That was a pleasure to read.
"Negatives and positives are often left up to the emotions to decide and since the emotions favour positive feelings, the feelings created by psychological discomfort are classed negative. People will then continually avoid doing what may be beneficial because it doesn't feel good to do so."
I highly agree to this insight and am happy that you found the expression for it. I am going probably to use it and quote you if you don't mind :-)
Just recently I were caught in the situation where uncontrolled emotions overrode the debate. Actually this is such a high complex topic, I am cracking my head over it for many years when it comes to my own acting and reacting in the world.
What I observe within myself is the increasing resistance to talk about politics, religion, minorities, tolerance, the neighbor, the rich, the poor and so on and so forth.
In particular when the participants of the discussion actually do know each other but act as if strangers were joining and an opinion which might be not agreed on at first must be therefore attacked. I guess it is my refusal to take those topics serious which partly caused disharmony and that my so called "argument" were neglecting what my conversation partner who was totally engaged in the debate wanted me to understand.
There was no space for doing what would have been beneficial.
BUT:
But since my mindset is so intricate that I take a positive view of this incident by saying: "Here a system has been disturbed and this disturbance of harmony is always too good for something, this absolute view of the fact that it was only bad, what happened, cannot apply.
I just wrote an article about "disturbance". I would love to see you reading it.