People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers
The issue of whether people who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic, has engendered controversy and can be divided into two schools of thought. On the one hand, staunch defenders support that concept quoting that at the end these people are considered poor decision makers. On the other hand, opponents suggest that such a phenomenon helps people become balanced decision makers and proposes them measures for improvement. Were I in such an ambiguous position whether to agree or disagree, I would support the former argument sound, even though, the latter one has some positive attributes.
First and foremost, other standards exist on decisions with logic and different ones to those with emotion. Indeed, when individuals are asked to decide about a crucial concept and they are possessed by emotion, they will act according to what their soul and heart motivates them. On the contrary, when they have to perform according to logic, it is irrefutable that they will analyze all possible outcomes and decide based on the advantages and disadvantages. For example when someone manages his or her family-owned business, he or she is likely to perform differently when it is time for choosing a new production director. The manager according to logic would choose the one who has the most capabilities. Instead, according to emotion, he or she would choose one that is possibly a relative or even a close friend. Therefore we have two different options, whereas a decision by emotion and afterwards a justification by logic would render the manager as a poor decision maker.
Moreover, not all people are capable of acting according to logic. Admittedly, someone should possess all those traits and charisma that constitute logical reasoning as the moving force in any dilemma. For instance, those who always evaluate and act according to emotion because they want to be venerated by praising others, have adversaries when they face an ambiguous situation where logic should be implemented. Hence, they fail to bolster any practical result and end up undermining any chance of equality and prosperity. It is clearly illustrated when a football manager chooses always those players that he or she likes the most and totally ignores those that have the best abilities in terms of speed and stamina.
According to the other school of thought, although people who make decisions based on emotion and evaluate them later according to logic are usually referred as poor decision makers, they have the unique ability to try and become experts and lead to robust results. Certainly, they may try to correlate two different states and thus they should have extremely good mind skills and disciplines. To adduce an example as pertinent evidence, we have to look about the decisions of the Greek Prime-Minister during the last year. The latter one was convinced that the economic reforms he had promised during the election campaigns were quite dubious and could not be implemented. Most important, he had decided that he should have presented them to the masses, in order to speak on their hearts and minds. Consequently, he had managed to emotionally motivate the audiences and at the end trying to fix all the problems of the economy. After all, he managed to compare two difficult options, something that made him flexible and good decision maker, as a ruse politician.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly believe that many different variables enter into the equation in order to consider someone as poor decision maker. Undoubtedly, people that start with emotion and end up in logic have not the best possibilities for a true and impartial decision. Logic and emotions should be treated differently.
Comments
Manhattan 1
Manhattan 1
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 821, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...ibly a relative or even a close friend. Therefore we have two different options, whereas ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 577, Rule ID: ADVERB_WORD_ORDER[9]
Message: The adverb 'always' is usually put before the verb 'chooses'.
Suggestion: always chooses
...rly illustrated when a football manager chooses always those players that he or she likes the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 216, Rule ID: TRY_AND[1]
Message: "Try and" is common in colloquial speech, but "'try to'" is recommended for writing.
Suggestion: try to
...makers, they have the unique ability to try and become experts and lead to robust resul...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 46, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...nclusion, I wholeheartedly believe that many different variables enter into the equation in or...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, hence, if, look, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, whereas, after all, for example, for instance, in conclusion, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 34.0 14.8657303371 229% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 24.0 11.3162921348 212% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 58.0 33.0505617978 175% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3142.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 607.0 442.535393258 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.176276771 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96360453597 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7711910329 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 293.0 215.323595506 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482701812191 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 1002.6 704.065955056 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 6.24550561798 240% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.107118131 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.846153846 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3461538462 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73076923077 5.21951772744 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.386177417346 0.243740707755 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1118530583 0.0831039109588 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130307692107 0.0758088955206 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242763824247 0.150359130593 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0968113055013 0.0667264976115 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 160.0 100.480337079 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.