icarus_chained (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
icarus_chained) wrote2012-09-05 08:27 pm
icarus_chained) wrote2012-09-05 08:27 pm
Entry tags:
Emotional Pragmatism
[Sorry, by the by, for leaving people hanging. The last couple of days have been ... Um. Yes. My apologies, and I'll try get back around soon? I needed to do this first:]
... I keep trying to write this, and it keeps not working. *shrugs* It doesn't coalesce the whole way, doesn't quite ... It's too intrinsic, and therefore too tangled. But. Alright. Lets try this, and limit the aim to being only minimally confusing.
On the subject of pragmatism, and rationality in the face of ... well, everything, but specifically emotional situations.
... I keep trying to write this, and it keeps not working. *shrugs* It doesn't coalesce the whole way, doesn't quite ... It's too intrinsic, and therefore too tangled. But. Alright. Lets try this, and limit the aim to being only minimally confusing.
On the subject of pragmatism, and rationality in the face of ... well, everything, but specifically emotional situations.
I am, apparently, a ruthlessly pragmatic person. This is the descriptor used. Fair enough. In action, I gather I rather am. Thing is ... I don't know, really, if that's my baseline personality (it could be) or simply the set of active behaviours I have adopted for reasons of their being largely the most consistently effective. Either is possible, and quite frankly, on a day-to-day basis, they're functionally identitical.
I rather suspect the latter, though. On a base level, I am, I think ... perhaps you might call it fanciful? *smiles faintly* Incredibly idealistic, more so. Prone to flights of imaginative fancy, to the point of the occasional, completely genuine, moment of existential crisis (I tend to get detached on the end of considerations of scale ... if you go down far enough or up far enough, things tend to shatter - build complexity to the point of ... the confusion becomes too much, and things fail to rationalise, and I lose a sense of order. Without a sense of order I ... tend not to be able to function). I am prone to powerful reactions to non-physical concepts, which is not generally considered a pragmatic thing.
In action (both in the sense of external action -doing things- and internal action -understanding things-), though, I suppose I may quite strongly be considered ... pragmatic.
For functionality, I require a sense of order, at least internal, even if external is not possible. I require access and interlinkage of available information, a list of known knowns and known unknowns, and the awareness of potential unknown unknowns. I need to be able to further rationalise that information into actionable and inactionable, and a prioritisation of needed actions, what information exists to support them, and what ones I'll have to enact regardless of whether I know enough to justify them.
This is not something I require for momentous decisions. This is something I require for the question of 'what chores do I have to do today' and 'A is angry, what do I do'. This is something I genuinely, no matter the nature and size of the decision, require to be able to act. To function.
Because of that, I have become ... pragmatic, in my behaviours.
First of all things, before I do anything, ever, I need information. I am not ... Generally speaking, I am not capable of spontaneous decisions/actions, barring emergencies (and not always then, either, but I'm working on my tendency to freeze up). If I don't know to a reasonable degree what an action will result in, I will not make it, nine times out of ten. Yes, before you ask, this does result in patterns of increasingly restricted behaviour on my part - I'm aware of that, and attempting to work through it. Mostly by increasing my ability to predict consequences (learn more), and by ... redesigning the parameters for 'enough information to consider actionable' (basically, learning how to do the mental equivalent of 'hold your breath, close your eyes, and jump').
Information, to me, comes in three categories: known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Or, put another way, things I know I know, things I know I don't know, and the random shit that happens without warning.
We'll deal with unknown unknowns first, as ... well. There's not much you can do about what you can't predict will happen. You can't prepare or plan for them. The best you can do is build a cushion of capabilities to handle things up to reasonable limits. Generally, I'm surprisingly good at this, within certain parameters - I'm physically capable up to a certain point, I'm mentally capable the same. Emotions ... well. Not so much, but. I also have a certain inbuilt acceptance of uncertainty, and basically ... so long as a thing does not breach your survivable limits, you deal with it as it happens. And if it does breach your survivable limits, there'll be fuck all you can do anyway, so just basically don't worry about it. *shrugs*
Then:
Known knowns are pieces of information that I understand, can fit into situation maps, and almost always consider actionable. They're usually the practical considerations of the situation ("This happened, this was the result of it, this can be fixed/allieviated/understood by doing this"). These are usually the baseline underpinnings of most situations, the ones I act on most often, and I think a lot of the source of my 'pragmatic' reputation.
