Facing a Decision as a Critical Thinker

Imagine this situation. You are on a four-day backpacking trip in a national wilderness area with your friends Juanita and Emilio. The summer weather's great, the scenery is exotic, and you've been having a good time. Yesterday you drove several hours into the area and parked in the main parking lot. Then you hiked six hours to your present campsite. The three of you carried all your food, water, sleeping bags, and tents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last night you discovered that somebody had accidentally cracked the large water container. Now you are stuck with no water. Although there is a stream nearby, you wouldn‘t normally drink from a stream, and you remember that your packets of water-sterilization tablets are in 3 the pocket of your other coat—the one you left at home at the last minute. The three of you are thirsty and have only dehydrated food left, except for four apples. You wish you had bothered to haul in that twelve-pack of Dr. Pepper you decided to leave in the car‘s trunk.

​

What do you do? Nobody brought cell phones. You could yell, but that is unlikely to help; you haven't seen any other hikers since the trip began. You try it, but all you get is an echo. You briefly think about snow, but realize there isn't any. Emilio says he has an idea: Boil the water from the stream. When it cools, you could drink it and make breakfast and continue with your good times. Then Juanita mentions seeing a sign back in the parking lot:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Giardia is a microorganism that makes you sick," she says. You and Emilio have never heard of it. Emilio says he's willing to bet that boiling the water will kill the critters. "Besides," he says, "our stream might not have Giardia. I'll take the first drink." Juanita winces. "No, don‘t do that," she says. "Let's just pack up and go home." When you ask her why, she explains that a friend of hers got Giardia and had a bad experience with it. She doesn't want to risk having the same experience. When you hear the details, you understand why. The symptoms are chronic diarrhea, abdominal cramps, bloating, fatigue, and loss of weight. "Also," she says, "the park signs about Giardia are probably posted because the organisms cannot be killed by boiling." However, she admits that she isn't sure of her interpretation of the sign, and she agrees with Emilio that the nearby stream might not even contain Giardia, so she decides to do whatever the majority wants. She adds that the three of you might get lucky while you are hiking out and meet someone who can help, maybe a hiker who knows more about Giardia or has extra watersterilization tablets. Then again, you might not be so lucky; you didn't pass anybody on the way in. Hiking out while you all have a bad case of Giardia might even be life threatening. Emilio agrees to go along with the majority decision, too. He wants to stay, but not by himself. Still, he isn't convinced by Juanita's reasons. "Look," he says, "if the stream were poisonous, everything in it would look dead. There are water spiders and plants in the stream. It's no death trap." At this point you are faced with one of life's little decisions: What do you do about the water situation? Go or stay? Someone else might make this decision by flipping a coin. A logical reasoner is more rational, that is, reasonable.

 

