http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan

Rabindranath Tagore "A mind all logic is like a knife all blade: it makes the hand bleed that wields it."

A Straw Vulcan is a straw man that is used to show that emotion is better than logic.

It starts by having characters who think "logically" try to solve a problem - and they can't. Either they can't find any answer, or they're caught in some kind of standoff, or every answer they can think of has some tradeoff that's unacceptable to the other characters, or they're even stuck in a Logic Bomb-type loop. Once this is established, someone who uses good old human emotion comes up with a solution that the logical thinker can't. This provides An Aesop that emotion is superior and that the logical thinker shouldn't trust logic so much.

Advertisement:

Fiction often gets the concept of logic wrong in a number of ways.

The most common mistake is to assume that logic and emotion are somehow naturally opposed and that employing one means you can't have the other note For some more information, see Somatic marker hypothesis . While there are criticisms, the hypothesis makes the case of emotion being a bigger foundation of rational decision making that one may think. Excluding emotion doesn't make your reasoning logical, however, and it certainly doesn't cause your answer to be automatically true. Likewise, an emotional response doesn't preclude logical thinking — although it may prevent you from thinking in the first place — and if a plan someone defended for emotional reasons is successful, that doesn't make logic somehow wrong.

The word "emotion" is often used here in places where "intuition" or "instinct" might be more accurate: i.e., instances where the subconscious mind reaches a correct answer faster than the conscious mind can perform a step-by-step reasoned analysis (such as, "Run!" or "Shoot!" or "I get a trustworthy vibe from this stranger,"); or feats of lateral thinking that involve bypassing the sort of rigid categorization systems that western philosophy traditionally favors. This sort of thing is a perfectly legitimate dichotomy, but the issue is rarely described this way, instead calling it "logic vs. emotion," which is probably less accurate.

Advertisement:

Because the writers are more concerned with setting up their straw man than in handling logic correctly, they will often misuse and distort the concept to create contrived examples where what they're calling "logic" doesn't work. Common situations include:

Note that the application of some of these does not inherently make a character a Straw Vulcan. If a logical thinker finds it difficult to predict the actions of irrational people, and it is portrayed as a character flaw or limitation, then it is not this trope. It is only this trope if this is treated as a problem of logical thinking itself, rather than as a character specific problem.

This trope was explored (and TV Tropes namechecked) in a speech by Julia Galef at Skepticon 4 in 2011.

See Dumb Is Good, Logical Fallacies, Giving Up on Logic, Simpleminded Wisdom, Don't Think, Feel, and Measuring the Marigolds. Compare Straw Hypocrite. The existence of this character means that the writer falls on the Romanticist side of Romanticism Versus Enlightenment. Contrast to Emotions vs. Stoicism. Opposite trope to Strawman Emotional.

Examples:

open/close all folders

Anime & Manga

Comedy

On The Album of the Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, a logician starts out pointing out incongruities in the witch-burning scene before he goes off on a tangent about his sexually unsatisfied wife. He finishes with the unproven conclusion that sex is more fun than logic.

Comic Books

In Logicomix, Ferge is totally honest and devoted to truth & logic. Sadly, this devotion combined with Ignorant of Their Own Ignorance leads to Black and White Insanity in the form of a Straw Vulcan despise for women and jews. On the whole, this make him a Troubled Sympathetic Bigot who is desperately trying to do the right thing.

One of Brainiac 5's roles in the Legion of Super-Heroes is to be a Straw Vulcan for the more emotional superheroes, like Dream Girl and Bouncing Boy.

Transformers: Oddly enough, averted in the comics with regard to Shockwave. Shockwave is a cold, calculating Decepticon warrior who embraces pure logic... but his definition of logic is, in fact correct - "the course of action with the highest possibility of victory." In the old Marvel Transformers comics, he once ceded leadership of the Decepticons to Megatron, convinced that Megatron's logic was superior. In IDW's early comics, the trope is played with when he's confronted with the raw, animal fury of the Dynobots (known in most other continuities as the Dinobots); his usual cold, calculating strategy was unable to stand up against their savage assault, and he decides to think like the enemy... and goes berserk simply to match their brutality pound-for-pound, allowing an emotion to become a factor in his logic. That emotion was rage, and it served Shockwave well, winning him the fight. An unforeseen weapon on the Dynobots' ship incapacitated him by causing a volcanic eruption once he'd switched off his anger program, but note that he gave in to emotion simply because it was logical to leave cold reasoning behind and embrace fury. Prowl plays the trope in a more straight-forward way. He is logical to a fault. This is presented like something good, since he is one of the best Autobot tacticians... and like something bad, since Prowl is downright unable to stand illogical things or let himself deal with their existence. He is capable of staying paralyzed in the heat of a battle as he tries making sense out of whatever has got him perplexed. The Autobot's first bout against the Decepticons in the Marvel comics is a good example of it. As the Decepticons were shooting at them and its squad was scrambling around, Prowl remained still as he tried to understand why the nearby cars (they were in a parking) were not running away.