Things like, my mother is prone to epileptic fits, when they happen there isn't much to do except get her safely onto the ground, guard her head, and wait for her to come out of it. So. If it starts to happen, I get her safely onto the ground, mind her effects, and cradle her head to keep it safe. When it's done, get her to somewhere more permanently safe, ideally to a bed, and let her rest in the wake of it. So. Call a cab if we're out, or a relative with a car, or if we're home, get her upstairs. Done, dusted, no muss, no fuss.
This situation does not cause me to panic. It has a clearly defined parameter, a clearly defined course of action. Longterm effects cannot be guessed at, of course, but in the event they're largely irrelevant. The event can't be stopped, it can't be changed, action is limited to 'make comfortable and ride it out'. Fine. Doable. So long as the event and the actions necessary in it are within my capabilities and my frame of reference, there's no real fear attached to them.
Then there are known unknowns. These are pieces of information that I do not understand, but know are in effect on the situation. Things I know I don't know, but have to deal with regardless. Emotions come under this, also anything outside my experience or capabilities that I am aware are beyond me (things I know I don't know how to do/see/effect).
These are ... more complicated in approach. In the immediacy of the situation, I can't really act on them, so they're more relegated to 'be aware these are affecting the situation, and need to be allowed for/compensated for in reaction'. In general, my approach to very active known unknowns in a situation is a) panic, then b) find someone who does know how to deal with them or, failing that, c) deal with the baseline, actionable situation and hope the other aspects shake out for the best in the aftermath (which amounts to ignore them and hope for the best). Occasionally, if I've had enough past experience of the specific known unknown, I can shove an blanket-stopgap in the face of it (basic protocols like: in the case of active tempers complicating situation, minimise yourself, do not deal directly with anyone, do not speak directly to emotion, do not ask any unnecessary questions, do the job and get the fuck out of the way).
So, in the above example, the fact of having fits causes an emotional response in my mother, particularly if they're in public (shame, usually). I know this. I know it has something to do with being publically vulnerable, with having 'made a spectacle of herself'. This ... does not make much sense to me (feeling shame, yes, I mean, I've felt shame myself, but not ... not really for things I know for a fact I can't help). In the actual situation itself, though, it honestly doesn't occur to me to be embarrassed, or give a blind bit of notice to passersby beyond making sure they're not ringing anyone they shouldn't (ambulances aren't required unless she injured herself going down, generally). The thought of the spectacle we're making just ... doesn't actually enter my consciousness.
I am, however, always aware that it does hers, which is why secondary actions have been tagged on like making sure she's relatively presentable (in a heap on the floor, yes, but not ... I don't even know? Make sure she's neat and contained as possible, be polite to passersby, act calm and rational to minimise the attention paid to the event). The shame doesn't make sense to me, since it's a thing in her brain, it's inactionable, this thing cannot be stopped, so there's no shame in not being able to stop it. *waves hands* Point is, known unknown, I don't actually have to understand how or why it has an effect to know that it does, and that it has to be accounted for in minimising the negative effects of the event. *shrugs* Known unknowns cannot be directly acted upon (well, not knowingly or with reliable results, anyway), but they can be built into the understanding of the situation, and to a limited degree built into the response to it.
They are always, though, of secondary importance to me in deciding how to act. Not because they're less in effect on the situation (some situations are almost entirely effected by things I don't understand - actually, rather a lot of them), but because I can't act on them, so they get bumped down the priority queue in favour of things I can act on (even if 'action' is limited to 'find someone who knows what the fuck is going on, and have them deal with it'). For known unknowns not relating to emotions (like 'the causes of the blips in my mother's brain', for example) ... Basically, if I don't know how to do it, my options are limited to 'find someone who does' or 'stand around helpless', and there's not much I can do about that, so I don't.
And I don't ... I don't particularly bother being upset about it (anymore). *shrugs uneasily* I don't bother feeling ashamed (helpless, yes, ashamed, no). Which is where I think the 'ruthless' part of my 'ruthlessly pragmatic' rep comes in. In that I will actually, and genuinely, look at someone asking me why I'm not doing something, and just go "I can't, so I'm not". It's a statement of fact, and will have no particular remorse attached to it unless it's a thing I should have known how to do (so, I will feel shame for having failed a test I should have known the answers to, but not for having failed to understand the emotional ramifications of a situation when I just basically don't have the equipment to have been able to).
