The Heart vs. The Mind

[Somnium Dico]

This has been an interesting topic within most of my friend group, and I thought it would be enlightening to bring this up here on the boards. I still don't know many of you, and I believe this topic will help me get a better read on all who participate.

In any given situation, which is best to act upon: gut instinct and emotion, or logic and thoughtfulness? Heart or head? Does one trump the other in every situation? Should there always be a harmony between the two? And despite which you think is best, what do you ACTUALLY act upon a majority of the time?

And please, be honest about it. There's really no wrong answer, and I don't want to hear the same bland, cookie-cutter responses of what we're SUPPOSED to do.

I think that a harmony between the two is important, but intellectualism should always be the major priority. At least for someone like me. After all, acting on emotion is an instinctual thing, and there's almost nothing as pure and fulfilling as that. But to act without thinking is almost always going to cause trouble, no matter what the emotion is (anger, charity, etc.).

As for what I actually act on? Well...I'm actually a pretty emotionally-driven person. If a situation doesn't have much emotional stock with me, I follow the above paragraph. But if I'm very involved with a situation, I have a tendency of acting/speaking without thinking. Once again, nearly always ends in an intentionally bad way.

[Getonmylevel]

Well, I don't know so much about situation to situation. Its when your presented with a conundrum, when you need to decide on an action, one that you feel you should do because of emotional attachment but you look at the logical side and it may not add up. The logic though has alot to do with your values and what is important to you. Personally if you go against your gut, your heart and you later find out you should have gone with it, its harder to deal with. So going with the heart is generally the better option, no matter the outcome.

[AlmostGodess]

Why not Heart and Mind?It is more difficult to integrate the two then to separarte them and to argue for only one part of the equation.

[Federer]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Why not Heart and Mind?It is more difficult to integrate the two then to separarte them and to argue for only one part of the equation.

I think the OP wants to ask which can win if fights happen between heart and mind? Yes, difficult. but i know what will win.

[Justin Mazza]

The heart trumps the mind everytime. You see the mind is not part of you but rather something that you access similar to the way a computer can access the web.

The heart is part of you and always tells the truth as where the mind is often devious.

[trevorturtle]

Originally Posted by Justin Mazza

The heart trumps the mind everytime. You see the mind is not part of you but rather something that you access similar to the way a computer can access the web.

The heart is part of you and always tells the truth as where the mind is often devious.

Agreed. Unless you're trying to solve a logic problem, or doing a statistical analysis, live through your heart.

[Somnium Dico]

Originally Posted by AlmostGodess

Why not Heart and Mind?It is more difficult to integrate the two then to separarte them and to argue for only one part of the equation.

Actually, I addressed in my original post that I personally believe that there needs to be some sort of synergy between the two. The question wasn't so much which one is better, but what you, personally, feel should trump the other. Which one is more important? I know damn well that almost everyone on the board has one part of them they act on more than the other.

Also, I asked two questions: not just what you think is the best to act upon, but also what you ACTUALLY act upon.

Originally Posted by Justin Mazza

The heart trumps the mind everytime. You see the mind is not part of you but rather something that you access similar to the way a computer can access the web.

The heart is part of you and always tells the truth as where the mind is often devious.

I said before that I think acting with the heart is definitely more fulfilling than acting on the mind, but I would also argue that acting strictly on emotion and gut-instinct can be as misleading as the mind. In fact, I've seen many events unfold unfavorably after someone acted on their heart's whims without thinking about it.

I'd also like to disagree with the idea that the mind is devious or misleading. I suppose it could be, but only if you had no control over your mind, ergo yourself. Honestly, I believe the mind lets us face what IS whereas the heart lets us see what COULD be. Anyone who feels they have no control over the mind probably has no intuition for their heart.

[Cado]

Feeling is more primal than thought (as we generally think of it) and thus it's closer to the core self. Discerning genuine intuition takes practice, although in my experience the mind is not the tool which brings clarity. It requires action repeated until one becomes aware of the subtleties of feeling. Contrast, in other words.

