The dominance of conclusions over arguments

[keannu]

The dominance of conclusions over arguments is most pronounced where emotions are involved. The psychologist Paul Slovic has proposed a theory in which people let their likes and dislikes determine their beliefs about the world. Your political ①preference determines the arguments that you find compelling. If you like the current health policy, you believe its benefits are substantial and its costs ②more manageable than the costs of alternatives. If you are a hawk in your attitude toward other nations, you probably think they are relatively weak and likely to ③submit to your country’s will. If you are a dove, you probably think they are strong and will not be easily persuaded. Your emotional attitude to such things as red meat, nuclear power, tattoos, or motorcycles ④follows your beliefs about their benefits and their risks. If you ⑤dislike any of these things, you probably believe that its risks are high and its benefits negligible.
==============================
What does the underlined mean? Does it mean "conclusion can be more easily made when emotions are involved, emotions can affect conclusions greatly?"

 

[emsr2d2]

It means that people who involve their emotions in their thinking tend to allow their (pre-conceived) conclusions to dominate any arguments which might go against their pre-conceptions. It suggests that if you allow your emotions to get involved when thinking about something, you are less likely to hear/understand (or be swayed by) other arguments.