I'm working on expanding my repertoire of things I know how to do, to better account for situations, but until I do know how to do them, there's no point lamenting that I didn't when it mattered. I didn't have the information, therefore I couldn't act on it, it's done, leave it so.
Good gods, I feel like Mr Spock sometimes. Oi. Anyway.
This is not a natural behaviour, for me, or a natural emotional response (those are mostly more on the spectrum of 'run around in blind panic, try to figure out what the fuck happened, be terrified by the idea it might happen again' sometimes to the extent of 'make sure never to be in a situation where that happens again, if necessary by never setting foot outside the door again'). This is the result of having spent years being hemmed in more and more by situations I knew I couldn't deal with, tried to avoid, and ended up chopping out most of, well, life. So, going around the cycle again, I adopted ... the more pragmatic approach.
Internally, first. Strip the situation to baseline (regardless of what it is), deal with the known knowns first, sort out the rest later. Do not let emotional considerations get involved, not yet, you're just basically not good at that, darling, it confuses you whether it's coming from inside or out. Emotion is a known unknown, it's the next level up, we'll get to that once we've got past the 'freeze in terror' phase.
It's basically the result of rationalising my own internal functions, recognising how I worked inside. Strip myself down the way I would a situation, recognise what and how and why, and then figure out how to work with/around it. *smiles faintly* Internally ruthless, too, as much as I can bring myself to be. I cannot function without information, barring real threat to life and limb. There's no point attacking myself because of it, that's not going to change the base situation, so. Deal with it.
The options are, develope ways to gain more information, develope ways to better act on the information you have, and when all those fail, just accept those situations that are honestly beyond you. *shrugs* And once you've done that internally, begin to apply it externally.
*rubs mouth* And the thing is, that works. That works really rather well, with what I am and what I deal with (well, so far). It also ... *frowns* I'm not sure. You can train yourself not to feel, maybe? No. Not not to feel, but ...
I am slightly concerned, sometimes, about how ...
I am ruthlessly pragmatic. Being ruthlessly pragmatic, with myself and with outside situations, works, insofar as surviving them goes (mostly. That is, alive yes, intact, not always). But it has resulted in ...
The easiest way for me to function is drop emotions (my own and those of others) down the priority queue until the practical elements of the situation have been dealt with. In situations that are largely or purely emotional ... Well. I'm largely useless, and generally, these days, don't even bother to apologise for it. I'll do my best (if the emotion has a concrete cause, it will be my preference to tackle that). I just ... I don't know how to change the paths of emotions, I don't know enough of how they work. I'm lucky if I fucking see the damn things in time to realise they're in effect. So.
It does worry me sometimes, though, how much the act of rationalising emotions until it's safe to deal with them (which, in some cases, may be never) seems to give the appearance of not having them.
I do have emotions. I am aware of and affected by their existence in others, even if I can't always see them, and almost never know what to do with them. It's just ... they're always second priority (unless they're the problem, but in those cases my response is usually to try to leave -_-;). Knowledge of their existence is not actionable information for me, most of the time, so they're dumped out to second-string priority (sometimes in the sense of 'I'll deal with it once the fallout happens', sometimes as 'I'll yell/cry/panic later/let you yell/cry/panic later', and sometimes as 'if I ignore this long enough, maybe it'll go away'). *shrugs*
I am ruthlessly pragmatic about things, particularly things that should evoke emotional responses, because so far it has proven to be the most effective way of getting through things relatively intact. And yes, in the process of adopting it, I seem to have successfully trained myself out of certain emotional responses (shame, in certain circumstances), but I'd done that before anyway (anger, to a large and somewhat damaging extent).
Underneath it, I'm still rather fanciful. Rather idealistic. Still rather prone to very strong feelings in response to things that probably rationally should not provoke that depth of response. *shrugs faintly*
I do, however, often not identifiably feel things I am 'supposed' to feel in certain situations (or show them wrongly even if I'm feeling them). Some of this might be that my definition of what a thing should feel like ... Um. Because I seem to operate off a different set of terminology from most people, sometimes I have trouble telling if a thing I'm feeling matches the description of an emotion/fuzzy concept enough to count. Or ... be remotely related to at all. So. Sometimes I'm actually not sure what the hell emotion I'm feeling, and trying to describe it often gets ... interesting results? (Something similar, maybe, to someone trying to describe 'red' to a blind person). But that's ... a different thing, never mind.