A first step in logical reasoning is often to get some good advice. You already have some advice, but how do you decide whether it's any good? There is one best way to identify good advice: It can be backed up with good reasons. Juanita's advice to go back home is backed up by these reasons: (1) the consequences of getting giardia are pretty bad, and (2) the posted signs probably indicate that boiling won't work. Unfortunately, she is not sure about the boiling. So the burden falls on your shoulders. Can you back up her reasoning even if she can't? Or can you show that her reasoning isn't any good? One way to support a statement is to point out that the person making it is an expert. So you think about Juanita's and Emilio's credentials. Let's see—Juanita is a student majoring in psychology, and Emilio is a communications major and works at a pet store. Does that make them authorities on Giardia and the safety of drinking water? No. So if you need an expert, you will have to search elsewhere. But you ask yourself is it really worth your trouble to search for more information from an expert? The search will probably require a hike back to the ranger station near the parking lot. Besides, if the expert's advice is to avoid drinking the boiled water unless you have sterilization tablets, then you'll have to hike all the way back to camp to tell the others and then start the process of packing up and hiking out. It would be a lot easier just to follow Juanita's advice to pack up and leave now. So what do you decide to do? Let's say you decide not to search for more advice, and you recommend boiling the water and drinking it when it cools. You now owe it to Juanita and Emilio to give them the reasons behind your decision. Your first reason is that you discounted Emilio's remark that if the stream were poisonous then everything in it would look dead. Deadly things can be alive and look healthy. You mention salmonella on delicious turkey burgers. You are certain that there are microbes that harm humans but not plants and fish; crabgrass and catfish do not catch cholera. Your second reason comes from reconsidering that sign at the ranger station. If nothing works to kill Giardia, then you wouldn't even have been allowed into the park or would have been warned in person. The sign said the station is out of sterilization tablets, implying that sterilizing the water will make it safe. Safe in what sense? Sterilizing means to kill or remove all the living organisms, but not necessarily all the harmful chemicals. If you were to sterilize water containing gasoline, that wouldn't make it safe to drink. So the problem is definitely the microorganisms. Now surely the rangers know that hikers are apt to try to sterilize water by boiling it. You reason that if boiling wouldn't work, the sign would have said so. Then you vaguely remember hearing that people in Africa were told to boil drinking water to prevent cholera, and you think cholera is caused by a parasite or bacteria or something living in the water. Could cholera be that different from Giardia, you wonder. Thinking about all this you conclude it is likely that boiling will do the trick. So, Juanita‘s worry about the danger of getting a bad disease such as Giardia is more than offset by the low probability of actually getting the disease

​

Advice for Logical Reasoners

All of us use these principles every day, so this discussion is just a reminder of what you already know. One principle is to ask for reasons before accepting a conclusion, unless you already have good enough reasons. You applied this principle when you asked Juanita why she thought it best to leave. Similarly, if you expect people to accept your own conclusion, then it's your responsibility to give them reasons they can appreciate.

 

Let's examine that last remark. A conclusion backed up by one or more reasons in any order is called an argument, even when the reasoner is not being argumentative or disagreeable. The word  "argument" is a technical term we will be using frequently in this course. Being logical means that you should give an argument to support your conclusion if you expect other people to accept it. Give people arguments with reasons they can understand. Don't get overly technical. Otherwise, you might as well be talking gobbledygook. Tailor your reasons to your audience. Your goal in giving an argument is to design your reasons so that your audience sees

that the reasons imply the conclusion. Another way of saying this is that your audience should see that the conclusion follows from the reasons given to support it.

 

────CONCEPT CHECK────

​

Which of the following passages contain an argument in our technical sense of that word?

 

a. I hate you. You‘re worthless! Get out of here!

​

b. I'm sure Martin Luther King Jr. didn't die during the 1960s, because it says right here in the                    encyclopedia that he was assassinated in Memphis in 1990.

​

c. The Republican Party began back in the 1850s as a U.S. political party. Abraham Lincoln was their first candidate to win the presidency.

​

d. I don‘t believe you when you say Martin Luther King Jr. could have been elected president if he hadn‘t been assassinated.

 

Try to discipline yourself to read and answer these sample exercises before looking up the correct answer in the footnote below, and before reading on. You do not need to write out the answer. The exercises are designed to test your understanding of concepts in the material you have just read. If you can answer the Concept Checks, then you will be ready to tackle the more difficult Exercises at the end of each chapter. 

 

{For any Concept Check, and many more are coming, try to resist quickly looking down to the footnote for the answer until after you‘ve thought seriously about how to answer the question. The answer is (b). Choice (a) does show two people having a disagreement, but neither one is arguing, because neither is giving reasons for what is said. Choice (c), on the other hand, merely describes the Republican Party. The word ―because‖ in (b) indicates that a reason is being stated. The conclusion is that Martin Luther King Jr. didn‘t die during the 1960s. You can tell from this passage that the conclusion is not about the speaker‘s degree of certainty in this, so that is why the phrase ―I‘m sure‖ is not part of the conclusion. The argument's conclusion─that Martin Luther King Jr. didn't die during the 1960s─follows from the reason given, even though the reason is based on faulty information. (King actually died in 1968.) One moral to draw from this is that an argument based on wrong information is still an argument. A second moral is that an argument can have just one reason. A third moral is that even though this argument does satisfy the principle that an argument's reasons should imply its conclusion, if those reasons are faulty the argument fails to establish its conclusion.}

