the "genuine article" when it comes to testing for emotional intelligence, but no one in the academic community seems to think it is even a measure of EI, let alone the "genuine" one.

9. When he wrote his book in 1995 he wanted us to believe the book was about emotional intelligence, but there is strong evidence that Goleman was not intending to write a book about emotional intelligence when he started writing. It seems much more probable that he was actually writing a book about emotional literacy and then later changed the title of the book to "Emotional Intelligence" so his book would have more sales appeal.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top