Is it “irrational” for your emotions to not cohere with evidence?

Question

Let’s use fear as an example and negative events as events that may cause that fear.

Should fear, if you feel it, and the intensity of it correlate with how strongly likely an event is?

For example, if you were to drive a car at 110 miles per hour, you may have a higher likelihood of dying than flying a plane. Should you then fear dying more when driving at that speed vs. being a passenger on a plane?

What about events that have unknown likelihoods? For example, say you fear negative event A more than negative event B, but you are not able to convince yourself that the probability of negative event A is higher. Should you now atleast consciously recognize that this is irrational, even if you are not physically able to control that fear?

More broadly, when is it rational (if ever) to fear something and how should the intensity of that fear change depending upon perceived evidence?

Answer 1

A phobia is (in part) defined as an irrational fear, so "irrational" is certainly used to refer to emotions that are not warranted by the situation.

Trying to reason oneself out of unwarranted emotions (and questioning whether one has any such emotions) tend to be a good idea, because these can bias one's thinking process, lead to making poor decisions and/or cause oneself unnecessary suffering in experiencing those emotions.

* How much fear is warranted, and how much fear is useful, is probably something that would need to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. Being more afraid of flying than driving may not be warranted, statistically speaking. But it may be useful and/or warranted in the sense that you're further removed from having control over the situation, and you're high up in the air (in other situations with those characteristics, without the safety record, hesitation or fear could likely be warranted). And unknown likelihoods are ... unknown, so I can't say too much about that. You may have some indication of a likelihood, one way or the other, even if you don't know exactly what it is. And events with unknown likelihoods may have less or more severe consequences. So different levels of fear may be warranted, in some cases.

Although in general, I'd say fear, as such, isn't a particularly useful emotion (for me, at least), in anything other than fight-or-flight situations, perhaps. Reasoned caution is much more useful, in that this similarly allows you to avoid things that harm you, without the downsides of fear, which includes the unpleasant feeling itself, a risk of fear paralysis and difficulty doing things you want or need to do (e.g. if you're afraid of spiders, encountering a spider in your home may significantly impair your ability to do things in your home, including dealing with the spider, whereas caution would still allow you to avoid getting bit, which is all a spider can really do, and that avoids the impairment that fear would bring). However, with only caution (especially if poorly applied), you may be more inclined to do things that harm you.

---

A strongly related, but arguably distinct, meaning of "irrational" would refer to any belief or conscious decision made based on unwarranted emotions, or a belief or decision made based on possibly-warranted emotions in a way that may not logically follow.

For example, if you're gambling, one could say excitement is warranted, but if this leads to you believing that you'll keep winning (and then potentially making a bet that's far too high or one where you're far too unlikely to win), that could be considered irrational.

One should try to avoid such things, if you care about believing things most likely to be true, and having the outcome of your actions be most likely to match the outcome you intended.

Answer 2

The question of rationality vs. irrationality is about how one thinks (and in some cases, also how one behaves).

Emotions, on the other hand, are about how one feels.

For that reason, I don't believe the word "irrational" applies to emotions.

Answer 3

Yes, any emotion that is not coherent with reality is irrational.

For example, a fear of heights is rational, because falling from a height is dangerous. It becomes irrational when the fear is not reasonable or the heuristic is being wrongly applied. Being afraid as I dangle from a ledge is rational, but being afraid as I look out of a skyscraper window is not. There is no reasonable danger as I look out the window; my heuristic is being over-applied. Likewise, being afraid of heights as I stand on a stepladder is irrational, because I am able-bodied and the harm I risk by falling from two feet up is minimal.

Likewise, being hurt at a betrayal is rational. If I have a vivid dream that my partner has cheated on me and I wake up hurt and upset, that's reasonable, because I have just had a painful experience. But continuing to be upset after I have fully woken up and become aware that it was a dream is not rational, because it is not based on reality.