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Let's continue with our introduction to the principles of logical reasoning. (There are quite a few more to be uncovered.) For example, in the camping-trip story, you paid attention both to what Juanita said and to what Emilio said, and you wished there was a park ranger nearby to ask about Giardia. The underlying principle you applied is to recognize the value of having more relevant information. In the camping situation, it would not have been irrational to choose to pack up and go home, but it probably wouldn‘t have been the best decision. The point is to make your decision on the basis of a serious attempt to assess the relevant evidence. You did this when you paid attention to probabilities and consequences — you weighed the pros and cons—of going or staying.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Here's a picture of what to do. Think of a balance scale for where objects can be placed on either side of the scale. Put the pros on one side and the cons on the other. After all the pros and cons are assessed and added onto the scale, the winner is the side that tilts downward. Some considerations weigh more than others, so it's not just a matter of which side has a longer list of reasons. Weighing means considering how much you'd gain or lose if one of the consequences were to occur. Also, you should consider how probable it is that a particular consequence would really occur. Don't give much weight to a possible consequence that is one in a million.

​

More precisely stated, weighing the pros and cons is a decision procedure that requires:

​

(1) considering the possible courses of action (pack up and hike back out, stay and boil the water, go on a search for a berry tree or a wet leaf to lick),

​

(2) guessing the consequences of those various courses of action (being thirsty, continuing the camping trip, getting a disease),

​

(3) evaluating those consequences (being thirsty is a negative, continuing the camping trip is a positive, getting a disease from Giardia would be terrible), and

​

(4) considering the probabilities that those various consequences will actually occur (it is 100 percent probable that you won't be thirsty after you drink from the stream, but it is only very slightly probable that you'll catch a disease if you drink boiled water that has cooled off and that is unlikely to contain dangerous chemicals such as gasoline).

​

It can be helpful to delay making important decisions when that is practical. During the extra time, you will have an opportunity to think through the problem more carefully. You could discover consequences of your decision that you might not have thought of at first. For example, in the camping situation with Emilio and Juanita, you might have quickly agreed to let Emilio taste the water first to see whether it had Giardia. Perhaps only later would you have thought about the consequence of his becoming too sick to hike back out of the forest. Would you have been able to carry him?

 

Faced with a question of what to do or believe, logical reasoners try to weigh the pros and cons if they have the time; they search around for reasons that might favor their conclusion while knowingly hiding anything negative. That is, they identify the reasons in favor of taking a specific position on the issue, and they identify the reasons against taking that position; then they weigh the two sets of reasons and arrive at a conclusion fairly.

 

Here is a second example of logical reasoning that weighs the pros and cons. Imagine that a few days ago you promised Emilio you would go to the movies with him this Friday evening. You have every intention of going, but you are mildly considering going with Juanita instead, and telling Emilio you are sick. Telling him you are sick while instead going with Juanita would be called an alternative course of action. Let's weigh the pros and cons of taking the original action or this alternative course of action. (We won't consider other alternative actions, such as asking Emilio whether Juanita can go with the two of you.)

 

One possible consequence of going only with Juanita is that you would have more fun. It's not that you would have no fun with Emilio; it's just that you believe it would be more fun to go only with Juanita, all other things being equal. You estimate that the odds are about 60-40 in favor of more fun if you go with Juanita instead of Emilio. Another possible consequence is that Juanita will at first be flattered that you asked her to go with you.

 

There is still another possible consequence to consider: You will be breaking your promise to Emilio, which would be morally wrong and thus have a negative value. It wouldn't be as negative as letting Emilio drink water that you know will cause a disease, but it is clearly negative, and the probability of this consequence is 100 percent; that is, it is certain to occur if you tell Emilio you are sick. In addition, if Emilio finds out, then your friendship with him might end. This is also a negative, and one that is likely to occur, although it is not certain because Emilio might be a very forgiving person. Finally, there is one more consequence worth considering: If Juanita finds out, she will consider you less trustworthy than she originally 9 thought. This is a negative, too. At this point, you cannot think of any other consequences that should be taken into account.