Ah. Lets sum up. In the course of dealing with ... pretty much everything, my typical MO is to strip it down to pragmatic concerns first, deal with what it is possible to deal with among them, and sort everything else (including my and other people's emotions on the subject) out later. I do, however, actually still have emotions, and I am aware of and accounting for at least their potential existence in others, even if it is not within my current capabilities to see/understand/deal with them.
In short, I am not made of logic alone. I do, however, function by it. *smiles faintly*
To that end, I may definitely be considered 'ruthlessly pragmatic'. I would hope, however ... that that is not all I may be considered to be.
I rather suspect the latter, though. On a base level, I am, I think ... perhaps you might call it fanciful? *smiles faintly* Incredibly idealistic, more so. Prone to flights of imaginative fancy, to the point of the occasional, completely genuine, moment of existential crisis (I tend to get detached on the end of considerations of scale ... if you go down far enough or up far enough, things tend to shatter - build complexity to the point of ... the confusion becomes too much, and things fail to rationalise, and I lose a sense of order. Without a sense of order I ... tend not to be able to function). I am prone to powerful reactions to non-physical concepts, which is not generally considered a pragmatic thing.
In action (both in the sense of external action -doing things- and internal action -understanding things-), though, I suppose I may quite strongly be considered ... pragmatic.
For functionality, I require a sense of order, at least internal, even if external is not possible. I require access and interlinkage of available information, a list of known knowns and known unknowns, and the awareness of potential unknown unknowns. I need to be able to further rationalise that information into actionable and inactionable, and a prioritisation of needed actions, what information exists to support them, and what ones I'll have to enact regardless of whether I know enough to justify them.
This is not something I require for momentous decisions. This is something I require for the question of 'what chores do I have to do today' and 'A is angry, what do I do'. This is something I genuinely, no matter the nature and size of the decision, require to be able to act. To function.
Because of that, I have become ... pragmatic, in my behaviours.
First of all things, before I do anything, ever, I need information. I am not ... Generally speaking, I am not capable of spontaneous decisions/actions, barring emergencies (and not always then, either, but I'm working on my tendency to freeze up). If I don't know to a reasonable degree what an action will result in, I will not make it, nine times out of ten. Yes, before you ask, this does result in patterns of increasingly restricted behaviour on my part - I'm aware of that, and attempting to work through it. Mostly by increasing my ability to predict consequences (learn more), and by ... redesigning the parameters for 'enough information to consider actionable' (basically, learning how to do the mental equivalent of 'hold your breath, close your eyes, and jump').
Information, to me, comes in three categories: known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Or, put another way, things I know I know, things I know I don't know, and the random shit that happens without warning.
We'll deal with unknown unknowns first, as ... well. There's not much you can do about what you can't predict will happen. You can't prepare or plan for them. The best you can do is build a cushion of capabilities to handle things up to reasonable limits. Generally, I'm surprisingly good at this, within certain parameters - I'm physically capable up to a certain point, I'm mentally capable the same. Emotions ... well. Not so much, but. I also have a certain inbuilt acceptance of uncertainty, and basically ... so long as a thing does not breach your survivable limits, you deal with it as it happens. And if it does breach your survivable limits, there'll be fuck all you can do anyway, so just basically don't worry about it. *shrugs*
Then:
Known knowns are pieces of information that I understand, can fit into situation maps, and almost always consider actionable. They're usually the practical considerations of the situation ("This happened, this was the result of it, this can be fixed/allieviated/understood by doing this"). These are usually the baseline underpinnings of most situations, the ones I act on most often, and I think a lot of the source of my 'pragmatic' reputation.
Things like, my mother is prone to epileptic fits, when they happen there isn't much to do except get her safely onto the ground, guard her head, and wait for her to come out of it. So. If it starts to happen, I get her safely onto the ground, mind her effects, and cradle her head to keep it safe. When it's done, get her to somewhere more permanently safe, ideally to a bed, and let her rest in the wake of it. So. Call a cab if we're out, or a relative with a car, or if we're home, get her upstairs. Done, dusted, no muss, no fuss.
