Overnegation

An overnegation is a sentence that, containing one negative too many, means the opposite of what was intended. They like to play Spot the Overnegation at Language Log. Here is one I spotted:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/escobars-10th-inning-homer-caps-jays-rally/

"They’re [grown] to the point where there’s nothing that’s thrown in front of them that’s not insurmountable.”

Logical

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees
They'd be singing so happily
Joyfully, playfully watching me
But then they sent me away
To teach me how to be sensible
Logical, responsible, practical...

It might be the fact that I basically lost tonight's chess game in six moves by mixing up two openings that I know inside out, or it might be the coffee. Either way, I'm in a cosmically bad mood, perfect for finishing off this post I'd saved in my drafts. See, something that really annoys me, always, is the supposed binarism that exists between Logic and Emotion. You know what I'm talking about. You can either be a logical person who makes decisions based on logic, or an emotional person who makes decisions based on emotions. This is BULLSHIT. EVERYONE wants to rearrange the world in ways that they think will result in favourable emotions, and EVERYONE uses logic to do so. If you lose the ability to do one or the other, you are fucked. You will cease to be able to function. If you were a truly logical person, you would never do anything. There is absolutely nothing that you logically must do in order for the planet to carry on existing. In fact there's nothing you can do to stop it from eventually not existing, so there.

OK, you say, but that's not really how people use the terms logical and emotional is it. When people call themselves logical, or its equivalent "rational", what they're really saying is, look at me, I have the ability to see through your emotive arguments and language and disregard them, for they are worthless. I was inspired to write this rant by a thing on BBC News about the future of nuclear power after Fukushima. The gist of it was: scientists agree that nuclear power should, logically, be perfectly safe. Unfortunately some "emotional" types have seen the scary news from Fukushima, and in a crisis emotion always wins over logic, god damn it! And therefore public opinion is turning against nuclear power. Stupid public, why can't they listen to logic?

Now I'm a fan of nuclear power. I wish more people would have faith in it. But what we have here is not logic vs. emotion, it's two alternative value systems. In one camp, people who believe that the greater good of humanity is best served by expanding our energy-generating capacity to better meet everyone's needs. In the other camp, people who believe that the greater good of humanity is best served by reducing the risk of harm to any individual human to as near to zero as possible. When you look at a nuclear power plant and see it as a risk, it makes perfect, logical sense to campaign for the building of new ones to be stopped. The conclusion follows naturally - rationally - from the premise. If you think the premise is faulty, challenge it. Calling it "emotional" is not challenging it. The more you use "emotional" as an insult, the longer you'll spend sitting in your ivory tower wondering why no-one listens to you.

How 'bout that Barack Obama? He has changed nothing! goes the cry. Everyone who voted for him was taken in by his inspiring rhetoric and forgot to think logically! Piffle. If Obama's policies were a carbon copy of Bush's, he would still be a better president. The image he projects, his persona, has a way of making people feel confident that their country is being run by someone who knows what he's doing. This is a good thing. Even if to certain people it makes no logical sense at all, because their value system doesn't place any importance on such messy, human attributes as inspiration and confidence.

When someone chooses to label themself a "rational person", the way I interpret that, rightly or wrongly, is that they are a dull, black-and-white sort of person who doesn't factor human happiness into their decisions.

(Snarky aside: It also amazes me how much time "rational" people seem to waste. Surely, if you're up there with Dr. Spock in the objectivity stakes, the cognitive dissonance between "I need to be doing X" and "I am not currently doing X" should be more than you can possibly handle? So why have you just sat on your ass for 24 hours playing World of Warcraft and forgetting to eat and not doing X? Oh I see - you felt like it.)

Logical is good. Emotional is good. They are meaningless without each other. Get over it.


Postcript: You know why else I hate "logical good, emotional maybe ok but not really for me thanks?" Because of the number of people who have internalised the moronic old chestnut "men are rational and women are emotional". To the point where "let's be rational about this" becomes a sort of code for "shut up, woman". I know I'm not the only person who feels angry about that one.

By the way, if you decide to leave a comment to the effect that "yes but if you look at the statistics, it turns out men tend to be more logical and women tend to be more emotional" then my very emotional reaction will be to cut off your hair, weave it into a rope and thrash you with it.