 

After pondering all this, you realize that it is likely that most of the negative consequences will actually occur if you do go with Juanita and that it's only about sixty percent likely that you will have more fun with Juanita than with Emilio. So the negatives weigh more than the positives. After weighing the pros and cons of the two alternatives this way, you decide to keep your promise to Emilio. This is logical reasoning in action.

 

A critical thinker doesn't always use the procedure of weighing the pros and cons. Weighing the pros and cons will give you a good answer only in limited situations where you know the important consequences of your potential actions and where you have enough time to consider those consequences. In many situations, the best thinking requires taking shortcuts--making quick guesses or relying on a trusted friend to make the decision for you.

 

Logical reasoners need to be flexible thinkers. For example, in a situation where you're playing baseball and a friend yells "Duck!" it is illogical to spend much time searching around for good reasons. The logical thing to do is to duck down immediately. Nevertheless, even in this situation you didn't duck without a good reason. You know from previous experience that "Duck" said in a certain tone of voice means that there is a danger to your head that requires lowering it fast and protecting it from a sudden impact. You know not to stick your head up and say "Where's the duck?" Similarly, if someone were to run out of the Wells Fargo Bank building shouting, "Look out, the bank is being robbed," it wouldn't be logical to spend much time wondering what river bank the person is talking about. The point is that logical reasoners assess what is said in light of the situation. Be sensitive to the situation. If you happen to know what time it is when someone passes you on the street and asks "Do you know the time?" it is illogical to answer only "Yes" and walk away unless you are trying to irritate the person who asked the question.

 

Real life decision-making often must work in a dynamic, unpredictable environment. In the business world, new competitors appear, prices rise or fall, opportunities that were available at one time or not available at another. The uncritical decision maker is unaware of these changes and continues to work on making a decision as if in the old environment. This is paralysis by analysis. Alert decision makers also understand the need to know when time is getting short and a decision is needed. This sort of recognition requires frequently asking in the background ―Should I continue to weigh the pros and cons, or should I put the decision making on hold and look for new information, or should I stop and act now?

​

​

────CONCEPT CHECK────

 

Ramone's friend says, "Ramone, look at those two white guys on the other side of the street. They look friendly. The blond guy with him looks like he would rip your lungs out just to see what would happen. The other one is just as fierce, and he's carrying the radio I lost yesterday; it's got my sticker on the side."

 

If Ramone leaves believing that the two guys are friendly because his friend said, "They look friendly," then he has violated some principle of logical reasoning. What principle? 

 

• Reasons should be tailored to the audience. 

​​

• Don't take people too literally. 

 

• Consider the possible courses of action. 

 

• Weigh the pros and cons. 

 

Like everyone else, you are curious, so you are open to adding new beliefs to your old beliefs.

There are logical—that is, appropriate—ways of doing this, as well as illogical ones.

The goal is to add truths, not falsehoods. For example, you are waiting in the grocery store checkout line and notice the front-page headline, "World War II Bomber Discovered Intact on Surface of Moon." You didn't know that, did you? Well, it wouldn't be logical to believe it. Why not? Here are three reasons: (1) Bombers can't fly to the moon, (2) no one is going to bust the national budget to send one there by rocket ship, and (3) there aren't any alien-piloted UFOs that snatch military antiques. The principle behind this logical reasoning is:

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin finds some charred rocks and ashes in his back yard and claims this is dramatic proof that UFOs landed in his backyard. That cartoon also demonstrates this principle of logical reasoning:

 

[The second choice is correct. From what else the friend says, you should be able to tell he was being sarcastic and wasn't serious about the two guys being friendly. He didn't mean for his statements to be taken literally.]

