Cognitive Dissonance

[PMZ]

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

But isn't an ignoramus being a jerk someone who refuses to weigh new information and justifies their behavior based on what they already know despite new information?

Refusing to weigh new information is not cognitive dissonance. If they did evaluate new information, realized that their opinion is wrong, and then made up a reason to continue believing as they had all along in spite of the new information then that would be cognitive dissonance.

Doesn't it depend on the reason that the refuse to weigh new information?

 

[KokomoJojo]

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

But isn't an ignoramus being a jerk someone who refuses to weigh new information and justifies their behavior based on what they already know despite new information?

Refusing to weigh new information is not cognitive dissonance. If they did evaluate new information, realized that their opinion is wrong, and then made up a reason to continue believing as they had all along in spite of the new information then that would be cognitive dissonance.

holding 2 contradicting beliefs at the same time.

 

[Casjah]

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

But isn't an ignoramus being a jerk someone who refuses to weigh new information and justifies their behavior based on what they already know despite new information?

Refusing to weigh new information is not cognitive dissonance. If they did evaluate new information, realized that their opinion is wrong, and then made up a reason to continue believing as they had all along in spite of the new information then that would be cognitive dissonance.

Refusing to evaluate new information is usually the result of discomfort. People don't want their paradigm to change because it feels like stepping out into a blizzard butt naked. It's more comfortable to sit on the couch wearing slippers and a warm robe sipping hot chocolate. Intellectual laziness is a better phrase for what the OP is describing.

 

[PMZ]

But isn't an ignoramus being a jerk someone who refuses to weigh new information and justifies their behavior based on what they already know despite new information?

Refusing to weigh new information is not cognitive dissonance. If they did evaluate new information, realized that their opinion is wrong, and then made up a reason to continue believing as they had all along in spite of the new information then that would be cognitive dissonance.

Refusing to evaluate new information is usually the result of discomfort. People don't want their paradigm to change because it feels like stepping out into a blizzard butt naked. It's more comfortable to sit on the couch wearing slippers and a warm robe sipping hot chocolate. Intellectual laziness is a better phrase for what the OP is describing.

And intellectual dishonesty.

 

[lakeview]

Doesn't it depend on the reason that the refuse to weigh new information?

No. If they don't read it, for whatever reason, then they don't know what it said and it can't cause an internal conflict. What you're talking about is willful ignorance...now that can be found in this forum in abundance.

 

[lakeview]

holding 2 contradicting beliefs at the same time.

Yes, as long as the person knows that the two beliefs contradict each other.

 

[ShawnChris13]

holding 2 contradicting beliefs at the same time.

Yes, as long as the person knows that the two beliefs contradict each other.

In a debate it is obvious that all new information contradicts what was previously stated. Which is why if the person is paying attention must to some degree weigh the new information and compare it with the old.

 

[Listening]

holding 2 contradicting beliefs at the same time.

Yes, as long as the person knows that the two beliefs contradict each other.

In a debate it is obvious that all new information contradicts what was previously stated. Which is why if the person is paying attention must to some degree weigh the new information and compare it with the old.

Shawn,

Could you please provide an example of what you are arguing here. I believe we agree, but I'd like to see it play out.

How do you feel about Pelosi's stance on Obama being accurate when Obama said himself he wasn't ?

 

[lakeview]

holding 2 contradicting beliefs at the same time.

Yes, as long as the person knows that the two beliefs contradict each other.

In a debate it is obvious that all new information contradicts what was previously stated. Which is why if the person is paying attention must to some degree weigh the new information and compare it with the old.

This is not necessarily true. One of the things debaters try to do is show that the opponent's information isn't applicable to the discussion. In other words, just because you said it don't make it so, even if it's footnoted and referenced.

In an informal setting, such as this forum, even if you do read new information and even if you accept it as accurate that still doesn't mean that you have to adopt it as part of your belief system because for the most part here we discuss opinion...you can hold the opinions you hold without internal conflict even knowing that others disagree with you because on many of the issues discussed there is no clear right and wrong, therefore no internal conflict.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Yes, as long as the person knows that the two beliefs contradict each other.

In a debate it is obvious that all new information contradicts what was previously stated. Which is why if the person is paying attention must to some degree weigh the new information and compare it with the old.

Shawn,



Could you please provide an example of what you are arguing here. I believe we agree, but I'd like to see it play out.



How do you feel about Pelosi's stance on Obama being accurate when Obama said himself he wasn't ?

I would say that Pelosi had repeated the same things he had been saying for three years and now she is trying to save face.

I don't know if that helps :/

 

[ShawnChris13]

Yes, as long as the person knows that the two beliefs contradict each other.

In a debate it is obvious that all new information contradicts what was previously stated. Which is why if the person is paying attention must to some degree weigh the new information and compare it with the old.

This is not necessarily true. One of the things debaters try to do is show that the opponent's information isn't applicable to the discussion. In other words, just because you said it don't make it so, even if it's footnoted and referenced.



In an informal setting, such as this forum, even if you do read new information and even if you accept it as accurate that still doesn't mean that you have to adopt it as part of your belief system because for the most part here we discuss opinion...you can hold the opinions you hold without internal conflict even knowing that others disagree with you because on many of the issues discussed there is no clear right and wrong, therefore no internal conflict.

