Well, my comment on the video is nothing to write home about.
What it means in relation to you from my perspective is this:
I do not see a hard distinction between emotional and rational thinking.
Rational thought is prepended by the actions of the amygdala. It’s simply how our circuits work.
The mechanism going into the “rational thought” area has a streaming firehose going from amygdala –> prefrontal cortex.
There *is* also an overflow line which goes from prefrontal-cortex –> amygdala, but it is a very slow connection, that of a garden hose.
Through training, it *is* possible to strengthen the connection going from “rational controlling emotion” but by nature, it’s very weak. We all cry as babies.
But it’s not superior. On the contrary, it’s inferior, which makes the strengthening that much more important. It’s ALWAYS inferior, no matter how strong our intent or will. That’s why it takes constant practice.
There are many techniques to do so. Calming techniques, finding systems that encourage rational thought. Talking your way through problems. They’re all equivalent.
This is why I made the comparison to the woman’s side in “It’s not about the nail”. She is talking through her problems. But instead of doing what Millard J Melnyk did and say, “IT’S THE NAIL – PULL IT OUT!”, I’m playing the part of the understanding man who sees the nail but knows she wants to talk it through and discover it on her own.
It’s not a criticism in any way. I don’t find any logic system to be necessarily invalid, whether it be analytical logic or a woman analyzing a man’s true intentions through his social cues and past behaviors. They’re all the same to me.
Connecting dots to tell a story. And a story needs an audience. So, I’m listening.
No criticism intended, but you WERE being a stereotypical patriarchal male in the beginning of this thread towards William Heidbreder -you must admit.