​

​

​

​

​

​

A bit of charcoal is not extraordinarily good evidence of a UFO landing. Similarly, if I were to say to you, ―I met my friend Tiffany Whetstone at the Co-op Grocery yesterday afternoon," you would demand little evidence that this is so. Perhaps the confirming word of a mutual friend would settle any doubts you might have. However, if I were to say to you, ―I met my friend Tiffany Whetstone, who has been dead for the last ten years, at the Co-op Grocery yesterday afternoon," you would probably think I was lying or crazy. You certainly would demand extraordinarily good evidence before accepting what I said as true. In this case, even a confirmation by our mutual friend would be insufficient evidence. However, suppose I said instead, ―I met my friend Tiffany Whetstone at the Co-op Grocery yesterday afternoon. She has a wooden leg and had just won two sets yesterday in her doubles tennis match. She is the best player on her tennis team in Antarctica." This statement is not as weird as the one about her being dead for ten years, and it wouldn't take as much to convince you of this truth, if it were true. But confirmation by our mutual friend would still not be good enough evidence. It is still a very weird remark.

 

By not relying on the principles of logical reasoning, some people are apt to make the mistake of believing too easily that there are antique airplanes on the moon, that UFOs have landed in someone's backyard, and that dead friends have come back to life. All these things might have happened, but currently available evidence is extremely weak. The only reason to believe these things is that a few people have said they‘ve happened. And you have lots of background beliefs and common sense that suggest these things probably did not happen.

 

It is a sign of being logical if the degree of confidence you have in your reasons directly affects the degree of confidence you place in the conclusion drawn from those reasons. A person who believes strongly even though the reasons are flimsy is being stubborn or dogmatic.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

────CONCEPT CHECK────

Here are three arguments about the issue of how David's uncle died. All three are arguing for the same conclusion—that David's uncle died of a drug overdose. Which of these arguments should be considered the most convincing, using only your background knowledge and common sense?

 

a.  David said that his uncle died of a drug overdose, so his uncle must have died of a drug overdose. Extraordinary statements require extraordinarily good evidence to back them up.

​

b.  We know David's uncle died of a drug overdose because David predicted two years ago that this is how his uncle would die and because David has a good track record of making correct predictions.

 

c.  Look, the coroner's report specifically says that David's uncle is dead. Also, everybody in the neighborhood knows that the uncle did drugs every day. So, his uncle died of a drug overdose.

​

Following the rules of logical reasoning comes more easily to some people than to others. All of us, however, are capable of improvement, and we all should want to improve, because improvement has a yield, a payoff.

 

Being logical isn't the only way to make high quality decisions. Sometimes these decisions are made by accident; sometimes they are made in illogical ways, such as by following a horoscope. In the long run, however, statistics show that the smart money is on logical reasoners. Logical reasoning pays. When the expert says, "Hey, don't drink that stuff; it could kill you," the logical reasoner will defer to the expert and put down the cup. The irrational thinker will think, "Experts have been wrong in the past; I'm drinking anyway."

​

Everyone knows that the best decisions are based on facts, but how do we go about distinguishing facts from everything else that is said to us? One is to avoid accepting inconsistencies; they are a sign of error.

 

We made use of this logical-reasoning principle when we noticed that Juanita's advice to end the camping trip was inconsistent with Emilio's advice to continue it. Detecting an inconsistency doesn't reveal where the fault lies, but it does tell us that a fault is present. If someone says the surface of Neptune on average is colder than 200 degrees below zero, and his sister says that it's not nearly that cold, one of the two must be wrong about the facts. We know this even if we don't know the facts about Neptune. So one of the cardinal principles of logical reasoning is:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Answer (a) provides the best reason to believe that David's uncle died of a drug overdose. Although the world has lots of liars in it, we generally take people at their word unless we have a reason to be suspicious. Answers (b) and (c) give worse reasons. Answer (b) asks us to believe David's prediction from two years earlier. It makes more sense to trust what David is saying today (which is what we have in answer (a)) than what he said two years ago about the future. Answer (c) gives us good reason to believe that the uncle is dead but gives us no information about the cause of death. Maybe the uncle did drugs but got hit by a truck. So, answer (a) is best. (The best answer would be the coroner's report on what caused the death.)