The Guardians of the Universe have been made into Straw Vulcans more and more with each writer. They did always have a stoic and cold sense to them, but recent story arcs put great emphasis on their hatred of all emotion, even from those within their own Corps, all while they become less competent and trustworthy. In the Blackest Night Crisis Crossover one of the Guardians, when asked why his people chose to defend the cosmos, replied "I don't remember," in spite of their motivations having been well-established for some time.

The conclusion to the very first Dan Dare story was based on this trope. The logical Treens of North Venus had long ago destroyed their beasts of burden which they regarded as useless in a mechanical age. Then they ended up at war with the equally advanced Therons of the South, and each side rendered all the other's weapons useless. Stalemate. Then Dan realised that the Earth habit of enjoying things just for their own sake, such as archery, horse riding, canoeing and glider flying meant that Earth had exactly what was needed to break the deadlock. A volley of arrows followed by a thunderous cavalry charge won the decisive battle.

Tom Strong: Averted by Quetzalcoatl-9, a supercomputer created by parallel-universe Aztecs. He states straight-up that he is trusting Tom because it's the logical thing to do; they're in a textbook Prisoner's Dilemma, and trust, on average, yields slightly better results.

Fan Works

Averted in classic Spock fashion by T'Var in The Wrong Reflection. She calmly decides that achieving the mission objective to get the USS Bajor into the Mirror Universe is more important than her life, and so uses her ship to block a ramming attack against the Bajor. The other screening vessels were out of position and both ships' weapons were damaged, so it was really the only option.

Film

Not even Robot Monster could calculate love...

I, Robot: An example that may or may not be an aversion: Part of the backstory of the protagonist is that earlier in his life, a robot was faced with a choice of saving him or a young girl. He had a 45% chance of survival, and she had a 11% percent chance of survival, so the robot chose to save him. His complaint is that the wrong kind of logic was applied; he viewed her life as being worth more than his, so, to him, she should have been saved. This became the main reason for the protagonist's hatred of robots. In the commentary, the director said that the robot who saved Smith did the right thing, and that Smith was bothered by that knowledge. V.I.K.I.'s motivations are entirely rooted in logical thought. Sonny even comments that he can understand the logic behind the plan perfectly, "but it just seems too... heartless." V.I.K.I. 's motivations are logical for her premise, it's her premise/goal that is wrong. She is looking to save lives at all costs, but one could argue there was a much better way to go about the coup that wouldn't set up an us-vs-them mentality that would encourage humans to fight to the death. The problem is that humans want more than just personal survival. We would rather accept small risk if it means enjoyment or a meaning in life, and would be inadvertently encouraged to die for freedom when it's an And I Must Scream world dictated by robots. If she had started out with the premise of "I must preserve human happiness" instead of "I must preserve human life" things would have been far different. Of course, life, unlike happiness, can be quantified, and even logic based on preserving and maximizing happiness can become something horrific when pushed to its logical conclusions.

Star Trek: Used in Star Trek (2009) (probably as an intentional Shout-Out) when Spock seeks to regroup with the rest of the surviving fleet, yet the seemingly invincible Narada is headed to destroy Earth; Kirk takes the opposing emotional side, notes the Earth will be doomed while the fleet rallies, and opts to face the Narada in a head on, likely suicidal confrontation. This time, however, Spock is captain, and outranks Kirk. Later Kirk shows that Spock is emotionally compromised and takes command. In both instances we are talking about the young Spock from the alternate timeline created by the Narada at the beginning of the film. Both subverted and played out straight in Star Trek VI. At one point Spock answers an appeal to logic from his protege Valeris by saying, "Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end." During the remainder of the film, Spock is often telling outright lies or asking crewmembers to do so (acts that certainly go against what Vulcans traditionally consider logical) and describing the lies as "a miscommunication" and other euphemisms...anything but "a lie." But in the end, we find that for reasons she considers "logical," Valeris has conspired to assassinate Klingon Chancellor Gorkon and frame Kirk for his murder. When she says she doesn't recall the names of her fellow conspirators, Spock asks, "A lie?" She replies, "A choice." Averted in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, where Spock sacrifices himself by exposing himself to lethal doses of radiation to save the Enterprise, and justifies his actions on the basis of logic. While McCoy and Kirk both hate Spock's actions on emotional grounds, Spock's cold logic saves the ship and is held up as one of the most awesome and heroic moments in the entire franchise. His plan is logical, but is poorly explained. He states "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one". Considering that he was going to die anyway if he *didn't* try his plan, it's absolutely logical for him to do so. Note also that this quote is a basic philosophical tenet of Utilitarianism, and is *not* considered an uncontroversial, absolute truth. Those who follow more Deontological philosophies would heartily disagree. In the same film, Spock argues that Kirk accepting promotion is illogical ("a waste of material") because he makes a better starship captain than an admiral. In most scenarios, choosing to do what one loves over accepting a higher rank is presented as the "emotional" response.

