As they say, one head is good, but two are better. For that matter, three heads are even better than two, and four even more so. If there are hundreds or thousands, reason is simply bound to triumph - it’s not for nothing that the concept of “collective intelligence” appeared.
Aristotle, one of the first advocates of collective intelligence, saw the advantage of the collective in the fact that “when many are involved in the process of discussion, everyone can contribute their mite of virtue and prudence ... one understands one detail, another another, and everyone together understands everything.” The main thing is that different people pay attention to different “details”, and if they are connected correctly, the collective knowledge will be broader (and more detailed) than the knowledge of any individual person.
But teams rarely live up to this ideal. Companies rely on products that have no future, miss attractive opportunities, and implement losing strategies. Authorities make questionable political decisions, making life difficult for thousands, if not millions, of people.
Collective deviation from the truth is most often referred to as “groupthink.” With the light hand of psychologist Irving Janis, the popularizer of the phenomenon, this term deservedly entered everyday speech in the 1970s. But Janis largely limited himself to describing groupthink: he does not explain from a scientific point of view how and why groups make mistakes and how they can avoid making mistakes. Many researchers tried to experimentally confirm his guesses that cohesion and management styles are reflected in group behavior, but this was of little use.
But since Janis formulated his theory, psychologists and other behavioral scientists have collected a wealth of information about how and when individual decision makers make mistakes. This work has received recognition in scientific circles - even in the form of several Nobel Prizes - and widespread fame thanks to such best-selling books as Thinking Slow, Decide Fast by Daniel Kahneman, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely, and Nudge (a book written by one of the authors articles, Cass Sunstein, along with economist Richard Thaler).
There have been other studies, including ours, of collective decision making. But their conclusions are unknown to few people, and therefore they did not have any noticeable impact on the real state of affairs. And something needs to be done about this. We intend to study the phenomenon of collective work from the point of view of behavioral science - to describe the main options for collective deviation from the truth and offer simple ways to correct this deviation.
Why do errors happen?
Groups get it wrong for two main reasons. The first is related to the quality of information signals. People exchange knowledge with each other, which is quite natural. But a team often goes astray if one of its members receives incorrect signals from others. The second reason is fear for your reputation. To avoid punishment, even if it is only about the dissatisfaction of others, people prefer to remain silent or change their point of view. If these others have special rights or power, their disapproval can result in serious consequences for the person. Due to incorrect information signals and the reputation factor, teams face four separate but interrelated problems.
If a group makes an incorrect or self-destructive decision, the problem is usually at least one of them: the collective not only does not correct the mistakes of its members, but even aggravates them; a chain reaction/cascade effect begins - team members repeat the words and actions of those who spoke and acted first; the team splits - its members take polar positions, diverging more sharply than before the discussion; the team focuses on what everyone already knows and does not take into account important information that one or more of its members have.
Complicating errors
Led by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, behavioral scientists have identified some common mental errors (heuristics) and cognitive traps that lead people away from the truth. For example, due to the planning fallacy, people often misunderstand how much time and money will be required for certain projects, and, falling into the trap of overconfidence, believe that their forecasts are more accurate than they really are. Because of the availability heuristic, we grab the first thing that comes to mind because it is memorable or because we recently experienced it, and because of the representativeness heuristic, we believe that if things, events, or people are similar in one way, then they are similar in everything else. The egocentrism heuristic causes us to exaggerate the typicality of our tastes and preferences, and the sunk cost trap causes us to continue a hopeless project if a lot of effort and money have been invested in it.
The wording effect also affects decisions: for example, people are more willing to agree to surgery if they are told that 90% of patients are alive after five years, rather than when they are told that 10% of patients die in the first five years. We are primarily interested in whether teams can avoid these mistakes or minimize them. Experiments show that, as a rule, they cannot. Psychologists Roger Buehler, Dale Griffin, and Joanna Peetz have found, for example, that planning bias gets worse in groups. That is, when assessing the time and resources required to complete a task, teams show even more unreasonable optimism than individuals, and choose the simplest and most cloudless scenarios for future work. Hal Arkes and Katherine Bloomer have shown that groups rescue their obviously failed plans even more eagerly than individuals, especially if the group members strongly identify with it. This explains why companies, states and even nations do not abandon obviously failed projects and plans. In addition, groups have been found to rely on the representativeness heuristic more, not less, than individuals, are more overconfident, and are more susceptible to the formulation effect.
Factors of information signals and reputation also play a role here. If the majority of team members make certain mistakes, then it is natural that these people notice the same mistakes in others, that is, again in the majority - and see this as confirmation of their “rightness”. And then the reputation factor comes into play: if the majority of group members make mistakes, then the rest have to make them too, simply in order not to become black sheep or seem like fools. Fortunately, research confirms that teams that discuss their decisions can correct or reduce some cognitive biases. When there is a heuristic-type solution to a problem (as soon as someone offers the correct answer, the others understand that there is a solution), groups quickly find it, even if their individual representatives were in captivity of cognitive biases at the beginning of the discussion.
The collective gets out of the trap of egocentrism faster than everyone in it individually. A person will focus on his passions: on what he likes or dislikes. If he exchanges opinions with others, he begins to understand that his tastes are unique to him. In such cases, a general discussion helps him correct his point of view. True, if the team consists of like-minded people, then there is less chance of seeing a more or less objective picture. The importance of the availability heuristic in groups also decreases somewhat. Each individual can suggest the first thing that comes to mind, but since everyone's memories are usually different, the group will come up with a more representative solution. But many individual cognitive distortions do not correct themselves at the collective level, and even get worse. This is generally explained by three other problems of collective decision making.
The path to the wrong answer
Our brains are wired from the moment we are born to synchronize with or imitate other people. It is no exaggeration to say that herd behavior is natural for groups of people. Sociologists have a term they apply to collective decisions and information exchange - cascade. This means that a thin stream of information flowing in one direction quickly turns into a stream. Sociologists Matthew Salganik, Peter Dodds and Duncan Watts conducted a brilliant study using music downloads as an example. The subjects were asked to listen to or download at least one of 72 songs from new musical groups. The volunteers in the control groups did not know what the other participants in the experiment were downloading or choosing to listen to, that is, they were left free to make their own decisions. Volunteers from other groups could see how many people had already downloaded certain songs.
Scientists tested whether the ability to see how others behave would affect the final number of downloads. The impact was colossal. Although the worst songs, as determined by the control group, were not among the most popular, and the best did not occupy the lowest positions in the rating, all other options were possible. If the song was lucky and was immediately uploaded by many volunteers of the first “call,” it could then remain popular. But in all other cases, her fate could have been unsuccessful. And things played out the same way even when the subjects were given incorrect information about which songs were downloaded most often. If a project (product, business, policy or position) receives strong support from the very beginning, it can win the sympathy of the group, even if they would not otherwise see anything particularly interesting in it. Many close-knit groups believe that their cohesion is predetermined by a commonality of views. This is not true. Cohesion may well be a “monument” to whoever took the floor first, and therefore to what might be called the structure of collective deliberation. The two main causes of collective errors correspond to cascades of two types - informational and reputational.
