Theory of Knowledge: Emotion

Why has emotion sometimes been seen as a less valuable way of knowing than, say, reason? Or does the value of emotion as a way of knowing depend on the kind of knowledge being pursued?
Emotion has always been stereotyped as a lesser way of knowing rather than the other 3 main methods, which are; language, reason, and perception. This has always occured as emotion seems to be a burden instead of help in mans pursuit for the truth or perfect knowledge. Philosophers who then became stoics tried to establish a perfect mindset that always rejected emotion as they had thought that emotion would get in the way for obtaining perfect knowledge. People also associate this stereotype in modern life as they seem to think that only reason is a way to obtain knowledge, as knowledge only seems to be associated by using reason; and the others language, perception, emotion either help the process in obtaining, conveying, or in this sense, emotion as a burden for the process.
But this stereotype like most stereotypes associated within our lives, has its flaws and its truths, this perception of emotion being a blockade or a burden is slightly true but it can also be a great help if you are seeking a certain type of knowledge. Emotion is the main reason for our ability to make decisions when reason is not able to make our minds up for ourselves. This is true as those who have suffered accidents and have had their limbic system (thalamus, hypothalamus, etc), or their area for controlling emotion sustain damage, they are unable to make decisions.
Thus emotion has to be used for a way to find knowledge as it will help us believe and make decisions in what we believe, but at times may also become a burden for finding knowledge which requires the use of logic. This occurs as both logic and emotion are part of the same spectrum but on the opposite ends, thus emotion and logic have to be used for different types of knowledge.