People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers
People encounter different kinds of problems in their everyday life and these problems demand people to take decisions that lead to better and stable results. Better decisions that give stable results require equanimity. Hence, people who are equable always take every possible outcomes into the consideration. On the contrary, people who make decisions based on emotion lack equanimity under these circumstances. This makes them vulnerable to serious ramifications, which would occur as a result of bad decisions, which in turn, is a consequence of decisions based on emotion.
Therefore, People who make decisions based on emotion often lead to dangerous consequence. People justifying these emotional decisions with logic are poor decision makers.
To understand the difference stated above, consider a situation where a leader of an organization encounters bankruptcy. An equable leader, who is calm and composed, will take decisions that would take long term consequence into the account and often try to avoid decisions like sacking the employee, reducing exorbitant pay cuts, etc. On the other hand, an emotionally driven leader, in order to save his/her reputation, would take rash decisions that affect the others in the organization.
Apart from making bad decisions due to emotions, people who justify the decisions are more dangerous. Such people are highly presumptuous and will never try to rectify their mistakes in future. Hence, they often end up taking poor decisions.
Hence, people who are rational, always turn to be good decision makers whereas people who are emotional and dogmatic with their justifications always turn to be poor decision makers.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-08-30 | yixova3193 | 66 | view |
| 2023-11-03 | Aishwarya01 | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-09 | Truss | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-04 | Adesina Boluwatito | 50 | view |
| 2023-10-01 | shamika@25 | 50 | view |
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 50
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader it is not as important as a leader s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers 50
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader it is not as important as a leader s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 339, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nsideration. On the contrary, people who make decisions based on emotion lack equ...
^^
Line 7, column 184, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ill never try to rectify their mistakes in future. Hence, they often end up taking poor d...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
hence, if, therefore, whereas, apart from, as a result, on the contrary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.5258426966 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 33.0505617978 45% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 58.6224719101 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1426.0 2235.4752809 64% => OK
No of words: 257.0 442.535393258 58% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.5486381323 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.00390054096 4.55969084622 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85730842206 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 215.323595506 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.556420233463 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 452.7 704.065955056 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9891433401 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.857142857 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3571428571 23.4991977007 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42857142857 5.21951772744 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.54311618493 0.243740707755 223% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.213194234163 0.0831039109588 257% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.174083092779 0.0758088955206 230% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.362182789193 0.150359130593 241% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.166759479866 0.0667264976115 250% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.8420337079 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.91 12.1639044944 123% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 100.480337079 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.