In the case of information, people do not speak out of respect for what others know; in case of reputation, people do not speak out out of fear of public censure. Here is an example of an information cascade in a jury deliberation. One of the authors of the article, Hastie, conducted several dozen pseudo-trials with the participation of thousands of volunteers. In experiments, jurors secretly write down before deliberation which decision they would prefer and note how confident they are that they are right. The discussion itself, as usually happens in trials, begins with a preliminary vote, the purpose of which is to identify everyone’s position. The jury votes on a list, and very often the first two or three of them increasingly speak out in favor of the same decision. During one such deliberation, Jurors 1, 2 and 3 supported the verdict of manslaughter twice - both in their secret notes and during their preliminary vote. Juror 4 initially considered the defendant absolutely innocent, and before deliberation he rated his confidence in his decision as the highest. What did Juror 4 do when he learned of the three decisions of his peers? He was silent for a moment, then said, “Manslaughter.” Then Juror 7, undecided, perked up: “Why?” The experimenters noticed that Juror 4 flinched before responding, “But this is clearly a manslaughter.” We have no doubt that this happens every day in jury rooms, boardrooms, and conference rooms around the world. The reputation cascade has a different mechanism. Group members believe they know what is right, but still agree with the majority to be thought well of. Let's say, according to Albert, the new project is simply doomed to success. Barbara is not sure about this, but supports Albert, so that no one doubts her professionalism and thinks that she always finds a flaw in everything out of principle. If Albert and Barbara, at least in words, unanimously predict a bright future for the project, then Cynthia not only will not object to them in public, but will probably make it clear that she shares their point of view - not because she considers it correct (she does not believes), but because he values his relationships with them. Since Albert, Barbara and Cynthia present a united front, their colleague David certainly will not want to argue with them, even if he is absolutely sure that they are mistaken and can prove it with arguments. (There is already evidence that women are especially cautious when discussing “masculine” topics such as sports, and men are especially cautious when discussing “feminine” topics such as fashion. In both cases, the groups do not gain valuable knowledge.)
Political correctness, a term that spread in the 1990s in the wake of the struggle for political rights, is more than a “calling card” of left-leaning academic circles. In both business and government, there is often a clear attitude that a certain point of view is considered correct, and those who question it or reject it, even within the framework of discussion, do so in vain. They say about such people that they have a bad character, that they break away from the team, and are even called renegades. The members of the collectives described above are, in a certain sense, absolutely rational. They care about their reputation, and there is nothing unreasonable about that. However, as already noted, when using heuristics that can be misleading, people fall into the traps of cognitive biases. To make it clearer how cascading effects manifest themselves, we note that the most important heuristic involves accessibility: a bright idea or example spreads quickly, and as a result, a popular opinion is formed - in a group, and perhaps in a city, in a country, and even among a people. This or that phenomenon or event (harmful pesticide, dangerous landfill, accident at a nuclear power plant, terrorist attack) can become very famous among group members. And then their ideas about the process, product or work will change. Availability cascades also appear in business. Word of success or failure can instantly spread throughout a company and shape opinions about other seemingly similar events or products. If a movie (Star Wars?) or book (Harry Potter?) is a commercial success, companies will take this into account and start a similar project. A side effect of accessibility is associative blocking or collective bias: compelling ideas block the memory of other knowledge, and this becomes a problem when the group is tasked with finding creative solutions. The bright ideas of some team members suppress the creative thought of others. Of course, in the real world, people may not know where their peers' claims come from - independent knowledge, information cascade, reputation phenomena, or availability heuristics. They tend to overestimate the importance of independent knowledge as a basis for the opinions of other group members. The result is confident (but erroneous) collective decisions.
Group polarization
Polarization is a phenomenon that occurs when groups discuss certain issues. Hundreds of studies have documented it. We observed sharp polarization in an experiment in which volunteer residents of two Colorado cities discussed their political views (see sidebar, “A Tale of Two Cities”). The goal of the earliest experiments on polarization effects was to understand the extent to which people are willing to take risks. The researchers made a clear conclusion: for people who are initially prone to risk, this tendency increases after discussion. (Examples of risky decisions: taking a new job, investing money in the economy of another state, escaping from a prisoner of war camp, participating in an election race.)
Therefore, brainstorming has come to be thought to cause a “risk shift.” Further research cast doubt on this conclusion - and gave rise to new mysteries. When discussing the same topics, American volunteers shifted toward risk, while Taiwanese volunteers shifted toward caution. But a shift toward caution was also observed among Americans, most often when discussing two questions: should a person get married or fly on a plane if he has a bad stomach ache. What explains this? French social psychologists Serge Moscovici and Marisa Zavalloni have long discovered that group members tend to take more polarized positions during group discussions. If team members are inclined to take risks from the very beginning, then a shift towards risk is likely, and if they are cautious, then towards caution.
What is important for business is that polarization occurs when discussing not only fundamental, but also the most mundane issues. Let's say people are asked to mark on a scale from zero to eight the probability that so many units of a product will be sold in Europe next year. If before the discussion the median value is close to five, then the collective decision is likely to shift towards a higher number, and if towards three, a lower one. Even federal judges, experts in the law and supposedly the people who should be neutral, cannot resist the effect of group polarization. According to a study conducted by one of the authors of the article (Cass Sunstein, along with David Schkade, Lisa Ellman and Andres Sawicki), judges nominated by both Democrats and Republicans, sitting with colleagues appointed by the president of “their” party, were much more likely to make a decision when making a decision. guided by considerations of ideology. If you want to know what an appeals court judge's verdict will be in an ideologically controversial case, find out whether the president appointed him was a Democrat or a Republican. This is a completely reliable prognostic factor. But for many branches of law, something else is more important: who approved the remaining judges. Why does group polarization occur? There are three main reasons.
The first and main thing is related to information signals, but in a special way. Team members pay attention to the arguments of their colleagues. Any group has some initial predisposition - towards risk or caution, and arguments will necessarily gravitate towards it. Judging by statistics, there are more arguments in favor of the initial position than in favor of the opposite one. People will express or perceive not all, but only some of the considerations expressed during the discussion. And during the discussion, people will naturally come to a more extreme position than the initial one. The second reason has to do with reputation. As we have seen, it is important for people to be treated well in a group. Sometimes their public statements indicate how they want to be perceived by others. After hearing the opinions of their colleagues, they adjust their point of view, at least slightly, adjusting it to the prevailing one in order to correspond to the image they create of themselves.
The third reason emphasizes the strong connection between three factors: confidence, radical views and recognition of a person’s rightness by others. When people lack self-confidence, they tend to take a moderate stance. The famous American judge Learned Hand said: “The spirit of freedom is a spirit that is not very sure of its own rightness.” The more confidence people have, the more harsh they are in their views, since an important restraining factor disappears - their uncertainty that they are right. The agreement of others increases confidence - and promotes extreme assessments.
Believing that “everyone knows”
The last problem is perhaps the most interesting. Let's say the group has extensive knowledge - enough to make the right decision if the knowledge is correctly perceived and generalized. But even so, the group will fail if its members rely on widely known information while ignoring the knowledge of a few. Countless studies show the high probability of such a regrettable outcome. A special term accurately characterizes a situation where a group could solve a problem, but does not solve it, is “hidden knowledge.” Hidden knowledge is a consequence of the common knowledge effect: information known to the entire team has a stronger influence on collective decisions than information owned by a minority. A simple explanation for this effect is that publicly known information is more likely to be known to the group. But false information signals also play an important role.
This is what research by Ross Hightower and Latfus Said found. Groups of three were given the resumes of three candidates for the position of marketing director. The researchers designed the resumes so that one of the applicants clearly outperformed the others. However, each subject received only part of the information contained in the summary. Not a single group made the only correct conclusion, and it could only be done by studying the information in full. Preference was given to the candidate about whom all three volunteers knew something good. Negative information about the favorite and positive information about the outsiders (provided to only one or two members of the group) never reached the entire group.
Many experiments with tacit knowledge involve student volunteers, but real managers behave in the same way. Suzanne Abel, Harold Stasser, and Sandra Vaughan-Parsons studied how senior executives make hiring decisions. The experimenters did not control in any way the information about the candidates that top managers had. On the contrary, the leaders themselves were looking for it. As a result, everyone knew something, not everyone knew something, and only one knew something. And what? Public information had a disproportionate influence on discussions and conclusions. Leaders did not value the valuable knowledge of minorities and made poor decisions.
Another conclusion was drawn. There are two types of people in a team: cognitively central - who know the same thing as almost everyone else in the group, and cognitively peripheral - who have unique information. To perform well, groups need to tap into the knowledge of cognitively peripheral people. But in most groups, the cognitively central members of the team play first fiddle when discussing decisions. This is explained simply: people prefer to hear information that is known to everyone and listen to those who can provide it. Therefore, cognitively central group members are trusted more than cognitively peripheral ones.