Putting the mind at the forefront is working top down instead of bottom up and the end result is blunt force alterations of reality. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it rarely aligns with true desire. With that said, abandoning the mind is just as stupid as relying on it as your compass. Reason and logic allow the heart's desire to be translated into practical terms and it's also the means by which the intangible can be communicated through language and song etc.

So basically the flaw in relying on the mind is that it's like hitting the gas when a car is in neutral. Logic isn't motivation. When properly structured it can be likened to a wall which is capable of crushing things outside that construct but again, it's very hit or miss.

So if I had to give one priority, it would be heart then mind.

[elucidate]

I do my best to follow my heart first, but sometimes a cool head is required, so it does depend on the scenario.

Taking both into consideration is the balanced way to go, but in the end it will often be my heart over mind. Being clear about feelings and intuition in the first place is important though, so that can take time to process.

[AlmostGodess]

Originally Posted by Somnium Dico

Actually, I addressed in my original post that I personally believe that there needs to be some sort of synergy between the two. The question wasn't so much which one is better, but what you, personally, feel should trump the other. Which one is more important? I know damn well that almost everyone on the board has one part of them they act on more than the other.

Also, I asked two questions: not just what you think is the best to act upon, but also what you ACTUALLY act upon.

I honestly wish I knew the answers to these questions. I am not able to distinguish wish is the main force in my life. I can act emotionally when choosing a shower gel or the cheese for lunch. But I can also be a rational monster that strikes with its calculated decisions when I least expect, like choosing partners for example.

[tamzdance]

As there are no right or wrong answers here, I can honestly say I follow my heart in almost every situation. Even when faced with decisions that require logic or strategy, my heart and intuition are involved. In my opinion, logic/math/strategy are learned disciplines that do not take form without action. And action normally comes from the heart. Does this make sense? It's easy to confuse the two when you attempt to analyze where actions are actually coming from, but I'd say most of what we choose to do is heart driven. Like it or not! Peace, -tamzdance

[Somnium Dico]

Originally Posted by tamzdance

Does this make sense? It's easy to confuse the two when you attempt to analyze where actions are actually coming from, but I'd say most of what we choose to do is heart driven. Like it or not! Peace, -tamzdance

It makes perfect sense. And it opens my eyes that the question I originally asked was quite a bit more complex than I gave it credit. So let me see if I can simplify the equation just a bit.

Now, it's actually pretty obvious that the heart (or raw emotion) has a major role to play in our decisions. Of course it does, we mostly (mostly being the opportune word here) decide what to do based on what we WANT to do, which is a pretty heart-driven sentiment.

I meant, on the whole, is it more appropriate to act upon what you FEEL or what you know. Gut instinct or logic?

Let me also that that I know there are many situations that call for one more than the other, but I'm more interested in how you act the larger percentage of the time.

And come on, I doubt EVERYONE on this board just acts purely on impulse. I know too many people who over think or demand constant study of a situation before they act.

[Ne Cede Malis]

Originally Posted by Somnium Dico

I meant, on the whole, is it more appropriate to act upon what you FEEL or what you know. Gut instinct or logic?

Let me also that that I know there are many situations that call for one more than the other, but I'm more interested in how you act the larger percentage of the time.

And come on, I doubt EVERYONE on this board just acts purely on impulse. I know too many people who over think or demand constant study of a situation before they act.

Well, I'm a thinker, first!

Probably an over-thinker, as you put it.

Quite often, I have delayed emotional reactions - I don't get emotion at the time, then I go away and think about things - then I get emotional!

I've thought about your question often - who hasn't?

But it may be a pointless question - because some are more pre-disposed one way than the other. I know people who invariably react emotionally, all the time - they seem like the polar opposite of me.

But I guess that's okay - isn't it? Okay, sometimes I'd wish they'd take a few moments and think first - but maybe they're just not 'wired' that way?

And for the 'over thinkers' - well, I think it's possible that over analysis isn't always good either.

Sometimes I imagine that life might be easier for the emotional reactors - they just let rip, off load, even without regard for others - where I for one tend to bottle things up.

