Follow your heart... not!

You're in a dilemma*. 

Then your friends and family give you advice. Or in the case where you asked for advice, they give you advice. 

More often than not, they offer advice of the following sort: 

"Follow your heart!"

  

"Just do what you think is right."

"Be yourself."

I don't mean to challenge the good intentions of these people. They usually mean well, as far as I can tell. What I challenge is the content of these sorts of advice, and why most of the time they don't really help us in making better decisions. 

Here's an example: 

For some reason I managed to miss a pre-booked train service to a very important event. It was a very expensive train ticket. The only options I've got are these two: (i) buy a new ticket that will require me to cancel a whole month's social activities and go on a cereal diet and, (ii) board the next train without a ticket. Suppose you know that you have virtually no risk of being penalised for choosing (ii), since you are aware of a way of evading ticket inspectors. What then does it mean exactly, to follow your heart? There are two obvious possibilities: 

(a) Follow your immediate desire and board the train without a ticket. (i.e. choice (i))

(b) Follow your conscience and buy a new ticket. (i.e. choice (ii))

If we seriously consider** the advice 'follow your heart', it seems to assume that we have a single mental disposition ('the heart') that has an opinion on what exactly to do. But is your heart your desire, or is it your conscience? If we shift the scenario to one where you have to choose between two friends (suppose they're in a fight), does the heart tell you to choose friend A who has always been there for you or friend B who's not so reliable but whom you'd really like to spend more time with? It seems then that it is impossible (and meaningless) to 'follow your heart', since you still have to choose between which heart to follow.

I'm not suggesting that there is a always a perfect solution to these dilemmas (if it's that easy, they wouldn't be dilemmas), but the point is that it tends to be an over-simplification to think that there is really some sub-conscious decision already made up when we are considering the options to a problem. It seems more accurate to describe the mind (for this purpose of resolving dilemmas) as a collection of dispositions, with each disposition competing for dominance. Examples of such dispositions are the disposition to be moral and disposition to protect one's own interest. At times one disposition may prevail over another, and in those circumstances decisions are made quickly. At times these dispositions may disagree and be equally strong, resulting in a stalemate that puts us in a dilemma. This may resemble the Freudian id and superego sort of analysis to some extent, but in the case of trilemmas or quadlemmas, I think singling out these 'threads' of disposition in our minds is a fine tool for decision analysis. Dispositions can also be thought of as values or duties, as these things also have a tendency to conflict and surely have causal powers towards our decision-making.

No doubt this is merely a model for understanding or analysing the state of the human mind in considering a decision. However, under this view, there seems to be little space for such advices to have any significant value. Why give an advice if it doesn't help? But if an advice is indeed a dangerous gift, as quoted from J. R. R. Tolkien, this sort of advice is probably more harmless than the rest.

*I really like the Cantonese translation 'intersection/junction' (交叉點). Dilemmas are also real fun to think about as value tests, e.g. "would you rather eat a spoonful of cow faeces or lose your permanent job?" This isn't really relevant to the whole entry... it's just something fun to share.

**Many times I've come across the remark that this 'method' of serious consideration is just another form of wordplay or nit-picking exercise (鑽牛角尖) that is a complete waste of time. I find it hard to understand how one can see no value at all in contemplating the meaning of expressions, when it is clear that misinterpretation of language can so often be the cause of conflicts, confusion and problems. If you still think this is an utter waste of time, you may want to give this a try.