How to awaken the collective mind
In a group discussion, the most important thing is to help the group analyze all the information that its members have, and not allow false information signals and reputational factors to influence the decision. Here's how to do it.
Don't give your boss your say. Leaders often express their opinions at the very beginning of a discussion, and there are few people willing to object to them. Leaders and respected team members will do a great service to the entire team if they are willing and willing to listen to unknown information. It is good if they give up the idea of taking a strong position right away and thereby allow others to express what they know. According to many studies, people belonging to low-status groups - poorly educated, African-Americans, sometimes women - do not have any significant influence on the course of collective discussion (and prefer to remain silent). Leaders who set an example for subordinates to be open-minded and require honesty in their statements can turn things around.
Unleash your critical thinking. Sociologists have conducted a lot of research studying a technique called “emancipation,” in which a certain thought or association is stimulated in such a way as to influence people’s decisions and actions. In experiments on collective decision-making, volunteers were given a pre-discussion task that required them to either “make friends” or “think critically,” and this greatly influenced their subsequent behavior. If people need to be “friends,” they remain silent. If they “think critically,” they are more willing to talk about what they know. Therefore, if a group leader encourages frank sharing of information, even unpleasant information, from the beginning, people are likely to remain less silent.
Celebrate collective success. Often people remain silent, knowing that they will not receive anything worthwhile in exchange for their knowledge. As well-designed experiments have shown, it is possible to restructure the reward system to stimulate collective success - and therefore reward the willingness to share knowledge. If everyone in the group knows that an individual decision, even the most correct one, does not promise him anything personally, but a correct collective one is very beneficial for him, then the likelihood of a cascade effect decreases significantly. In short, if a person identifies with collective success, he will be more willing to tell everything he knows, even if his information contradicts the majority opinion. (This, by the way, is one of the reasons why information markets work and deserve close attention.)
Assign roles. This strategy is particularly promising. To understand it better, imagine that each member of a group that is discussing something has a special role, known to everyone and highly valued by everyone. Let's say one has a medical education, another has a legal education, a third is a public relations specialist, and a fourth is an expert in statistics. Such a team has a greater chance of receiving and summarizing valuable information, simply because everyone knows that everyone has something to say. Experiments have shown that when roles are distributed openly between subjects, the likelihood of a shift towards generally known information decreases. If a group wants to receive the information that its members have, they need to be told before the discussion begins that everyone has their own role to play - or at least make their informational contribution.
Appoint someone to play devil's advocate. When a group fails because of tacit knowledge and self-censorship among its members, it is tempting to have one person stand up to the group and start an argument to test the prevailing opinion. The one who agrees to this role will not be looked at askance, as they look at someone who goes against the majority, because it is his duty to argue. But here it is important not to overdo it: a natural critical view of things is one thing, fulfilling a formal mission is another: in the latter case, the quality of the group’s work does not improve much, since everyone understands that “devil’s advocate” is such a game.
Assign teams to advocate opposing views. A method similar to the previous one, but more effective, is to create “red brigades”. They can be of two types: the first try to refute the decision of the main group, putting forward their own, diametrically opposed to it, and the second try to give convincing examples proving the vulnerability of the proposed plan. The idea of red brigades is good in many situations, especially if people are genuinely trying to find mistakes and weaknesses and if they are explicitly encouraged to do so.
Delphic Oracle method. This method was developed by the American strategic research center RAND Corporation during the Cold War. It combines the benefits of both individual decision making and collective knowledge. The purpose of the method is to overcome the conformism of experts, that is, their tendency to uncritically adhere to the prevailing judgments in the group. During the first round, first, the opinion or assessment of each expert is completely anonymously identified, and then the prevailing opinion is identified: the average assessment and degree of dispersion are calculated and the results are reported to the experts. In the second round, experts give repeated estimates (or re-vote), and the estimates of this second round must fall into the middle quartiles (25-75%) of the estimates of the first round. This process is repeated (usually alternating with group decisions) until the participants agree on the same opinion. There is a simpler and more easily implemented alternative: final judgments are made anonymously and only after discussion.
Anonymity minimizes the influence of the reputation factor on group members, and therefore eliminates the problem of self-censorship.
Bad collective decisions can have disastrous consequences not only for companies, nonprofits and governments, but for everyone affected. Fortunately, several decades of experimental work, as well as recent innovations, have yielded some practical adjustments and safeguards that can actually make teams smarter.
Direction "Reason and Feelings"
Example of an essay on the topic: “Should reason prevail over feelings”?
Should reason prevail over feelings? In my opinion, there is no clear answer to this question. In some situations you should listen to the voice of reason, while in other situations, on the contrary, you need to act in accordance with your feelings. Let's look at a few examples.
So, if a person is possessed by negative feelings, he should curb them and listen to the arguments of reason. For example, A. Mass “Difficult Exam” talks about a girl named Anya Gorchakova, who managed to pass a difficult test. The heroine dreamed of becoming an actress; she wanted her parents, when they came to a performance at a children’s camp, to appreciate her performance. She tried very hard, but she was disappointed: her parents never arrived on the appointed day. Overwhelmed by a feeling of despair, she decided not to go on stage. The teacher’s reasonable arguments helped her cope with her feelings. Anya realized that she should not let her comrades down, she needed to learn to control herself and complete her task, no matter what. And so it happened, she played better than anyone. The writer wants to teach us a lesson: no matter how strong negative feelings are, we must be able to cope with them, listen to the mind, which tells us the right decision.
However, the mind does not always give the right advice. Sometimes it happens that actions dictated by rational arguments lead to negative consequences. Let us turn to A. Likhanov’s story “Labyrinth”. The father of the main character Tolik was passionate about his work. He enjoyed designing machine parts. When he talked about this, his eyes sparkled. But at the same time, he earned little, but he could have moved to the workshop and received a higher salary, which his mother-in-law constantly reminded him of. It would seem that this is a more reasonable decision, because the hero has a family, has a son, and he should not depend on the pension of an elderly woman - his mother-in-law. In the end, yielding to family pressure, the hero sacrificed his feelings to reason: he abandoned his favorite activity in favor of earning money. What did this lead to? Tolik’s father felt deeply unhappy: “His eyes are sore and they seem to be calling. They call for help as if the person is scared, as if he is mortally wounded.” If before he was possessed by a bright feeling of joy, now he was possessed by dull melancholy. This was not the life he dreamed of. The writer shows that decisions that are reasonable at first glance are not always correct; sometimes, by listening to the voice of reason, we doom ourselves to moral suffering.
Thus, we can conclude: when deciding whether to act in accordance with reason or feelings, a person must take into account the characteristics of a particular situation.
(375 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “Should a person live in obedience to his feelings?”
Should a person live according to his feelings? In my opinion, there is no clear answer to this question. In some situations you should listen to the voice of your heart, and in other situations, on the contrary, you should not give in to your feelings, you need to listen to the arguments of your mind. Let's look at a few examples.
Thus, V. Rasputin’s story “French Lessons” talks about the teacher Lydia Mikhailovna, who could not remain indifferent to the plight of her student. The boy was starving and, in order to get money for a glass of milk, he gambled. Lydia Mikhailovna tried to invite him to the table and even sent him a parcel of food, but the hero rejected her help. Then she decided to take extreme measures: she herself began to play with him for money. Of course, the voice of reason could not help but tell her that she was violating the ethical norms of relations between a teacher and a student, that she was overstepping the boundaries of what was permitted, that she would be fired for this. But a feeling of compassion prevailed, and Lidia Mikhailovna violated the generally accepted rules of teacher behavior in order to help the child. The writer wants to convey to us the idea that “good feelings” are more important than reasonable standards.