​

Here is a definition of inconsistency:

 

Definition Statements are logically inconsistent if they conflict so that at least one of them must be false since they imply something is so and also not so. Similarly, a group of instructions is inconsistent if together the instructions imply that somebody must both do and not do something.

​

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emotions vs. Logic: Striking the Right Balance in Decision-Making

​

Every day, we find ourselves facing a multitude of decisions, both big and small. From choosing what to have for breakfast to making life-altering career choices, the process of decision-making is an integral part of our lives. What makes decision-making truly fascinating, though, is the interplay between two fundamental forces: emotions and logic. In this blog, we will delve deep into the world of emotions and logic, exploring how they influence our decisions and the art of striking the right balance between the two. By the end, you’ll have a better understanding of how to harness these forces to make more informed and satisfying decisions.

​

Understanding the Players: Emotions and Logic

Before we can explore the dynamics of emotions and logic in decision-making, it’s crucial to understand what each of these elements brings to the table.

​

Emotions: The Heart of Decision-Making

​

Emotions are an essential aspect of human nature. They provide color, depth, and passion to our lives. When it comes to decision-making, emotions play a significant role in shaping our preferences, desires, and motivations.

​

Consider a simple example: buying a car. Your emotional side might be drawn to a sleek, sporty convertible in your favorite color because it makes you feel a sense of freedom and excitement. Emotions can be powerful drivers that lead us towards choices that evoke positive feelings.

​

However, emotions can also lead us astray. They can cloud our judgment, making us vulnerable to impulsive decisions based on temporary feelings. Emotions can sometimes be influenced by external factors, such as peer pressure or advertising, leading us to make choices that don’t align with our long-term goals.

​

Logic: The Mind of Decision-Making

​

Logic, on the other hand, represents the analytical and rational aspect of decision-making. It involves critical thinking, reason, and a systematic evaluation of available information. Logical decisions are typically based on facts, evidence, and a clear understanding of cause and effect.

​

Continuing with the car-buying example, your logical side might analyze factors like fuel efficiency, safety features, and long-term maintenance costs. Logic helps us make decisions that are grounded in reality and have a higher chance of leading to favorable outcomes.

​

However, pure logic can have its limitations. It might disregard the emotional aspect of the decision, leading to choices that lack personal fulfillment or satisfaction. Additionally, in complex and uncertain situations, logic alone may not provide clear answers.

​

The Battle Within: Emotions vs. Logic

​

The tension between emotions and logic is a classic struggle within the human psyche. When faced with a decision, our emotional and logical sides often find themselves at odds. Let’s explore this internal battle through some common scenarios:

​

Choosing a Career Path

Imagine you’re at a crossroads in your career. Your heart yearns for a creative field like art or music, where your passion lies, but your logical mind advises a stable job in finance or engineering for financial security. This clash between your emotional desire for fulfillment and your logical need for stability creates inner turmoil.

​

Deciding on a Life Partner

In matters of the heart, emotions often take center stage. You may feel an intense emotional connection with someone, but your logical mind warns you about potential incompatibilities or differences in long-term goals. Balancing your emotional attraction with logical considerations becomes a significant challenge.

​

Investing in Stocks

When it comes to financial decisions, emotions can wreak havoc. The stock market is a prime example. Investors often get swept up in the emotions of fear and greed, leading to impulsive buying or selling decisions. Logic suggests a well-researched, diversified investment strategy, but it can be challenging to follow when emotions run high.

​

These scenarios illustrate the ongoing battle between emotions and logic in various aspects of our lives. So, how do we strike the right balance to make decisions that align with our values, goals, and well-being?

​

The Art of Striking the Right Balance

Balancing emotions and logic in decision-making is indeed an art. It requires self-awareness, mindfulness, and a deliberate approach. Here are some strategies to help you find that equilibrium:

​

1. Self-Reflection

Before making any significant decision, take time for self-reflection. Ask yourself what you truly value, what your long-term goals are, and how the decision aligns with your core principles. This introspection helps you understand your emotional drivers and identify potential biases.

