I wonder if he applied this process to himself.
I think to much reason may lead to a numbness. Things becoming meaningless abstractions. Endless ruminations and calculations.

I think exploring the unconscious might be a route to understanding emotional responses including prejudices and biases. I am not sure what reason would tell us about our values other than leading us to value nihilism.

I think exploring the unconscious might be a route to understanding emotional responses including prejudices and biases. I am not sure what reason would tell us about our values other than leading us to value nihilism. — Andrew4Handel

You could invert this, and assert that the above thinking is trying to address such an issue as arriving at nihilism and staying steadfast. I see nothing wrong with the methodology, just interested in any attempts at implementing it. This isn't only about psychologizing; but, analysis of the method by which to interpret 'findings' about one's self.

What would Wittgenstein say about this method?

analysis of the method by which to interpret 'findings' about one's self. — Posty McPostface

I don't think you can come to a resolution about oneself, but rather can remain in a state of flux constantly reevaluating.

Is Russell suggesting reason will diminish feelings of anxiety and hate? It seems to me that anxiety could be an appropriate response to an evaluation likewise other negative emotions such as resentment and anger.

And it seems that emotions rather than reason will resolve prejudice where you may have prejudicial views but then the emotions guide you away, such as a feeling of compassion.

I think contact with others can diminish some prejudice because when you see the other as the same or as exhibiting feelings then it may undermine negative values you had formed.

On the other hand negative encounters may reinforce prejudice.

I don't think you can come to a resolution about oneself, but rather can remain in a state of flux constantly reevaluating. — Andrew4Handel

So, there is no hope of remission for the depressive or anxious type?

Is Russell suggesting reason will diminish feelings of anxiety and hate? It seems to me that anxiety could be an appropriate response to an evaluation likewise other negative emotions such as resentment and anger. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not sure myself. I am pondering on the quote as we go by. I think, that he means to say that reason and emotions are not two separate entities of the mind. It sounds by this quote that he is advocating a Humean approach to solving an inner conflict, whatever that is.

And it seems that emotions rather than reason will resolve prejudice where you may have prejudicial views but then the emotions guide you away, such as a feeling of compassion. — Andrew4Handel

Well, emotions can only go so far without the use of reason. I suppose that Russell is advocating the judicial use of reason where emotions arise in a reflexive sense.

I'm trying to decide what grade to give Reason. On the one hand, he is a good boy in school and at home. On the other hand, he often fails to complete his assignments. What he says in class is always sensible, but Anxiety, Hatred, Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, Sloth, Despair, Depression, Hopelessness, Bias, Prejudice, and Nihilism quite often run circles around him. Everyone thinks he should be able to deal with these adversaries better than he does.

I'm going to give him A over C+: A for potential, C+ for performance.

Bertie was a smart cookie born into aristocracy. Even if life wasn't perfect for him, he probably didn't have to spend a lot of time figuring out how to get enough to eat, get admitted to college, find a job to keep him alive and pay back his college loans, etc. Being born into aristocracy isn't enough, of course. Many an aristocrat was a dumb ox. I've read quite a few of his essays and they are quite sensible. He was on the "right side" of any number of social issues. But...

Our 3 pound brain isn't made of discrete modules. It's all stuffed into the skull and it's functions are a mess of cross-wiring. Reason doesn't get to function all by itself; neither do the emotions. Neither do the senses, the motor functions, memory, etc. Given sufficiently strong emotional storms, reason does well to add 2+2 and get 4. But most of the time, most of us are reasonably balanced, and our various poorly delineated parts manage to work in concert and we get along fairly well.

Some people perform better than others. The minds seem to be calm and clear, and are not often wracked by crippling anxieties, fears, or despair. They have a very positive cast--and I don't think people can take credit for that. It's great, but it's given, not achieved. Cool, clear, positive minds manage life well, if anybody does. If they are very bright, and are privileged enough to be well educated, they may contribute a great deal. But again, the are the beneficiaries of gifts (by nature).

"Many people have some sort of antipathy/hatred towards rationality. This reason hatred is due to a wrong conception about the nature/functionality of reason. They were thought, or in some cases they were outright indoctrinated, that reason has nothing to do with emotions, that reason has nothing to do with values. It has everything to do with both emotions and values." — Bertrand Russell, In the search of happiness.

Thoughts? Does this pertain to prejudice and bias or is it more general? — Posty McPostface

Yes, it pertains to prejudice and bias towards and against rationality, which, as Russell identifies, is this misconception about the nature/functionality of reason. But it takes two to tango, as they say, for while a group of philosophers, i.e. Thomas Carlyle, had worked overtime and graveyard shift to correct the directional error of rational argument, another group's blind spot was instrumental in driving our conception of rationality towards the mechanical and the physical.

So, there is no hope of remission for the depressive or anxious type? — Posty McPostface

I don't know. I am on medication for persistent anxiety and depression. I think a lot of people with mental illnesses are on medication.

Reason might be able to support or collaborate with these interventions.

The point I make is that there might be valid reasons for anxiety like job loss, death, an assault or bullying and so on. Reason might work on some irrational emotions.

In the case of prejudice I don't know whether or not being intelligent makes you less prejudice. You would think it would but there is some counter evidence.

But he showed, by reason, in a self justifying manner that bias can be checked in place by reason. Meaning empirically that bias can be uneducated from a rational mind.

Thoughts?

Russell was a good logician, but probably not the best psychologist...

Reason can definately help to loosen the grip of some negative emotion/values held... but something more is needed usually to close the deal.

My mother is afraid to fly in plains, yet has no problem driving a car... no amount of perfectly valid reasons, for instance that cars are more deadly and dangerous than plains, will make her fear for plains go away. I've tried.

What does seem to work better, is something that interacts more directly with experience and emotions, like desensitization for irrational fears.

But he showed, by reason, in a self justifying manner that bias can be checked in place by reason. Meaning empirically that bias can be uneducated from a rational mind. — Posty McPostface

Okay, that does not contradict anything here, though. Meaning, we're on the same page.

Reason can definately help to loosen the grip of some negative emotion/values held... but something more is needed usually to close the deal. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, this is exactly what he's saying -- careful examination of the situation. By examination he means using reason as the method. Obviously, if someone needs treatment for a phobia, reason, as implied by his statement, should help you arrive at that decision.

Why do you think that's exactly what he saying?

At the end of the first paragraph he saying for instance:

"and to convince yourself (after examining them) that they are more then absurd"

And then he doesn't seem to indicate anything other than reason to solve the problem. In the third paragraph he goes on to say:

"It is wrong to believe that by letting reason intervene and reduce (or if lucky completely eliminate) these affects( negative emotions or passions as the antics called them), we'll automatically reduce the good emotions/passions too - those that reason does not condemn"

This seems to imply that reason itself can reduce or eliminate the emotions...

I mean, maybe he has a more nuanced view on it than can be deduced from these quotes, but so far he sounds like the typical philosopher overvaluing reason.

This seems to imply that reason itself can reduce or eliminate the emotions... — ChatteringMonkey

Heavens, no!
He is explaining that our fear of reason -- fear that by being rationalistic, we inadvertently also minimize the "good emotions/passions" -- is unwarranted.