Ideally, the emotion you are feeling and its relative strength is correlated directly with the most reasonable response to the stimulus. It's rational to have a tiny twinge of nervousness as you get onto a plane, because there is a small risk of danger. But you should be able to recognize that fear as irrational when you consider the statistics of air travel safety and recognize that the plane you're on seems in good condition. The rational response changes based upon information, so the most rational emotion changes likewise. This won't always be instant or complete, because emotions have inertia to them and humans get into patterns of behaviour and thought that persist even when those patterns are unhelpful, but that's when we have to recognize that the emotion is not rational (and why emotions are often termed irrational in general).

Emotions are often called irrational, because they don't strictly adhere to reality or are not based on facts alone, but that's a generalization and usually shorthand for the idea that emotions are not logic and do not always work logically. That doesn't mean that emotions can't be rational or irrational; they are responses to stimuli, and are based on biology, instinct, and learned responses (or personal history). The purpose of emotions (so far as they have a functional biological purpose) is to be a heuristic for decision-making, but like all heuristics, they can be faulty or based on false assumptions.

Imagine that you're standing in front of a very large dog that is growling, barking, and baring its teeth at you. It then begins to charge at you, and you feel fear. There is a threat to your safety and the fear is indicating that to you, as well as providing possible responses to that threat (running away, covering vulnerable parts of your body, counter-attacking, etc.). The benefit of these impulses coming from the emotion of fear is that they don't require you to pause and analyze the situation—that would take valuable time. Instead, you make a snap judgement and respond based on instinct and learned reactions. These responses might not be the ideal ones or even good ones, but they are reactions, and evolutionarily speaking, they often are ones that overall will prioritize your survival. If you were to sit down and explain it to an alien, they'd be able to understand:

1. I am averse to pain and injury.
2. I see a threat to my safety.
3. I desire to avoid the threat, to avoid the pain and injury it would cause.

So in a way, we can say that fear is just the advance reaction to the prediction of pain, and experiencing pain from an injury is rational. This implies, of course, that the pain is real: if not, then the fear isn't rational, right? Predicting pain from a dog attack is reasonable; predicting pain from a dog happily snoozing in the corner is not. At that point, the fear of the dog is irrational.

It's also important to mention that irrational does not mean "not valid", "not important", or "should not exist". If someone is irrationally afraid of spiders, I'm not going to wave hi-res close-ups of spiders at them, even if we both know that it's just a picture and can do nothing worse than give a papercut. Even positive emotions, like being in love with someone, can be irrational, but I don't think anyone would say "you should stop being so in love with your spouse. This should be a more transactional relationship." Sometimes we revel in irrational emotions: rollercoasters, sad movies, sappy songs. Those are great, and should be enjoyed! We should enjoy them no less for them being fiction, but we need to be aware they're fiction. In the same way, we should enjoy the reactions and emotions they provoke, even if we know they're irrational.

Answer 4

Our emotions, like fear, are not always driven by rational or conscious thought processes. Our brains are wired to prioritize survival, and as such, they often rely on quick, automatic reactions rather than reasoned analysis.

Take your car vs. plane example. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be involved in a car accident than a plane crash. However, driving gives you a sense of control, while flying involves surrendering control to the pilots and accepting the vulnerability of being miles up in the sky. This perceived lack of control can trigger an evolutionary hardwired fear response, even though the actual risk is low. That's not irrational; it's just how our brains are designed to function.

Also there is a thing known as "ambiguity aversion" or "uncertainty aversion." We prefer known risks over unknown risks, even if the known risk might be higher. This is why people often fear rare events like plane crashes more than common events like car accidents.

Answer 5

Some people have no doubt brought up the factor of not just the likelihood of some event, but how harmful (or beneficent) it is. While we may not class a lottery hopefuls enjoyment of her ticket as "irrational", sleepless nights worrying about the tiny percent chance of some mild irritant (what if the milkman misses me tomorrow?) should properly be classed as phobia/mad/irrational or something similar.

I only really posted to ask a follow up/related question: when is pain rational and justified, self inflicted pain, be that extreme worry or just grief etc.? I suppose the obvious answer is when it is transformative and lucky in some way.

Maybe all emotion just come down to energetics: whatever works.