However, sometimes it happens that a person is possessed by negative feelings: anger, resentment. Captivated by them, he commits bad deeds, although, of course, with his mind he realizes that he is doing evil. The consequences can be tragic. The story “The Trap” by A. Mass describes the action of a girl named Valentina. The heroine dislikes her brother’s wife, Rita. This feeling is so strong that Valentina decides to set a trap for her daughter-in-law: dig a hole and disguise it so that Rita, when she steps, will fall. The girl cannot help but understand that she is committing a bad act, but her feelings take precedence over reason. She carries out her plan, and Rita falls into the prepared trap. Only suddenly it turns out that she was five months pregnant and could lose the baby as a result of a fall. Valentina is horrified by what she has done. She didn't want to kill anyone, especially a child! “How can I continue to live?” - she asks and finds no answer. The author leads us to the idea that we should not succumb to the power of negative feelings, because they provoke cruel actions, which we will later bitterly regret.
Thus, we can come to the conclusion: you can obey your feelings if they are good and bright; negative ones should be curbed by listening to the voice of reason.
(344 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “The dispute between reason and feelings...”
The dispute between reason and feeling... This confrontation has been eternal. Sometimes the voice of reason is stronger in us, and sometimes we follow the dictates of feeling. In some situations there is no right choice. By listening to feelings, a person will sin against moral standards; listening to reason, he will suffer. There may be no way that will lead to a successful resolution of the situation.
So, in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” the author talks about the fate of Tatyana. In her youth, having fallen in love with Onegin, she, unfortunately, does not find reciprocity. Tatyana carries her love through the years, and finally Onegin is at her feet, he is passionately in love with her. It would seem that this is what she dreamed about. But Tatyana is married, she is aware of her duty as a wife, and cannot tarnish her honor and the honor of her husband. Reason takes precedence over her feelings, and she refuses Onegin. The heroine places moral duty and marital fidelity above love, but dooms both herself and her lover to suffering. Could the heroes have found happiness if she had made a different decision? Hardly. A Russian proverb says: “You can’t build your own happiness on misfortune.” The tragedy of the heroine’s fate is that the choice between reason and feeling in her situation is a choice without a choice; any decision will only lead to suffering.
Let us turn to the work of N.V. Gogol “Taras Bulba”. The writer shows what choice one of the heroes, Andriy, faced. On the one hand, he is possessed by a feeling of love for a beautiful Polish woman, on the other hand, he is a Cossack, one of those who besieged the city. The beloved understands that she and Andriy cannot be together: “And I know what your duty and covenant are: your name is father, comrades, homeland, and we are your enemies.” But Andriy’s feelings prevail over all arguments of reason. He chooses love, in the name of it he is ready to betray his homeland and family: “What are my father, comrades and homeland to me!.. The homeland is what our soul is looking for, what is dearer to it than anything else. My fatherland is you!.. And I will sell, give away, and destroy everything that I have for such a fatherland!” The writer shows that a wonderful feeling of love can push a person to do terrible things: we see that Andriy turns weapons against his former comrades, together with the Poles he fights against the Cossacks, among whom are his brother and father. On the other hand, could he leave his beloved to die of hunger in a besieged city, perhaps becoming a victim of the cruelty of the Cossacks if it was captured? We see that in this situation the right choice is hardly possible; any path leads to tragic consequences.
Summarizing what has been said, we can conclude that, reflecting on the dispute between reason and feeling, it is impossible to say unequivocally what should win.
(399 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “One can be a great person thanks to his feelings - not only his mind.” (Theodore Dreiser)
“One can be a great person thanks to one’s feelings – not just one’s mind,” asserted Theodore Dreiser. Indeed, not only a scientist or a general can be called great. The greatness of a person can be found in bright thoughts and the desire to do good. Feelings such as mercy and compassion can motivate us to noble deeds. By listening to the voice of feelings, a person helps those around him, makes the world a better place and becomes cleaner himself. I will try to confirm my idea with literary examples.
In B. Ekimov’s story “Night of Healing,” the author tells the story of a boy Borka, who comes to visit his grandmother on vacation. The old woman often has wartime nightmares in her dreams, and this makes her scream at night. The mother gives the hero reasonable advice: “She will just start talking in the evening, and you shout: “Be silent!” She stops. We tried". Borka is about to do just that, but the unexpected happens: “the boy’s heart was filled with pity and pain” as soon as he heard his grandmother’s groans. He can no longer follow reasonable advice; he is dominated by a feeling of compassion. Borka calms her grandmother down until she falls asleep peacefully. He is ready to do this every night so that healing can come to her. The author wants to convey to us the idea of the need to listen to the voice of the heart, to act in accordance with good feelings.
A. Aleksin talks about the same thing in the story “Meanwhile, somewhere...” The main character Sergei Emelyanov, having accidentally read a letter addressed to his father, learns about the existence of his ex-wife. A woman asks for help. It would seem that Sergei has nothing to do in her house, and his mind tells him to simply return her letter to her and leave. But sympathy for the grief of this woman, once abandoned by her husband and now by her adopted son, forces him to neglect the arguments of reason. Seryozha decides to constantly visit Nina Georgievna, help her in everything, save her from the worst misfortune - loneliness. And when his father invites him to go to the sea on vacation, the hero refuses. Yes, of course, a trip to the sea promises to be exciting. Yes, you can write to Nina Georgievna and convince her that she should go to the camp with the guys, where she will feel good. Yes, you can promise to come see her during the winter holidays. But a sense of compassion and responsibility takes precedence over these considerations in him. After all, he promised Nina Georgievna to be with her and cannot become her new loss. Sergei is going to return his ticket to the sea. The author shows that sometimes actions dictated by a sense of mercy can help a person.
Thus, we come to the conclusion: a big heart, just like a big mind, can lead a person to true greatness. Good deeds and pure thoughts testify to the greatness of the soul.
(390 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “Our mind sometimes brings us no less grief than our passions.” (Chamfort)
“Our reason sometimes brings us no less grief than our passions,” argued Chamfort. And indeed, grief from the mind happens. When making a decision that seems reasonable at first glance, a person can make a mistake. This happens when the mind and heart are not in harmony, when all his feelings protest against the chosen path, when, having acted in accordance with the arguments of reason, he feels unhappy.
Let's look at literary examples. A. Aleksin in the story “Meanwhile, somewhere...” talks about a boy named Sergei Emelyanov. The main character accidentally learns about the existence of his father's ex-wife and about her trouble. Once her husband left her, and this was a heavy blow for the woman. But now a much more terrible test awaits her. The adopted son decided to leave her. He found his biological parents and chose them. Shurik doesn’t even want to say goodbye to Nina Georgievna, although she raised him since childhood. When he leaves, he takes all his things. He is guided by seemingly reasonable considerations: he does not want to upset his adoptive mother by saying goodbye, he believes that his things will only remind her of her grief. He realizes that it is difficult for her, but he considers it reasonable to live with her newly acquired parents. Aleksin emphasizes that with his actions, so deliberate and balanced, Shurik deals a cruel blow to the woman who loves him selflessly, causing her unspeakable pain. The writer brings us to the idea that sometimes reasonable actions can become the cause of grief.
A completely different situation is described in A. Likhanov’s story “Labyrinth”. The father of the main character Tolik is passionate about his work. He enjoys designing machine parts. When he talks about this, his eyes sparkle. But at the same time, he earns little, but he can move to the workshop and receive a higher salary, which his mother-in-law constantly reminds him of. It would seem that this is a more reasonable decision, because the hero has a family, has a son, and he should not depend on the pension of an elderly woman - his mother-in-law. In the end, yielding to family pressure, the hero sacrifices his feelings to reason: he gives up his favorite job in favor of earning money. What does this lead to? Tolik’s father feels deeply unhappy: “His eyes are sore and they seem to be calling. They call for help as if the person is scared, as if he is mortally wounded.” If before he was possessed by a bright feeling of joy, now he was possessed by dull melancholy. This is not the life he dreams of. The writer shows that decisions that are reasonable at first glance are not always correct; sometimes, by listening to the voice of reason, we doom ourselves to moral suffering.
Summing up what has been said, I would like to express the hope that a person, following the advice of reason, will not forget about the voice of feelings.
(398 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “What rules the world – reason or feeling?”