This situation does not cause me to panic. It has a clearly defined parameter, a clearly defined course of action. Longterm effects cannot be guessed at, of course, but in the event they're largely irrelevant. The event can't be stopped, it can't be changed, action is limited to 'make comfortable and ride it out'. Fine. Doable. So long as the event and the actions necessary in it are within my capabilities and my frame of reference, there's no real fear attached to them.
Then there are known unknowns. These are pieces of information that I do not understand, but know are in effect on the situation. Things I know I don't know, but have to deal with regardless. Emotions come under this, also anything outside my experience or capabilities that I am aware are beyond me (things I know I don't know how to do/see/effect).
These are ... more complicated in approach. In the immediacy of the situation, I can't really act on them, so they're more relegated to 'be aware these are affecting the situation, and need to be allowed for/compensated for in reaction'. In general, my approach to very active known unknowns in a situation is a) panic, then b) find someone who does know how to deal with them or, failing that, c) deal with the baseline, actionable situation and hope the other aspects shake out for the best in the aftermath (which amounts to ignore them and hope for the best). Occasionally, if I've had enough past experience of the specific known unknown, I can shove an blanket-stopgap in the face of it (basic protocols like: in the case of active tempers complicating situation, minimise yourself, do not deal directly with anyone, do not speak directly to emotion, do not ask any unnecessary questions, do the job and get the fuck out of the way).
So, in the above example, the fact of having fits causes an emotional response in my mother, particularly if they're in public (shame, usually). I know this. I know it has something to do with being publically vulnerable, with having 'made a spectacle of herself'. This ... does not make much sense to me (feeling shame, yes, I mean, I've felt shame myself, but not ... not really for things I know for a fact I can't help). In the actual situation itself, though, it honestly doesn't occur to me to be embarrassed, or give a blind bit of notice to passersby beyond making sure they're not ringing anyone they shouldn't (ambulances aren't required unless she injured herself going down, generally). The thought of the spectacle we're making just ... doesn't actually enter my consciousness.
I am, however, always aware that it does hers, which is why secondary actions have been tagged on like making sure she's relatively presentable (in a heap on the floor, yes, but not ... I don't even know? Make sure she's neat and contained as possible, be polite to passersby, act calm and rational to minimise the attention paid to the event). The shame doesn't make sense to me, since it's a thing in her brain, it's inactionable, this thing cannot be stopped, so there's no shame in not being able to stop it. *waves hands* Point is, known unknown, I don't actually have to understand how or why it has an effect to know that it does, and that it has to be accounted for in minimising the negative effects of the event. *shrugs* Known unknowns cannot be directly acted upon (well, not knowingly or with reliable results, anyway), but they can be built into the understanding of the situation, and to a limited degree built into the response to it.
They are always, though, of secondary importance to me in deciding how to act. Not because they're less in effect on the situation (some situations are almost entirely effected by things I don't understand - actually, rather a lot of them), but because I can't act on them, so they get bumped down the priority queue in favour of things I can act on (even if 'action' is limited to 'find someone who knows what the fuck is going on, and have them deal with it'). For known unknowns not relating to emotions (like 'the causes of the blips in my mother's brain', for example) ... Basically, if I don't know how to do it, my options are limited to 'find someone who does' or 'stand around helpless', and there's not much I can do about that, so I don't.
And I don't ... I don't particularly bother being upset about it (anymore). *shrugs uneasily* I don't bother feeling ashamed (helpless, yes, ashamed, no). Which is where I think the 'ruthless' part of my 'ruthlessly pragmatic' rep comes in. In that I will actually, and genuinely, look at someone asking me why I'm not doing something, and just go "I can't, so I'm not". It's a statement of fact, and will have no particular remorse attached to it unless it's a thing I should have known how to do (so, I will feel shame for having failed a test I should have known the answers to, but not for having failed to understand the emotional ramifications of a situation when I just basically don't have the equipment to have been able to).
I'm working on expanding my repertoire of things I know how to do, to better account for situations, but until I do know how to do them, there's no point lamenting that I didn't when it mattered. I didn't have the information, therefore I couldn't act on it, it's done, leave it so.
Good gods, I feel like Mr Spock sometimes. Oi. Anyway.
This is not a natural behaviour, for me, or a natural emotional response (those are mostly more on the spectrum of 'run around in blind panic, try to figure out what the fuck happened, be terrified by the idea it might happen again' sometimes to the extent of 'make sure never to be in a situation where that happens again, if necessary by never setting foot outside the door again'). This is the result of having spent years being hemmed in more and more by situations I knew I couldn't deal with, tried to avoid, and ended up chopping out most of, well, life. So, going around the cycle again, I adopted ... the more pragmatic approach.