Yes I agree. However there are portions of arguments that contain facts which sway opinion. Numbers are used in and out of context in order to use a position that suits their situation.

My example for that would be Paul Ryan's budget during the last election and Obama's projected numbers for the cost of Obamacare.

 

[Listening]

In a debate it is obvious that all new information contradicts what was previously stated. Which is why if the person is paying attention must to some degree weigh the new information and compare it with the old.

Shawn,



Could you please provide an example of what you are arguing here. I believe we agree, but I'd like to see it play out.



How do you feel about Pelosi's stance on Obama being accurate when Obama said himself he wasn't ?

I would say that Pelosi had repeated the same things he had been saying for three years and now she is trying to save face.

I don't know if that helps :/

I am talking about the fact that she is holding to this idea that he was accurate when even he's not saying that. Is that an example of what you are talking about ?

I watched and interview with David Gregory where she repeatedly dodged the questions and held to positions everyone knows are crap.

 

[lakeview]

In a debate it is obvious that all new information contradicts what was previously stated. Which is why if the person is paying attention must to some degree weigh the new information and compare it with the old.

This is not necessarily true. One of the things debaters try to do is show that the opponent's information isn't applicable to the discussion. In other words, just because you said it don't make it so, even if it's footnoted and referenced.



In an informal setting, such as this forum, even if you do read new information and even if you accept it as accurate that still doesn't mean that you have to adopt it as part of your belief system because for the most part here we discuss opinion...you can hold the opinions you hold without internal conflict even knowing that others disagree with you because on many of the issues discussed there is no clear right and wrong, therefore no internal conflict.

Yes I agree. However there are portions of arguments that contain facts which sway opinion. Numbers are used in and out of context in order to use a position that suits their situation.

My example for that would be Paul Ryan's budget during the last election and Obama's projected numbers for the cost of Obamacare.

But even in this example there is no right or wrong. A Socialist isn't going to see the numbers the same way a fiscal conservative will see them. I don't see how this causes cognitive dissonance.

 

[ShawnChris13]

This is not necessarily true. One of the things debaters try to do is show that the opponent's information isn't applicable to the discussion. In other words, just because you said it don't make it so, even if it's footnoted and referenced.







In an informal setting, such as this forum, even if you do read new information and even if you accept it as accurate that still doesn't mean that you have to adopt it as part of your belief system because for the most part here we discuss opinion...you can hold the opinions you hold without internal conflict even knowing that others disagree with you because on many of the issues discussed there is no clear right and wrong, therefore no internal conflict.

Yes I agree. However there are portions of arguments that contain facts which sway opinion. Numbers are used in and out of context in order to use a position that suits their situation.



My example for that would be Paul Ryan's budget during the last election and Obama's projected numbers for the cost of Obamacare.

But even in this example there is no right or wrong. A Socialist isn't going to see the numbers the same way a fiscal conservative will see them. I don't see how this causes cognitive dissonance.

That was more of just numbers being skewed. Let's look scientifically at abortion. I would argue the fact that matching chromosomes make up the fact that the fetus is a human fetus and should not be less protected by bird eggs that the left is so intent on protecting. Those are scientifically proven facts that I try to point out without too much of my own opinion.

I hope that's a better example. (But please I am by no means trying to start a debate about such a heated topic as abortion)

 

[ShawnChris13]

Shawn,







Could you please provide an example of what you are arguing here. I believe we agree, but I'd like to see it play out.







How do you feel about Pelosi's stance on Obama being accurate when Obama said himself he wasn't ?

I would say that Pelosi had repeated the same things he had been saying for three years and now she is trying to save face.



I don't know if that helps :/

I am talking about the fact that she is holding to this idea that he was accurate when even he's not saying that. Is that an example of what you are talking about ?



I watched and interview with David Gregory where she repeatedly dodged the questions and held to positions everyone knows are crap.

She is more in the position of trying to save fave. She knows that he was wrong, but she knows that if she admits it she loses face. So I would say that at some point she had to go through some dissonance and had to justify responding in the manner she did.

 

[lakeview]

That was more of just numbers being skewed. Let's look scientifically at abortion. I would argue the fact that matching chromosomes make up the fact that the fetus is a human fetus and should not be less protected by bird eggs that the left is so intent on protecting. Those are scientifically proven facts that I try to point out without too much of my own opinion.

I hope that's a better example. (But please I am by no means trying to start a debate about such a heated topic as abortion)

OK, good example. I see quite a few people trying to redefine fetus in order to make the process more palatable.

 

[Listening]

That was more of just numbers being skewed. Let's look scientifically at abortion. I would argue the fact that matching chromosomes make up the fact that the fetus is a human fetus and should not be less protected by bird eggs that the left is so intent on protecting. Those are scientifically proven facts that I try to point out without too much of my own opinion.

I hope that's a better example. (But please I am by no means trying to start a debate about such a heated topic as abortion)

OK, good example. I see quite a few people trying to redefine fetus in order to make the process more palatable.

It's been some time, but I recall reading the book "The Brethren" by Bob Woodward. He recounts how Harry Blackmunn tries to pull off some kind of scientific analysis in order to justify his decision (not sure how much made it into the actual verbage)....but the description of his approach is nothing short of horrifying.