What rules the world – reason or feeling? At first glance, it seems that reason dominates. He invents, plans, controls. However, man is not only a rational being, but also endowed with feelings. He hates and loves, rejoices and suffers. And it is feelings that allow him to feel happy or unhappy. Moreover, it is his feelings that force him to create, invent, and change the world. Without feelings, the mind would not create its outstanding creations.
Let's remember J. London's novel "Martin Eden". The main character studied a lot and became a famous writer. But what prompted him to work on himself day and night, to create tirelessly? The answer is simple: it is a feeling of love. Martin's heart was captured by a girl from high society, Ruth Morse. To win her favor, to win her heart, Martin tirelessly improves himself, overcomes obstacles, endures poverty and hunger on the way to his calling as a writer. It is love that inspires him, helps him find himself and reach the top. Without this feeling, he would have remained a simple semi-literate sailor and would not have written his outstanding works.
Let's look at another example. V. Kaverin’s novel “Two Captains” describes how the main character Sanya devoted himself to searching for the missing expedition of Captain Tatarinov. He managed to prove that it was Ivan Lvovich who had the honor of discovering the Northern Land. What prompted Sanya to pursue her goal for many years? Cold mind? Not at all. He was motivated by a sense of justice, because for many years it was believed that the captain died through his own fault: he “carelessly handled government property.” In fact, the true culprit was Nikolai Antonovich, because of whom most of the equipment turned out to be unusable. He was in love with the wife of Captain Tatarinov and deliberately doomed him to death. Sanya accidentally found out about this and most of all wanted justice to prevail. It was the sense of justice and love of truth that prompted the hero to tirelessly search and ultimately led to a historical discovery.
To sum up all that has been said, we can conclude: the world is ruled by feelings. To paraphrase Turgenev’s famous phrase, we can say that only by them does life hold on and move. Feelings encourage our mind to create new things and make discoveries.
(309 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “Mind and feelings: harmony or confrontation?” (Chamfort)
Mind and feelings: harmony or confrontation? It seems that there is no clear answer to this question. Of course, it happens that reason and feelings coexist in harmony. Moreover, as long as there is this harmony, we do not ask such questions. It’s like air: while it’s there, we don’t notice it, but if it’s missing... However, there are situations when the mind and feelings come into conflict. Probably every person at least once in his life felt that his “mind and heart were not in harmony.” An internal struggle arises, and it is difficult to imagine what will prevail: the mind or the heart.
So, for example, in A. Aleksin’s story “Meanwhile, somewhere...” we see a confrontation between reason and feelings. The main character Sergei Emelyanov, having accidentally read a letter addressed to his father, learns about the existence of his ex-wife. A woman asks for help. It would seem that Sergei has nothing to do in her house, and his mind tells him to simply return her letter to her and leave. But sympathy for the grief of this woman, once abandoned by her husband and now by her adopted son, forces him to neglect the arguments of reason. Seryozha decides to constantly visit Nina Georgievna, help her in everything, save her from the worst misfortune - loneliness. And when his father invites him to go to the sea on vacation, the hero refuses. Yes, of course, a trip to the sea promises to be exciting. Yes, you can write to Nina Georgievna and convince her that she should go to the camp with the guys, where she will feel good. Yes, you can promise to come see her during the winter holidays. This is all quite reasonable. But a sense of compassion and responsibility takes precedence over these considerations in him. After all, he promised Nina Georgievna to be with her and cannot become her new loss. Sergei is going to return his ticket to the sea. The author shows that the feeling of compassion wins.
Let us turn to the novel by A.S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”. The author talks about the fate of Tatyana. In her youth, having fallen in love with Onegin, she, unfortunately, does not find reciprocity. Tatyana carries her love through the years, and finally Onegin is at her feet, he is passionately in love with her. It would seem that this is what she dreamed about. But Tatyana is married, she is aware of her duty as a wife, and cannot tarnish her honor and the honor of her husband. Reason takes precedence over her feelings, and she refuses Onegin. The heroine places moral duty and marital fidelity above love.
Summing up what has been said, I would like to add that reason and feelings lie at the basis of our existence. I would like them to balance each other, to allow us to live in harmony with ourselves and with the world around us.
(388 words)
Direction "Honor and Dishonor"
An example of an essay on the topic: “How do you understand the words “honor” and “dishonor”?
Honor and dishonor... Probably many have thought about what these words mean. Honor is self-esteem, moral principles that a person is ready to defend in any situation, even at the cost of his own life. The basis of dishonor is cowardice, weakness of character, which does not allow one to fight for ideals, forcing one to commit vile acts. Both of these concepts are revealed, as a rule, in a situation of moral choice.
Many writers have addressed the topic of honor and dishonor. Thus, V. Bykov’s story “Sotnikov” talks about two partisans who were captured. One of them, Sotnikov, bravely endures torture, but does not tell his enemies anything. Knowing that he will be executed the next morning, he prepares to face death with dignity. The writer focuses our attention on the hero’s thoughts: “Sotnikov easily and simply, as something elementary and completely logical in his situation, now made the last decision: to take everything upon himself. Tomorrow he will tell the investigator that he went on reconnaissance, had a mission, wounded a policeman in a shootout, that he is the commander of the Red Army and an opponent of fascism, let them shoot him. The rest have nothing to do with it.” It is significant that before his death the partisan thinks not about himself, but about saving others. And although his attempt did not lead to success, he fulfilled his duty to the end. The hero faces death courageously, not for a minute does the thought of begging the enemy for mercy or becoming a traitor occur to him. The author wants to convey to us the idea that honor and dignity are above the fear of death.
Sotnikov’s comrade, Rybak, behaves completely differently. The fear of death took over all his feelings. Sitting in the basement, all he can think about is saving his own life. When the police offered him to become one of them, he was not offended or indignant; on the contrary, he “felt keenly and joyfully - he will live! The opportunity to live has appeared - this is the main thing. Everything else will come later.” Of course, he does not want to become a traitor: “He had no intention of giving them partisan secrets, much less joining the police, although he understood that it would obviously not be easy to evade them.” He hopes that “he will turn out and then he will certainly settle accounts with these bastards...”. An inner voice tells the Fisherman that he has embarked on the path of dishonor. And then Rybak tries to find a compromise with his conscience: “He went to this game to win his life - isn’t this enough for the most, even desperate, game? And there it will be visible, as long as they don’t kill him or torture him during interrogations. If only he could break out of this cage, he wouldn’t allow himself anything bad. Is he an enemy to his own? Faced with a choice, he is not ready to sacrifice his life for the sake of honor.
The writer shows the successive stages of Rybak's moral decline. So he agrees to go over to the side of the enemy and at the same time continues to convince himself that “there is no great guilt behind him.” In his opinion, “he had more opportunities and cheated to survive. But he is not a traitor. In any case, I had no intention of becoming a German servant. He kept waiting to seize an opportune moment - maybe now, or maybe a little later, and only they will see him...”
And so Rybak takes part in Sotnikov’s execution. Bykov emphasizes that Rybak is trying to find an excuse even for this terrible act: “What does he have to do with it? Is this him? He just pulled out this stump. And then on the orders of the police.” And only walking in the ranks of policemen, Rybak finally understands: “There was no longer a road to escape from this formation.” V. Bykov emphasizes that the path of dishonor that Rybak chose is a path to nowhere.
Summing up what has been said, I would like to express the hope that, when faced with a difficult choice, we will not forget about the highest values: honor, duty, courage.
(610 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “In what situations are the concepts of honor and dishonor revealed?”
In what situations are the concepts of honor and dishonor revealed? Reflecting on this question, one cannot help but come to the conclusion: both of these concepts are revealed, as a rule, in a situation of moral choice.
Thus, in wartime, a soldier may face death. He can accept death with dignity, remaining faithful to duty and without tarnishing military honor. At the same time, he can try to save his life by taking the path of betrayal.