Overall though, going against the flow of the other replies - I favour the head over the heart - not total exclusion of the emotional (impossible anyway), but an attempt to rationalise, so that your emotions don't get the better of you.

I've lost count of big/important moments in my life in the past, when I've allowed the emotional greater expression, made decisions on the emotional - and regretted it later - from the rational.

My two cents - Ne Cede Malis

[autarko]

Originally Posted by Ne Cede Malis

Well, I'm a thinker, first!

Probably an over-thinker, as you put it.

Quite often, I have delayed emotional reactions - I don't get emotion at the time, then I go away and think about things - then I get emotional!

I've thought about your question often - who hasn't?

But it may be a pointless question - because some are more pre-disposed one way than the other. I know people who invariably react emotionally, all the time - they seem like the polar opposite of me.

But I guess that's okay - isn't it? Okay, sometimes I'd wish they'd take a few moments and think first - but maybe they're just not 'wired' that way?

And for the 'over thinkers' - well, I think it's possible that over analysis isn't always good either.

Sometimes I imagine that life might be easier for the emotional reactors - they just let rip, off load, even without regard for others - where I for one tend to bottle things up.

Overall though, going against the flow of the other replies - I favour the head over the heart - not total exclusion of the emotional (impossible anyway), but an attempt to rationalise, so that your emotions don't get the better of you.

I've lost count of big/important moments in my life in the past, when I've allowed the emotional greater expression, made decisions on the emotional - and regretted it later - from the rational.

My two cents - Ne Cede Malis

You're describing me, to a tee! But I'm wondering if we can aim for a state of being whereby we sense a feeling and act upon it in a way which is in harmony with both our head and our heart, with full confidence. The emotions are usually responses to feelings - a bit hit and miss. Feelings tell the truth whereas emotions may have lower sources ie the feeling gets hijacked by your lower subconscious before becoming realised in an emotion.

[AndrewJen]

My personality temperament (INFJ) pretty much answers the question for me; my heart leads in almost every case. I am actually very rational and have a sense of logic that thinking temperaments appreciate, but I will almost always follow intuition and what my heart is feeling unless it truly contradicts data, in which case I'm still acting intuitively... its a vicious cycle

[holyorder]

I think mind is a very valuable asset, a tool for thinking. It can be used as a vehicle of transcendence, but to a degree. After that, you have to rely on the heart.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Somnium Dico

This has been an interesting topic within most of my friend group, and I thought it would be enlightening to bring this up here on the boards. I still don't know many of you, and I believe this topic will help me get a better read on all who participate.

In any given situation, which is best to act upon: gut instinct and emotion, or logic and thoughtfulness? Heart or head? Does one trump the other in every situation? Should there always be a harmony between the two? And despite which you think is best, what do you ACTUALLY act upon a majority of the time?

And please, be honest about it. There's really no wrong answer, and I don't want to hear the same bland, cookie-cutter responses of what we're SUPPOSED to do.

I think that a harmony between the two is important, but intellectualism should always be the major priority. At least for someone like me. After all, acting on emotion is an instinctual thing, and there's almost nothing as pure and fulfilling as that. But to act without thinking is almost always going to cause trouble, no matter what the emotion is (anger, charity, etc.).

As for what I actually act on? Well...I'm actually a pretty emotionally-driven person. If a situation doesn't have much emotional stock with me, I follow the above paragraph. But if I'm very involved with a situation, I have a tendency of acting/speaking without thinking. Once again, nearly always ends in an intentionally bad way.

My heart generally follows my mind: tha-thump, tha-thump, tha-thump... See!

I agree with your paragraph on harmony with intellectualism taking priority.

The only times I act purely out of emotion and instinct are really when I'm crying, hugging, kissing, smiling, etc. They're non verbal and almost inherently emotional. I suppose I could put singing and other kinds of music here too; it requires a lot of intellectual prep, but when I'm jamming, I'm in the zone. Okay, thought of another: running through the forest. When I'm running on a road, track, or treadmill I find something to think about to entertain myself; but in the forest there are enough interesting but instinctual to navigate obstacles that it's another "mind goes blank" time.