​

2. Gather Information

Logical decisions benefit from a solid foundation of information and data. Research thoroughly, seek expert advice when needed, and consider the pros and cons of each option. This process empowers you to make informed choices while addressing your logical concerns.

​

3. Emotional Awareness

Recognize your emotions and allow yourself to feel them. Emotions can provide valuable insights into your desires and priorities. However, don’t let them dictate your decisions impulsively. Instead, acknowledge your emotions and then pause to let the logical side of your mind weigh in.

​

4. Set Priorities

Clearly define your priorities for the decision at hand. Determine which factors are non-negotiable and which are flexible. This helps in making compromises that satisfy both your emotional and logical needs.

​

5. Seek Input from Others

Consult with trusted friends, family members, or mentors who can offer different perspectives. They can provide valuable insights, challenge your assumptions, and help you see the decision from various angles.

​

6. Time Management

Avoid making hasty decisions when emotions are running high. Give yourself the gift of time to let emotions settle and allow logical thinking to take the lead. Some decisions can benefit from a “cooling-off” period.

​

7. Embrace Hybrid Thinking

Strive for a synergy between emotions and logic. Consider how both aspects can complement each other rather than compete. For instance, harness your emotional enthusiasm to motivate logical planning and execution.

​

Case Studies: Balancing Emotions and Logic

To further illustrate the art of striking the right balance, let’s explore two real-life case studies where individuals successfully navigated the interplay of emotions and logic in their decision-making processes.

​

Case Study 1: Susan’s Career Change

Susan had worked in corporate sales for over a decade, climbing the ladder and earning a comfortable salary. However, she felt unfulfilled and yearned for a career in social work, which had been her lifelong passion. The emotional pull toward social work was strong, but the logical side of her mind worried about the financial stability of such a move.

​

Susan began by conducting thorough research about the social work field and the financial implications of the transition. She reached out to friends who had made similar career changes and consulted with a financial advisor. By gathering information and setting clear priorities, Susan was able to strike a balance.

​

Ultimately, she decided to pursue a part-time social work position while maintaining her corporate job. This allowed her to gain experience in the field, ease her financial concerns, and gradually transition into her dream career. Susan’s decision was a testament to the power of balanced decision-making.

​

Case Study 2: Michael’s Investment Dilemma

Michael was an avid investor with a passion for stocks. He had experienced both substantial gains and losses in the market, often driven by his emotions. During a bull market, his enthusiasm led him to invest heavily in risky stocks, only to see his portfolio plummet during market downturns.

​

Michael recognized the need to balance his emotions with logic to become a more successful investor. He implemented a disciplined approach that included setting clear investment goals, diversifying his portfolio, and using stop-loss orders to limit losses. He also sought guidance from a financial advisor to help temper his emotional impulses.

​

Over time, Michael’s investment strategy became more balanced, and he achieved greater financial stability. He learned to appreciate the excitement of investing while also managing the risks with a logical approach. Michael’s journey highlights the importance of evolving and adapting one’s decision-making process.

​

Conclusion: Embrace the Harmony

In the intricate dance between emotions and logic, the key to effective decision-making lies in embracing the harmony between these two forces. Neither should dominate; instead, they should complement and inform each other. The art of striking the right balance empowers us to make decisions that resonate with our deepest desires and align with our rational goals.

​

As you navigate the myriad decisions life presents, remember that finding this balance is an ongoing process. It requires self-awareness, patience, and a willingness to learn from both your successes and failures. By doing so, you’ll discover that the interplay of emotions and logic is not a battle to be won but a symphony to be conducted — a beautiful, ever-evolving expression of your unique journey through life.

​

In the end, it’s not about choosing between emotions and logic; it’s about choosing both, in harmony, to create a richer, more fulfilling life filled with well-informed and satisfying decisions.

​

​

End Week 5 Behavioral Science Reading | Answer questions in Google Classroom Document.