Let us turn to V. Bykov’s story “Sotnikov”. We see two partisans captured by the police. One of them, Sotnikov, behaves courageously, withstands cruel torture, but does not tell the enemy anything. He retains his self-esteem and before execution, he accepts death with honor. His comrade, Rybak, is trying to escape at all costs. He despised the honor and duty of the defender of the Fatherland and went over to the side of the enemy, became a policeman and even participated in the execution of Sotnikov, personally knocking out the stand from under his feet. We see that it is in the face of mortal danger that the true qualities of people emerge. Honor here is fidelity to duty, and dishonor is synonymous with cowardice and betrayal.
The concepts of honor and dishonor are revealed not only during war. The need to pass a test of moral strength can arise for anyone, even a child. To preserve honor means to try to protect your dignity and pride; to experience dishonor means to endure humiliation and bullying, afraid to fight back.
V. Aksyonov talks about this in his story “Breakfasts in 1943.” The narrator regularly became a victim of stronger classmates, who regularly took away not only his breakfasts, but also any other things they liked: “He took it away from me. He selected everything - everything that was of interest to Him. And not only for me, but for the whole class.” The hero not only felt sorry for what was lost, the constant humiliation and awareness of his own weakness were unbearable. He decided to stand up for himself and resist. And although physically he could not defeat three over-aged hooligans, moral victory was on his side. An attempt to defend not only his breakfast, but also his honor, to overcome his fear became an important milestone in his growing up, the formation of his personality. The writer brings us to the conclusion: we must be able to defend our honor.
Summing up what has been said, I would like to express the hope that in any situation we will remember honor and dignity, will be able to overcome mental weakness, and will not allow ourselves to fall morally.
(363 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “What does it mean to walk the path of honor?”
What does it mean to walk the path of honor? Let's turn to the explanatory dictionary: “Honor is the moral qualities of a person worthy of respect and pride.” Walking the path of honor means defending your moral principles, no matter what. The right path may involve the risk of losing something important: work, health, life itself. Following the path of honor, we must overcome fear of other people and difficult circumstances, and sometimes sacrifice a lot in order to defend our honor.
Let's turn to the story by M.A. Sholokhov "The Fate of Man". The main character, Andrei Sokolov, was captured. They were going to shoot him for carelessly spoken words. He could beg for mercy, humiliate himself before his enemies. Perhaps a weak-willed person would have done just that. But the hero is ready to defend the soldier’s honor in the face of death. When commandant Müller offers to drink to the victory of German weapons, he refuses and agrees to drink only to his own death as a release from torment. Sokolov behaves confidently and calmly, refusing a snack, despite the fact that he was hungry. He explains his behavior this way: “I wanted to show them, the damned ones, that although I am perishing from hunger, I am not going to choke on their handouts, that I have my own, Russian dignity and pride, and that they did not turn me into a beast, like no matter how hard they tried." Sokolov’s act aroused respect for him even among his enemy. The German commandant recognized the moral victory of the Soviet soldier and spared his life. The author wants to convey to the reader the idea that even in the face of death one must maintain honor and dignity.
Not only soldiers during war must follow the path of honor. Each of us must be ready to defend our dignity in difficult situations. Almost every class has its own tyrant - a student who keeps everyone else in fear. Physically strong and cruel, he takes pleasure in tormenting the weak. What should someone who constantly faces humiliation do? Tolerate dishonor or stand up for your own dignity? The answer to these questions is given by A. Likhanov in the story “Clean Pebbles”. The writer talks about Mikhaska, an elementary school student. He more than once became a victim of Savvatey and his cronies. The bully was on duty every morning at the elementary school and robbed the children, taking away everything he liked. Moreover, he did not miss an opportunity to humiliate his victim: “Sometimes he would grab a textbook or notebook from his bag instead of a bun and throw it into a snowdrift or take it for himself so that, after walking away a few steps, he would throw it under his feet and wipe his felt boots on them.” Savvatey specifically “was on duty at this particular school, because in primary school they study up to the fourth grade and the children are all small.” Mikhaska more than once experienced what humiliation means: once Savvatey took away from him an album with stamps, which belonged to Mikhaska’s father and therefore was especially dear to him, another time a hooligan set fire to his new jacket. True to his principle of humiliating the victim, Savvatey ran his “dirty, sweaty paw” over his face. The author shows that Mikhaska could not stand the bullying and decided to fight back against a strong and ruthless enemy, before whom the whole school, even adults, trembled. The hero grabbed a stone and was ready to hit Savvateya, but unexpectedly he retreated. He retreated because he felt Mikhaska’s inner strength, his readiness to defend his human dignity to the end. The writer focuses our attention on the fact that it was the determination to defend his honor that helped Mikhaska win a moral victory.
Walking the path of honor means standing up for others. Thus, Pyotr Grinev in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “The Captain’s Daughter” fought a duel with Shvabrin, defending the honor of Masha Mironova. Shvabrin, having been rejected, in a conversation with Grinev allowed himself to insult the girl with vile hints. Grinev could not stand this. As a decent man, he went out to fight and was ready to die, but to defend the girl’s honor.
Summing up what has been said, I would like to express the hope that every person will have the courage to choose the path of honor.
(582 words)
Example of an essay on the topic: “Honor is more valuable than life”
In life, situations often arise when we are faced with a choice: to act in accordance with moral rules or to make a deal with our conscience, to sacrifice moral principles. It would seem that everyone would have to choose the right path, the path of honor. But it's often not that simple. Especially if the price of the right decision is life. Are we ready to die in the name of honor and duty?
Let us turn to the novel by A.S. Pushkin “The Captain's Daughter”. The author talks about the capture of the Belogorsk fortress by Pugachev. The officers had to either swear allegiance to Pugachev, recognizing him as sovereign, or end their lives on the gallows. The author shows what choice his heroes made: Pyotr Grinev, just like the commandant of the fortress and Ivan Ignatievich, showed courage, was ready to die, but not to disgrace the honor of his uniform. He found the courage to tell Pugachev to his face that he could not recognize him as sovereign and refused to change his military oath: “No,” I answered firmly. - I am a natural nobleman; I swore allegiance to the Empress: I cannot serve you.” With all sincerity, Grinev told Pugachev that he might begin to fight against him, fulfilling his officer’s duty: “You yourself know, it’s not my will: if they tell me to go against you, I’ll go, there’s nothing to do. You are now the boss yourself; you yourself demand obedience from your own. What will it be like if I refuse to serve when my service is needed? The hero understands that his honesty may cost him his life, but the feeling of longevity and honor prevails in him over fear. The hero's sincerity and courage impressed Pugachev so much that he saved Grinev's life and released him.
Sometimes a person is ready to defend, not even sparing his own life, not only his honor, but also the honor of loved ones and family. You cannot accept an insult without complaint, even if it is inflicted by a person higher on the social ladder. Dignity and honor are above all.
M.Yu. talks about this. Lermontov in “Song about Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, the young guardsman and the daring merchant Kalashnikov.” The guardsman of Tsar Ivan the Terrible took a liking to Alena Dmitrievna, the wife of the merchant Kalashnikov. Knowing that she was a married woman, Kiribeevich still allowed himself to solicit her love. An insulted woman asks her husband for intercession: “Don’t give me, your faithful wife, // to evil blasphemers!” The author emphasizes that the merchant does not doubt for a second what decision he should make. Of course, he understands what the confrontation with the Tsar’s favorite threatens him with, but the honest name of the family is more valuable than even life itself: And such an insult cannot be tolerated by the soul
Yes, the brave heart cannot bear it.
There's going to be a fist fight tomorrow
On the Moscow River under the Tsar himself,
And then I will go out to the guardsman,
I will fight to the death, to the last strength...
And indeed, Kalashnikov comes out to fight against Kiribeevich. For him, this is not a fight for fun, it is a fight for honor and dignity, a battle for life and death:
Don't joke, don't make people laugh
I, son of Basurman, came to you, -
I went out for a terrible battle, for the last battle!
He knows that the truth is on his side, and is ready to die for it:
I will stand for the truth to the last!