The computer in WarGames is supposed to have mastered all sorts of game theory, without ever having realized that there could possibly be a game in which neither player could win (until, of course at the end, they introduce it to tic-tac-toe, and have it play against itself) . The message isn't so much that you can't win a nuclear war, but that the correct move is not to "play the game" at all. At least that seems to be the Aesop. In any case, WOPPER's "logic" is sound and subverts the notion that one can rationally plan a nuclear war, so this may count as a subversion of the trope. There IS a flaw in the use of Tic-Tac-Toe as an example: as a "solved" game there actually is a correct move for every board state, and since the first move is what directs the flow of the game the message is more like "go first and hope your opponent makes a mistake".

. The message isn't so much that you can't win a nuclear war, but that the correct move is not to "play the game" at all. At least that seems to be the Aesop. In any case, WOPPER's "logic" is sound and subverts the notion that one can rationally plan a nuclear war, so this may count as a subversion of the trope. Dr. Ellie Arroway in Contact is a SETI researcher who argues that Occam's Razor makes it more likely that humans invented the idea of God rather than God creating the world without a shred of proof pointing to his existence. During the hearing in which Ellie claimed she had a trip through the Stargate and encountered an alien (when all the witnesses and recorded data indicates the Stargate was a complete failure and nothing happened), Occam's Razor is flung back in her face: is it more likely that she hallucinated the journey or that the aliens sent her through the Stargate without leaving a shred of proof? Ellie concedes this but refuses to withdraw her position because her experience was too monumental for humanity's future to dismiss on logic alone. The kicker: the Christian philosopher whose personal religious awakening she (politely) dismissed as a psychological phenomenon is the first person to believe her: not because If Jesus, Then Aliens but because they're both committed to the truth. She ultimately continues her SETI research in hopes of finding more signs of extra-terrestrial life, proving that (at least where aliens are concerned) faith and logic can coexist.

the Christian philosopher whose personal religious awakening she (politely) dismissed as a psychological phenomenon is the first person to believe her: not because If Jesus, Then Aliens but because they're both committed to the truth. She ultimately continues her SETI research in hopes of finding more signs of extra-terrestrial life, proving that (at least where aliens are concerned) faith and logic can coexist. Scarlett in GI Joe The Rise Of Cobra: ("Emotions are not based in science. And if you can't quantify or prove something exists, well, in my mind, it doesn't.") Subsequently somewhat parodied by Ripcord, paraphrasing Scarlett's line while doing a (bad) Spock voice.

The Phantom Menace: Qui-Gon's actions on Tatooine. Supposedly, the mystical and mysterious Force leads him to bet everything on the performance of an unknown boy in a dangerous pod race — a convoluted gambit that only a fellow Jedi can understand. The truth is much simpler: the situation is so dire (marooned on a remote planet with no comm, no FTL drive, no money to repair it, no ability to use a Jedi Mind Trick on the one person who has a replacement drive, a moral code that won't let him steal it, and a high degree of urgency) that the strange bet is the best available option. Fridge Logic: Qui-Gon would rather pretend that he's being guided by the ineffable, infallible Force than admit to Queen Amidala that he's making a desperate gamble because he's run out of alternatives. He also neglects the obvious path of trading the disabled ship for a smaller working one, or just finding someone willing to do a currency exchange.

Delacourt from Elysium, though she's a crafty enough operator that she has no problem invoking emotion to make a point. But the slightly-robotic way she does it (and everything else, for that matter) indicates that she probably doesn't actually feel it, but is simply just that bigoted.

The Mist: Norton and his group of skeptics who leave the store because they don't believe there are any monsters in the mist. Lets back up a step. If the skeptics are right about the mist being natural and stay in the store then the weather will blow over in a few hours to a day or someone will come by looking for the grocery store and update them on the situation. They are on their way after a short delay, at most a major inconvenience, or loss of jobs or other personal commitments. If the other groups are right about the mist and there are monsters outside the best bet for survival is not to go outside to be picked off by monsters. The risk analysis of the situation, however low the probability of lethal monsters, would point to staying in the well stocked grocery store and not wandering off. So of course they choose the 'rational choice' after concluding there are no monsters and immediately decide to leave. Norton tells David right before he leaves that if he's wrong the joke will be on him. Poor decision or not, he is at least willing to admit that much. In the novella, David thinks that Norton is, at some level, committing deliberate suicide. It's worth noting other characters also choose to enter the mist early and end up surviving, and better-of than those who chose to to remain.

