Headline doesn't match the content; while the article is more nuanced, it still seems to put too much blind faith in our evolved emotional systems.
> On the other hand, given that our emotional system—that gives us information points through a sense or a judgment—has been refined by the battery of evolution for much, much longer than the thinking mind, we know that it absorbs more of the nuances of reality before it comes to a conclusion.
That doesn't follow at all; if anything the opposite is true, our emotional system is quicker to discard nuance (because in the ancestral environment it was more important to make an approximate decision quickly, whereas in the modern world the opposite is true).
> In fact, Barrett’s model even suggests that cognition and emotion are not distinct at all.
> the seeming irrationality of a well-tuned emotional system, within the right context, can fill in gaps that reason misses.
It's not about irrationality being an advantage or "filling in gaps". It's about the speed of our emotional system making it useful despite the irrationality. It's well worth making the best possible use of the cognitive tools we have, including our emotional system, but that doesn't mean the flaws of those tools cease to be flaws.
He says "seeming irrationality". Meaning something that is judged irrational by our logical system, which has limited capacity thus limited information.
He says that, if you account for certain biases, the much higher capacity emotional system can be a useful input feature for the final decision.
In summary, don't trust the input of your instincts blindly, it is biased. However, flawed as it may be, it is probably based on much more information than your logical decision, so you should not discard it completely either. Try to account for biases, better yet, train your emotional system for less biased decisions.
> He says "seeming irrationality". Meaning something that is judged irrational by our logical system, which has limited capacity thus limited information.
But this fails to acknowledge that very often the reason our emotional system seems irrational is because it is irrational.
> He says that, if you account for certain biases, the much higher capacity emotional system can be a useful input feature for the final decision.
> In summary, don't trust the input of your instincts blindly, it is biased. However, flawed as it may be, it is probably based on much more information than your logical decision, so you should not discard it completely either. Try to account for biases, better yet, train your emotional system for less biased decisions.
That's a very generous reading of the article, and a much better takeaway than anything I got from the article itself. There is value in our emotional systems, but the biases of that system are very real and warrant more attention and caution than the article pays them.
> On the other hand, given that our emotional system—that gives us information points through a sense or a judgment—has been refined by the battery of evolution for much, much longer than the thinking mind, we know that it absorbs more of the nuances of reality before it comes to a conclusion.
That doesn't follow at all; if anything the opposite is true, our emotional system is quicker to discard nuance (because in the ancestral environment it was more important to make an approximate decision quickly, whereas in the modern world the opposite is true).
> In fact, Barrett’s model even suggests that cognition and emotion are not distinct at all. > the seeming irrationality of a well-tuned emotional system, within the right context, can fill in gaps that reason misses.
It's not about irrationality being an advantage or "filling in gaps". It's about the speed of our emotional system making it useful despite the irrationality. It's well worth making the best possible use of the cognitive tools we have, including our emotional system, but that doesn't mean the flaws of those tools cease to be flaws.