Lermontov shows that the merchant defeated Kiribeevich, washing away the insult with blood. However, fate is preparing a new test for him: Ivan the Terrible orders Kalashnikov to be executed for killing his pet. The merchant could have justified himself and told the tsar why he killed the guardsman, but he did not do this. After all, this would mean publicly disgracing the good name of your wife. He is ready to go to the chopping block, defending the honor of his family, to accept death with dignity. The writer wants to convey to us the idea that there is nothing more important for a person than his dignity, and it must be protected no matter what.
Summing up what has been said, we can conclude: honor is above everything, even life itself.
(545 words)
An example of an essay on the topic: “To deprive another of the honor means to lose your own”
What is dishonor? On the one hand, it is a lack of dignity, weakness of character, cowardice, and inability to overcome fear of circumstances or people. On the other hand, an outwardly seemingly strong person also incurs dishonor if he allows himself to defame others, or even simply mock the weaker, humiliate the defenseless.
Thus, in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “The Captain’s Daughter,” Shvabrin, having received a refusal from Masha Mironova, in retaliation slanderes her and allows himself offensive hints addressed to her. So, in a conversation with Pyotr Grinev, he claims that you need to win Masha’s favor not with verses, he hints at her availability: “... if you want Masha Mironova to come to you at dusk, then instead of tender poems, give her a pair of earrings. My blood began to boil.
- Why do you have such an opinion about her? - I asked, barely containing my indignation.
“And because,” he answered with a hellish grin, “I know her character and customs from experience.”
Shvabrin, without hesitation, is ready to tarnish the girl’s honor just because she did not reciprocate his feelings. The writer leads us to the idea that a person who acts vilely cannot be proud of his unblemished honor.
Another example is A. Likhanov’s story “Clean Pebbles”. A character named Savvatey keeps the entire school in fear. He takes pleasure in humiliating those who are weaker. The bully regularly robs students and mocks them: “Sometimes he would snatch a textbook or notebook from his bag instead of a bun and throw it into a snowdrift or take it for himself so that, after walking away a few steps, he would throw it under his feet and wipe his felt boots on them.” His favorite technique was to run a “dirty, sweaty paw” across the victim’s face. He constantly humiliates even his “sixes”: “Savvatey looked at the guy angrily, took him by the nose and pulled him down hard,” he “stood next to Sashka, leaning on his head.” By encroaching on the honor and dignity of other people, he himself becomes the personification of dishonor.
Summarizing what has been said, we can conclude: a person who humiliates the dignity or discredits the good name of other people deprives himself of honor and condemns himself to contempt from others.
(313 words)
What is the difference between mind and reason, what are their functions and how to control feelings. Having understood these phenomena, their functions and characteristics, we can learn to manage them in order to bring more harmony and happiness into our lives.
Hierarchy of mind, reason and feelings
The Vedas, in particular the Bhagavad Gita, say that feelings are higher than dead matter, above the feelings is the mind (which controls them), above the mind is the mind, but above them all is the soul, our consciousness in its pure form.
Function of the senses
In this case, feelings and emotions are not the same thing, since we are talking about five sensory perceptions - hearing, sight, smell, touch and taste. Through the five senses we receive information about the outside world - this is the function of the senses. The sense organs are controlled by the mind, which directs them to a particular object, and transmits the information they receive to the mind.
Function of the mind
As for the mind, in addition to analyzing and controlling the body and feelings, its main function is acceptance and rejection. The mind is drawn to the pleasant and rejects the unpleasant. We want comfort, various pleasant sensations, pleasures, and we do everything to get what we want - this happens thanks to the work of the mind. The mind tries to get as much pleasure as possible through the senses. The Caitanya-caritamrta also says that the function of the mind is to think, feel and desire.
Function of the mind
What is the difference between mind and mind and what is mind in general? The mind, as the Vedas claim, is above the mind; it is a more subtle substance than the mind and feelings. The main function of the mind is to accept what is useful (favorable) and reject what is harmful (dangerous, unfavorable).
We can see that the functions of the mind and reason are very similar - acceptance and rejection, but the difference is that the mind is guided by the idea of "receiving what is pleasant and rejecting what is unpleasant", while the mind is more far-sighted, determining what is useful and what is harmful. The mind says either “I want” or “I don’t want,” and the mind evaluates it like this: “this will bring good” or “this will bring problems and troubles.”
If a person is reasonable, that is, has a strong developed mind, he does not follow the lead of the mind and feelings, but considers his desires from the position of “will this bring me benefit or harm?” An unreasonable person is guided only by the desires of the mind, which strives to obtain the maximum of pleasant sensations, and does not really think about what such pleasures will lead to. The mind may enjoy the feeling of being drunk, driving fast, or any other pleasure (this is individual), while the mind looks at the possible consequences of such actions and pleasures, and makes adjustments, forcing the person to change his mind and stop in time.
Homo sapiens is called intelligent because he is given reason, this is a distinctive property of man, but reason is not always stronger than mind, especially in our time: we can see many unreasonable human actions and actions that lead to undesirable and negative consequences. Mind alone is not enough for a normal life; a person can be smart, educated, quick-witted, a recognized expert in some field of activity, and even a genius, but this does not guarantee his intelligence.
By assessing situations from a rational perspective, we can avoid many mistakes and unpleasant consequences of our actions. A person with a highly developed mind can generally predict your future from your present behavior. This is one of the reasons why you need to listen to old people who are wise in life - they know what actions lead to what consequences.
Control of feelings
Do you need to control your feelings, and if so, how to do it? Yes, feelings need to be controlled, because they are insatiable, and if you give them free rein, it will not lead to anything good. For example, receiving pleasant sensations from alcohol or drugs, a person may gradually become an alcoholic or become a drug addict; by indulging your sexual desires and walking “left and right”, you can catch a venereal disease; In pursuit of big money, you can lose your mind and end up behind bars. And so on.
Our feelings are insatiable by nature: the more you give them, the more you want, therefore, definitely, feelings need control. When feelings are running wild, it is much more difficult to control them, so it is important not to let the situation get worse. But how to control your feelings?
Here you need to understand that the mind cannot properly control its feelings, since it, in fact, directs them to receive pleasure (receiving something pleasant), without caring about the consequences. The mind itself needs control and proper guidance from above.
Therefore, correct control of feelings is possible only with the help of a strong mind, which foresees the consequences and therefore can give a correct assessment of our desires and actions.
A truly intelligent person has a mind that is stronger than his mind, so his mind and feelings are under the control of his mind, which eliminates a lot of troubles from his life.
In addition to the topic and to understand more about this important issue, read the article “
“Recently I went through the temptations of excessive materialism, when it began to seem to me that this was all nonsense, that the subtle world did not exist, that it all seemed to me and it could all be explained. Some kind of fear and anxiety fell upon me...”
From comments to articles
Does it happen that on your spiritual path you facing doubts? You suddenly stop believing in the voice of the soul and ask yourself:
Maybe there are no spiritual guides, and the voice of the Higher Self is a figment of the imagination?
Does the world of angels, other dimensions really exist?
In this article you will not find scientific evidence of the existence of the subtle plan.
Broadcast cycle on the Keys of Mastery
Cosmic Laws
Get a video recording of a 21-hour broadcast with a detailed analysis of each of the Cosmic Laws
By clicking the “Get access” button, you consent to the processing of your personal data and agree to
But I will try to explain where these doubts come from and how to eliminate them.
Reasons for doubts on the path of spiritual development
I have identified 3 reasons for doubts that I myself have encountered throughout my spiritual growth.
1. Lack of knowledge about the spiritual structure of the world
The subtle world, other dimensions cannot be touched, to check whether they really exist.
No one can say with 100% accuracy whether there is something on the other side of the veil.
Not many people have the clairvoyance to see for themselves the existence of angels and other spiritual entities.
Therefore, everyone chooses for himself the system of knowledge and beliefs that resonates with his soul, and lives in accordance with these principles.
On the spiritual path periodically doubts overcome: Is it really what I believe?
But the deeper you know yourself, your soul, the less often such thoughts arise.