Literature

Live-Action TV

Music

Role-Playing Games

Michelle Glados of Dino Attack RPG considers herself to be the perfect scientist because she does not dilute her "logic" with "weaknesses" such as emotion, allowing Rex to deliver a "The Reason You Suck" Speech about how Glados's lack of emotion is a weakness in itself. Michelle Glados: "I do not feel disturbed at all. I do not feel remorse, I do not feel pity, I do not feel compassion. I feel... nothing. I am the perfect scientist, you see, because I have the clearest mind of all, for my judgment and my actions are never hindered by weaknesses such as emotion."

Tabletop Games

Tech-Priests in Warhammer 40,000. Given how often they schism over what's "logical" and how often other characters call them on it it's more of a Running Gag than anything.

A variation of this can happen to Alchemicals in Exalted — as they grow into cities, install Exemplar charms, or go long periods without human interaction, they accumulate Clarity. The sourcebook for Alchemicals goes out of its way to point out that this means they focus on efficiency and do not become needlessly cruel.

In Genius: The Transgression, we have Atomists, the Lemurian technocrats. They believe every problem can be solved with technology... including social ones. When you combine this with their literal insanity it has predictable results.

Video Games

Averted with First Lieutenant Lin from Advance Wars: Days of Ruin (AKA "Dark Conflict", in Europe and Australia), a highly logical tactician who nevertheless concedes command of the army to Ed (Will in Days of Ruin), on the grounds that he is better respected by the troops and civilians and will therefore be a more effective leader. At one point, she even commends Ed for giving an emotional speech to motivate the troops. There's also the scene where she had Greyfield/Sigismundo at her mercy, and he tries to save himself by pointing out that she'd be doing the same thing he did . She agrees... and shoots him anyway.

The New Enlightenment in the Interactive Fiction Square Circle embodies this.

Dissidia Final Fantasy: Onion Knight gets this, spelled out in that story's ending narration: "He thought that avoiding mistakes and making decisions based on logic - instead of emotion - was the only way to reach the truth. But the boy has learned ... that he can tap into immeasurable strength when he searches deep inside his heart."

gets this, spelled out in that story's ending narration: Everyone in the Junkyard in Digital Devil Saga starts as one, though with less straw than most. Some change almost immediately upon infection with the demon virus while others take a long time. Gale is the longest hold-out and actively resists the mental changes. Gale's plans are always direct and effective if occasionally callous - he proposes making and betraying an alliance almost right away, and offhandedly suggests massive destruction to take down the Chronic Backstabber. He also doesn't understand things such as Argilla's anguish after Jinana dies , nor why Lupa vows upon his honor, but he still respects the emotional factor in others' decisions and concedes after voicing his concerns.

, nor why Lupa vows upon his honor, but he still respects the emotional factor in others' decisions and concedes after voicing his concerns. Played truly bizarrely in one route of Zero Escape Virtue's Last Reward, where Phi, in discussing the Prisoner's Dilemma and Ambidex Game, continually refers to "Betray" as the "logical" and "rational" decision... despite going in depth on how it's sub-optimal for both the group and the individual, meaning that it's illogical and irrational by real-world rather than Straw Vulcan definitions of logic, unless for some reason you were applying logic with the goal of "Make the least advantageous decision." If you don't know what decision the other player will make, it is the most logical choice. If they chose to ally, then you're better off if you betray than if you ally. If they choose to betray, then you're still better off if you betray than if you ally (at least in the standard version—there's supposed to be a motivation to betray if you know your opponent will do the same, forming a Nash equilibrium at betray/betray).

Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins has this role in your party. The most striking example being her objection to help out with the situation in Redcliffe, because it presents a huge delay in your quest to stop the Darkspawn, despite the fact that helping them would get the Grey Wardens some crucial allies for their fight against the Darkspawn. It turns out later that she was deliberately conditioned to not want to help people while growing up, and her arguments are rationalizations.

Racter from Shadowrun: Hong Kong firmly believes that humanity can only reach true transcendence via complete cyberization. This is in the face of the fact that cybernetics in the Shadowrun universe are known to literally eat your soul and have in the past turned people who put a bit too many cybernetics into themselves into crazed, emotionless psychopaths, but Racter actually believes that emotions are what is holding humanity back from transcendence anyways. Racter himself is half cybernetic, but he doesn't experience the side effects (or so he says) because he was already diagnosed with sociopathy as a young child. Thus, his belief is that the one thing that prevents humanity from reaching its true potential is its capacity for emotions.

Web Comics

Western Animation