alisgirl wrote...
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
alisgirl wrote...
I think it is what you're talking about; you just aren't realizing it. You see "rational" decisions as being "intelligent" and "emotional" decisions as being "unintelligent," or as not "making use of" one's intelligence. It isn't good or bad; it's just something to know about yourself. 
The first part is not what I am talking about and I realize what I am saying. Rationality and intelligence are not identical. The second part is not exactly what I am saying. However, when emotional reactions cloud reason (as in when they go in opposition, which they don't always do, and emotions overrule reason in the head of the decision maker), then yes, I would not consider whatever decision that will result in to be intelligent.
So because Alistair has hated Loghain since Ostagar and has had a burning fire in his belly ever since to kill the guy, his reaction to sparing Loghain at the Landsmeet is not an "emotional reaction" -- it's a long-considered position that's in line with every value that he holds dear. However, his desire to execute Loghain or abandon the Wardens is still an emotional decision because it's based on his values rather than on practical concerns like "Could we use another Warden?" or "Would this help us politically?" etc. So...are those decisions intelligent or not?
I know exactly what you're saying since you brought up Myers Briggs. And I've used that model before when discussing these two and the Landsmeet, though not using the four letters per se.

People who value rationality/ principle often look down on those who run on a more intuitive/ conditional basis even when two people using those different approaches arrive at the same decision. Both can be intelligent and even wise people. But because the intuitive/ idealist doesn't articulate their reasoning in the way that zings the rational/principle person- that helps them tick their boxes- they assume that there is no reasoning at all or that the idealist came to their conclusion on an irrational basis. However, the intuitive speaks a different language and may not even know how to articulate (in a way that's convincing to the rational type) how they came to their decision, or they just don't care to justify themselves in that way.
Both Alistair and Loghain want their nemesis dead. Loghain even goes further and wants to kill Eamon, the Warden and Alistair. They approach this in different ways, but in both cases it is probably the smartest thing to do. Certainly the safest. Intelligence doesn't really come to bear. Calling for Loghain's execution is a perfectly rational thing to do. Alistair has reasons for it, and his reasoning is fine. I don't fault him for anything he does in the LM, even for leaving. Seizing the throne is also an understandable thing to do- Loghain is a symbol of corrupt rule to him, but points to what he sees as a larger corruption that is threatening the country, and he is in a position to do something about it so he feels he must. I do fault Alistair for not coming back or aiding the Blight in some way, and since Gaider says he regrets that, obviously he realizes later that it was a mistake.
As for comparing Zevran and Alistair, I would put the difference down to experience and not aptitude. Zevran has had to navigate treacherous politics his entire life, not as a politician himself but as the knife in the hands of people like that.
Modifié par Addai67, 05 mars 2011 - 12:56 .