this does not negate the fact that a breakdown in rationality is also caused by emotion. the human brain is emotional throughout. however the part of it that has "rational debates" is not an intrinsic behavior. that part is based on cognitive skill which will perform to a greater or lesser extent based on current brain state. if the amygdala is active in a state of fear or anger, "rational debate" skill will be compromised, since that is not a useful skill in the traditional evolutionary situation that calls for fear or anger.
now this time I will employ simple restatement to help convey the point I'm making--and for you to be rational is for you to first simply understand what I'm saying; arguing back is not entirely rational, it's actually an additional emotional step:
think of rationality of the brain like a signed vs unsigned char in most implementations of C, basically a byte: you could think of a byte as 0-255 or as -127 to +126. The brain is an emotional organ. Rationality is the best possible outcome, but it's not the default state; the brain doesn't function from 0 to 255 rationality, it functions from -127 to +128.
I say it this way because you talk about rationality "breaking down" as if it's some sort of default. I don't think of it that way. Rationality is something we hope to build up to and are lucky to achieve, but our default state is animal passion.
I'm not trying to convince you to change what you think, just using some restatements to open your thinking to the way psychiatry views the brain.
> I say it this way because you talk about rationality "breaking down" as if it's some sort of default.
I'm sorry, can you please explain how you come to this conclusion based on what I wrote:
"however the part of it that has "rational debates" is not an intrinsic behavior. that part is based on cognitive skill which will perform to a greater or lesser extent based on current brain state."
I'm not really arguing with you, as your first point seemed to be some kind of "but what about...!" that didn't really negate what I was trying to say. However if you think I was saying something completely different, that would make more sense for whatever it is you're attempting to "argue".