I'm a major over-analyzer, and I get a kick out of it. Usually. Figuring things out gives me a rush, so in that way you could say my emotions follow my mind.

At other times, I'm so confused about what my emotions "are telling me" to do that I run myself in circles because I think I have to listen to them when I'm really just psyching myself out (<--why I suck at relationships). Eventually I'll say "screw it", clear my head, make a pro/con list and an action plan (with contingencies) and feel at peace.

[Angelique]

They take turns leading. The definition gets a little muddled because it's very easy to disguise emotions and call it logic.

To give you an idea..
Spirituality - Mix
Communicating - Relating - Heart
Communicating - Teaching - Logic
Finance - Heart (not good!)
Health - Heart
Work ethic - Logic (only when I get started, before that - heart)

[Neobian]

Heart always wishes for things. Mind gets them. Actually your heart controls your mind but people think it otherway.

For eg, you want to have 1 million $. Now, this is NOT your heart asking for, but your mind has suggested to your heart. Your heart just wants to be happy (by feeling secure, held with respect, be kind to poor) or angry (by revenge, solitude, anti-social) but it is the mind which suggested the idea of getting $1M will meet the heart's desire.

Your mind is a wise minister but heart is the king for which it serves. A good king will ask opinions from his miniters but he takes the final decision. Everyone can do logic, so you should try do it first and no reach for answer, then use your gut. Even if you reached conclusion from logic, still let your gut validate it. That way, you will learn to sharpen your mind and gut for a long life ahead.

[EternalOne]

I think the heart is the new mind.

Its time we all now came from a place of love.

[Annie Zero]

Originally Posted by EternalOne

I think the heart is the new mind.

I think the mind is the new heart.

Originally Posted by Somnium Dico

I meant, on the whole, is it more appropriate to act upon what you FEEL or what you know. Gut instinct or logic?

We always use logic, it's just that this logic may not always make sense to someone outside of your head. We always make decisions with the mind -- we consider to what extent we should take our "gut feeling" into consideration.

[LisaDreams]

Originally Posted by Getonmylevel

Personally if you go against your gut, your heart and you later find out you should have gone with it, its harder to deal with. So going with the heart is generally the better option, no matter the outcome.

I agree!!

I go with my intuition most of the time. It feels like a hybrid between my head and heart. It's calm and quiet, but has feeling associated with it. Sometimes I allow myself to get too scattered or caught up in some kind of distracting emotion and those are the times I'm not in touch with my intuition.

Lisa

[OptimistPrime]

I agree with the idea put forth in Neale Donald Walsch's books that negative feelings are not true feelings at all, but are actually thoughts about how we should feel, masquerading as feelings.

For example, a person might think that they need a relationship to be happy, so they would feel depressed whenever they're not in a relationship, or whenever they hear something that makes them think that they're less likely to have one. But these feelings are all rooted in what they're thinking about the situation, namely that they should feel bad because they need to be with someone else to be happy.

So, with the caveat that feelings are defined as those that are the highest and most benevolent that humans are capable of, I believe in acting more from our hearts than from our heads. And I'd estimate that I do that myself at least 90% of the time, because I do get caught up in my head from time to time.

[Merr]

I think it is important to listen to your 'gut'. It always puts me in mind of Gibbs in NCIS - although logic and evidence is important, his 'gut' usually knows whether a person os guilty or innocent.

For me, when I listen to my gut and act on it I find that I am usually happy with the choice I have made. When I ignore it because, for example, I have listened to advice... I regret it. I think that we all have instincts but most of us have buried them and as a result, it can be difficult to tell whether the feeling is based on logic or instinct. That's the problem for me, anyway.

[Proteus]

Heart vs. Mind?

This is shows our natural tendency to always place divisions on what it is that we see, do and think about. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this - for without this type of questioning we would never learn!