Internally, first. Strip the situation to baseline (regardless of what it is), deal with the known knowns first, sort out the rest later. Do not let emotional considerations get involved, not yet, you're just basically not good at that, darling, it confuses you whether it's coming from inside or out. Emotion is a known unknown, it's the next level up, we'll get to that once we've got past the 'freeze in terror' phase.
It's basically the result of rationalising my own internal functions, recognising how I worked inside. Strip myself down the way I would a situation, recognise what and how and why, and then figure out how to work with/around it. *smiles faintly* Internally ruthless, too, as much as I can bring myself to be. I cannot function without information, barring real threat to life and limb. There's no point attacking myself because of it, that's not going to change the base situation, so. Deal with it.
The options are, develope ways to gain more information, develope ways to better act on the information you have, and when all those fail, just accept those situations that are honestly beyond you. *shrugs* And once you've done that internally, begin to apply it externally.
*rubs mouth* And the thing is, that works. That works really rather well, with what I am and what I deal with (well, so far). It also ... *frowns* I'm not sure. You can train yourself not to feel, maybe? No. Not not to feel, but ...
I am slightly concerned, sometimes, about how ...
I am ruthlessly pragmatic. Being ruthlessly pragmatic, with myself and with outside situations, works, insofar as surviving them goes (mostly. That is, alive yes, intact, not always). But it has resulted in ...
The easiest way for me to function is drop emotions (my own and those of others) down the priority queue until the practical elements of the situation have been dealt with. In situations that are largely or purely emotional ... Well. I'm largely useless, and generally, these days, don't even bother to apologise for it. I'll do my best (if the emotion has a concrete cause, it will be my preference to tackle that). I just ... I don't know how to change the paths of emotions, I don't know enough of how they work. I'm lucky if I fucking see the damn things in time to realise they're in effect. So.
It does worry me sometimes, though, how much the act of rationalising emotions until it's safe to deal with them (which, in some cases, may be never) seems to give the appearance of not having them.
I do have emotions. I am aware of and affected by their existence in others, even if I can't always see them, and almost never know what to do with them. It's just ... they're always second priority (unless they're the problem, but in those cases my response is usually to try to leave -_-;). Knowledge of their existence is not actionable information for me, most of the time, so they're dumped out to second-string priority (sometimes in the sense of 'I'll deal with it once the fallout happens', sometimes as 'I'll yell/cry/panic later/let you yell/cry/panic later', and sometimes as 'if I ignore this long enough, maybe it'll go away'). *shrugs*
I am ruthlessly pragmatic about things, particularly things that should evoke emotional responses, because so far it has proven to be the most effective way of getting through things relatively intact. And yes, in the process of adopting it, I seem to have successfully trained myself out of certain emotional responses (shame, in certain circumstances), but I'd done that before anyway (anger, to a large and somewhat damaging extent).
Underneath it, I'm still rather fanciful. Rather idealistic. Still rather prone to very strong feelings in response to things that probably rationally should not provoke that depth of response. *shrugs faintly*
I do, however, often not identifiably feel things I am 'supposed' to feel in certain situations (or show them wrongly even if I'm feeling them). Some of this might be that my definition of what a thing should feel like ... Um. Because I seem to operate off a different set of terminology from most people, sometimes I have trouble telling if a thing I'm feeling matches the description of an emotion/fuzzy concept enough to count. Or ... be remotely related to at all. So. Sometimes I'm actually not sure what the hell emotion I'm feeling, and trying to describe it often gets ... interesting results? (Something similar, maybe, to someone trying to describe 'red' to a blind person). But that's ... a different thing, never mind.
Ah. Lets sum up. In the course of dealing with ... pretty much everything, my typical MO is to strip it down to pragmatic concerns first, deal with what it is possible to deal with among them, and sort everything else (including my and other people's emotions on the subject) out later. I do, however, actually still have emotions, and I am aware of and accounting for at least their potential existence in others, even if it is not within my current capabilities to see/understand/deal with them.
In short, I am not made of logic alone. I do, however, function by it. *smiles faintly*
To that end, I may definitely be considered 'ruthlessly pragmatic'. I would hope, however ... that that is not all I may be considered to be.