To overcome doubts and find answers to many questions that concern you on the topic of spirituality, I suggest reading “The Cosmogonic Concept of the Rosicrucians” by Max Handel, “The Divine Matrix” by Gregg Braden, “The Biology of Faith” by Bruce Lipton.
The first two books are not scientific works, but if you need explanations of the world order from a spiritual point of view, you will find them there.
You will find more books on the topic of the spiritual structure of the world and man in the article.
2. Transition to a new vibrational level
Another reason to doubt whether spiritual practices work is the brightness of sensations disappears in meditation.
Previously, during meditation and after it, you felt uplifting, a surge of energy, joy, but now these sensations seem to have been erased.
There is a feeling that the practice is not working. This is wrong. The fact is that your vibrations have risen to the level you were striving for.
Previously, you tuned in with them through practices, but now these vibrations are the norm for you.
If you want to experience the same sensations as before, try more serious advanced spiritual practices.
Main, don't become addicted to meditation. Always remember why you are doing this, what goal you want to achieve.
3. Falling out into the matrix
Every person experiences moments of ups and downs. The period of recovery is marked by lightness, inspiration, and faith in the best.
When you are in a resource state, you really do you feel support from that side?, notice the signs, get information and help.
And when you fail, everything around you seems gray and dull.
What made you happy in an exalted state now irritates you, and faith in higher powers disappears.
At the moment of failure, you are cut off from the Higher Self, the connection with the spirit mentors is blocked. You are left alone with the ego and its fears.
Find out what will help you switch and return to yourself.
Your emotions vibrate at low frequencies. It is not surprising that doubts arise in yourself and in the truth in which you believe.
The ego “laughs” at your endeavors in the field of spiritual development. It trusts only verified information and past experience.
At this point ask yourself:
What makes me happy is this hopelessness or the belief that I am one with everything and supported by higher powers, all you have to do is extend your hand?
Put on one side of the scale the belief that there is nothing but the material, and on the other - the connection with higher aspects, the help you get from them.
Compare your feelings on each scale. What will you choose?
It doesn't matter whether what you believe in exists, what matters is whether that belief supports you or makes you unhappy.
In fact, it doesn’t matter who helps you: invisible helpers or your faith in yourself.
You can call it whatever you want, the main thing is how you feel about it.
How to overcome doubts if you fail
“When you allow any doubt, tension arises in the heart - because in trust the heart relaxes, and in doubt it contracts.
The more you are in your head, the more your heart contracts. When you are not in the head, the heart opens like a lotus flower. Then you are truly alive and your heart is relaxed.
When doubt catches you, the mind catches you. Doubt may be absolutely right, but even though it is right, it is wrong because it destroys the heart.”
Osho
Read your personal success diary.
If you haven’t started it yet, be sure to do so and record at least 3 victories every day, any, not just big ones.
It’s just small steps that make up a whole journey.
Make sure that the successes you have achieved through spiritual knowledge and practices are always visible.
If it's something intangible, such as the ability to set personal boundaries, assign some tangible object that will represent your result.
- Paint sea pebbles and collect these colorful pebbles in a vase.
Each pebble is responsible for one specific achievement or result with the help of higher powers. The larger the breakthrough, the larger the pebble.
- If you have the talent to create something material: paintings, jewelry, toys, dedicate each of your creations to some achievement of yours.
- When you begin to work on improving a particular area of your life, plant the seed of a small plant in a pot.
Its growth will represent your spiritual growth and shifts in a certain area.
If there is a lot of work to be done, plant a bush or even a tree seedling. Look after him.
When you are tormented by doubts about whether there are results from your actions, practices, whether higher powers are helping you, your tree or plant will remind you that you have not come this far in vain and restore faith in yourself.
It will help restore the lost sense of unity with your spiritual essence and integrity.
How you want to know everything for sure, when it comes to something that cannot be touched or seen with your own eyes.
This is how the human mind works; it needs evidence.
But our goal in spiritual practices is move from mind to heart to find happiness and harmony in life.
So use your heart as resonator of truth and stay true to what supports and fulfills you.
A person cannot live life alone. Being a social being, we constantly need communication, approval, support, and the opportunity to give our love to other people. Without this it is impossible to live fully!
Finding love and a permanent companion to create a family and continue the family line is perhaps one of the main tasks of everyone. But how not to make a mistake when the heart says one thing and the mind says another? What to give preference to?
Listening to the heart
“Love arises spontaneously,” some say. “It takes time to fall in love,” others say. The heart does not speak, it begins to beat faster when that same person is nearby - the only one! Sometimes it trembles in spite of everything, causing a sweet shiver through the body that cannot be quelled. This feeling is called falling in love and it is wonderful! Many couples, after living with each other for decades, can still feel awe because they chose each other by listening to their hearts. And some have never experienced it, but, nevertheless, have a strong family, children, but deep down they feel deeply unhappy. Why is this happening? - Because the heart is silent!
But if your heart is pounding wildly with happiness when you are next to your person who behaves inappropriately, allows infidelity, rude and humiliating treatment, and ignores family responsibilities? In this case, is it possible to rely only on the heart and, at all costs, fight for the future with this person?
Listening to the mind
How often can you hear from others “he’s not right for you, he has a small salary, bad habits, bad friends, no apartment, he’s poorly brought up, etc.” The mind begins to look for shortcomings in a loved one: he slurps too loudly, allows himself to burp right at the table, drinks beer in front of the TV, scatters socks around the house, does not give flowers to parents and pays little attention to children...
Every person has shortcomings, it is important to determine what role they play in life? Is this deficiency something that cannot be tolerated or corrected? Is it worth breaking off a relationship because of dirty socks while he is sheltering his beloved from the wind? Is a breakup justified if he comes home late, doesn’t give compliments, but still works two jobs so that the family can have their own home?
Uniting mind and heart
Every person has two helpers: the heart and the mind. Feelings and desires are born in the heart, and thoughts are born in the mind, which strengthen each desire, and the person begins to act.
The importance and truthfulness of heartfelt advice. The heart always tells a person the truth (conscience), it honestly tells a person whether he did good or bad and what the right thing to do is. It is with the help of the heart (if they try to hear it) that a person knows what is good and what is evil, what is beautiful and what is ugly.
The mind often makes mistakes because it is obedient to human will. The mind willingly listens to the orders of a person (his will). If a person is stupid (evil or good), then the mind, listening to the person, will tell him many stupid (evil or good) thoughts. Without a heart, the mind often makes mistakes and makes wrong decisions and often defends a person, contrary to the truth, it is always on the side of both the good and the bad person. Loud thoughts of the mind can drown out the quiet voice of the heart, and then a person may act unwisely.
The mind should be an assistant to a good heart, fulfilling its good feelings and desires. The basis of all actions (at the head of the mind) should be cordiality and good feelings of the heart. The mind is good when it listens to a good heart and acts according to its command.
A mind without a heart is a resourceful servant of the many-sided egoism. Dryness and coldness of naked reason. People often do not know how to listen to their hearts or forget to ask their hearts for advice and listen only to their minds. Thoughts of the mind that are not colored by feelings of the heart are of little interest and a little unpleasant. Without the feelings of the heart, the mind is interesting, but difficult to love.
Thoughts of the mind, supported by all the desire (burning) of the heart, are interesting, strong, convincing (incendiary). Without a heart, the thoughts of the mind are often boring, uninteresting, and unattractive.
Heart + mind = intelligence!
One can be called wise and reasonable who, when thinking, always listens to the knowledge and promptings of his heart. A person can be smart and literate, and educated, and even a scientist, but without the advice of his heart he will not become wise.
It is impossible to make the right decision by listening only to the heart or relying only on the mind. Individually they can fail.
You can live your life with an unloved person and justify it with a strong family, absence of betrayal, financial well-being and mutual respect. You can share your life with your loved one, without having your own apartment and car, and be absolutely happy.
Everyone makes their own choice, and it cannot be right or wrong. The main thing is to respect and love yourself, remembering that the heart and mind must be in harmony. Then the choice of a life partner will be correct, and your life together will be happy!