I believe that there's more to the heart than we collectively understand. But what's most important is our level of belief....what our mind believes. With that said I believe that when we act with our heart, and we know within that heart that what we are deciding is the best for us, the belief of mind will be there to support. And i think it's the belief that the heart always rings true is what allows the (physical) Mind to catch up with this powerful premise.

OptimistPrime said:

I agree with the idea put forth in Neale Donald Walsch's books that negative feelings are not true feelings at all, but are actually thoughts about how we should feel, masquerading as feelings.

I couldn't agree with this more. It's along the same lines of a premise that I've heard that negative feelings are actually indication that you are NOT thinking from the alignment of your POWERFUL Heart Centre.

And i can def say from experience that when I acted with my heart, and thought not about the logic of it all - what was reflected to me was what I had hoped for, what i put faith in and what I truly believe in my heart.

Then, that allowed my mind to relax in it's imaginative musings in unison with the blessing of my Heart.

[mint]

The thing is.........

Logic uses emotion to PRIORITIZE.

It is almost impossible to prioritize without emotion. People who have brain damage to the emotional side of their brain are paralyzed with making any decisions even though the logic side of their brain is unharmed. They can't even decide what to eat for breakfast because they have no emotional weight to their choices.

You have option A, option B, option C.... only emotion can weight the various options that logic presents.

So it's really not an issue of mind vs heart at all.

Plus, I think the OP is confusing "impulsiveness" with the heart. The heart doesn't have to be impulsive. That's a different dimension.

[Swifthawk]

Originally Posted by mint

The thing is.........

Logic uses emotion to PRIORITIZE.

It is almost impossible to prioritize without emotion. People who have brain damage to the emotional side of their brain are paralyzed with making any decisions even though the logic side of their brain is unharmed. They can't even decide what to eat for breakfast because they have no emotional weight to their choices.

You have option A, option B, option C.... only emotion can weight the various options that logic presents.

So it's really not an issue of mind vs heart at all.

Plus, I think the OP is confusing "impulsiveness" with the heart. The heart doesn't have to be impulsive. That's a different dimension.

This is definitely right.

Our values serve as guides of conduct, and these values are deeply connected to our emotions.

We have to care about a problem before we even begin to think about it. It has to be meaningful in at least the smallest sense, and it is in this way that we have a stake in the outcome of that decision.

Our values are part of the decision making process. Like mint said, they help prioritize the means and ends of the problem.

The impulsiveness mint speaks of is the inability to pay attention to values which are down the road, things we care about but are further in the future.

If I care about saving money, then I have emotional content about that value, but if I ignore it for splurging on some item, its because another value took all of my attention. I cared about it more because it was right there in the moment.

[MartaA]

This is complicated because I think we're mixing terms. "From the heart" it's not the same as emotions and it's not the same as intuition. Emotions can be felt from other places (I feel them in the solar plexus, in the stomach, etc.). Intuition can come as a feeling (you could say "heart feeling") but also as a thought (something that you just "know" is right). You can even have intuition in the way of sensing things with your body. It depends a lot on the person.

So I think the discussion was going on about three things instead of two. Not just emotions and rational thinking, but also about intuition.

Ok, in my case:

- Raw emotions (wherever they come from) come with a great deal of energy and are difficult to elude. But they also bring me a lot of great information. And, as they said above, if something doesn't move my emotions I'll hardly pay attention to it. Yes, I have to say that I act a lot upon emotions, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.

- Intellect: it gives me valuable information, but it is kind of "neutral", an analysis, and it tends to mess up things with too much variables. Most of the times, when I come to an intellectual conclusion I find out that it has nothing to do with my truly interests. But it's great to take into account when taking action upon a decision made based in other sources. I mean, once made a decision, the information from the intellect helps taking the appropiate action.

- Intuition: it takes a great deal of time to learn to sort it out from "good ideas" and from emotions. But it is the definite source of taking good decisions. Every time I act upon intuition I feel I am in the right path and feel a great sense of peace. That doesn't mean that the results are always perfect to my mind, but it takes me to places my mind couldn't ever have dreamt about.