Psychology Question

[jwoodie]

Why would someone be opposed to the verification of something he believed to be true? For example, if someone believed the President's birth certificate to be genuine and accurate, why would that person oppose any effort authenticate it?

This is not a political question, since it is now a moot point. Rather, it is an inquiry into the cognitive dissonance which must occur when two opposing positions are held at the same time.

 

[tipofthespear]

Some additional info concerning cognitive dissonance can be found here:

Cognitive Dissonance Theory - Simply Psychology

[excerpt from article]

"When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don't want to do, dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn't want to do this) and their behavior (I did it). Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs. The behavior can't be changed, since it is already in the past, so dissonance will need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude to what they have done. This prediction has been tested experimentally:"

Seems to me, and it's just my opinion, that unless they are FORCED to verify the birth certificate, they won't suffer from cognitive dissonance would they? Are they not avoiding the conflict by refusing to verity the birth certificate?

 

[BobPlumb]

Why would someone be opposed to the verification of something he believed to be true? For example, if someone believed the President's birth certificate to be genuine and accurate, why would that person oppose any effort authenticate it?

This is not a political question, since it is now a moot point. Rather, it is an inquiry into the cognitive dissonance which must occur when two opposing positions are held at the same time.

The motivation underlying your psychological question may very well be political. Those who want verification of the birth certificate have been ridiculed as "Birthers", and made to look like idiots (with the aid of the MSN).

The MSM will bend over backwards to find some dirt on someone like Sarah Palin, but will not lift a finger to investigate any of the current "phony" scandals.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why would someone be opposed to the verification of something he believed to be true? For example, if someone believed the President's birth certificate to be genuine and accurate, why would that person oppose any effort authenticate it?

This is not a political question, since it is now a moot point. Rather, it is an inquiry into the cognitive dissonance which must occur when two opposing positions are held at the same time.

No one opposed the verification. What they opposed was verifying a dozen times because each time something was produced it was simply not good enough. IOW, people get tired of providing verification when no verification is ever good enough.

Do you have other examples because if this is the only one then your assertion is resoundingly false?

 

[jwoodie]

Why would someone be opposed to the verification of something he believed to be true? For example, if someone believed the President's birth certificate to be genuine and accurate, why would that person oppose any effort authenticate it?

This is not a political question, since it is now a moot point. Rather, it is an inquiry into the cognitive dissonance which must occur when two opposing positions are held at the same time.

No one opposed the verification. What they opposed was verifying a dozen times because each time something was produced it was simply not good enough. IOW, people get tired of providing verification when no verification is ever good enough.

Do you have other examples because if this is the only one then your assertion is resoundingly false?

Why did they (you) oppose it the first time?

 

[asaratis]

Why would someone be opposed to the verification of something he believed to be true? For example, if someone believed the President's birth certificate to be genuine and accurate, why would that person oppose any effort authenticate it?

This is not a political question, since it is now a moot point. Rather, it is an inquiry into the cognitive dissonance which must occur when two opposing positions are held at the same time.

I think it is not a moot point. It is indeed still open to debate (as is any moot point) but it is not inconsequential (as would be a moot point).

This article describes recent findings by a forgery expert (so well respected in that field that he has been an expert witness in several cases tried by the firm that represents Obama). Why would anyone that vehemently believes Obama was indeed born in Hawaii object to the examination of this man's evidence that the birth certificate is a forgery?


***************
Forensic findings on Obama?s birth certificate: ?A 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it? | World Tribune

The difference between a conspiracy theory and a crime is that a conspiracy theory cannot stand against the test of forensic evidence. Those who dismiss this investigation as merely “kooky” must answer these questions: Are leading experts in their field who have provided their professional assessment to a criminal investigation merely to be ignored?

Why would these experts risk their reputation and also commit perjury? It is therefore kookier to disregard these assessments summarily than to view them with an unbiased eye.

The evidence currently being accumulated by the Cold Case Posse requires consideration. It is time for Congress to do its constitutional duty and examine all this hard evidence in the clear light of day.
**************

Something is still fishy here....so I have cognitive dissonance in calling Obama Mr. President. It could very well be that he was illegally elected by virtue of a scam on the American public.

\\Please do not reply to me without reading the entire article.\\

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Why would someone be opposed to the verification of something he believed to be true? For example, if someone believed the President's birth certificate to be genuine and accurate, why would that person oppose any effort authenticate it?

This is not a political question, since it is now a moot point. Rather, it is an inquiry into the cognitive dissonance which must occur when two opposing positions are held at the same time.

No one opposed the verification. What they opposed was verifying a dozen times because each time something was produced it was simply not good enough. IOW, people get tired of providing verification when no verification is ever good enough.

Do you have other examples because if this is the only one then your assertion is resoundingly false?

Speaking of cognitive dissonance .........................................................

===

BTW, I was never aware of anyone "opposing verification".

If that ever happened, perhaps someone could post a link?

Another BTW - Is this thread posted in the "right" place? Wouldn't it be more at home in the satire forum?

 

[boedicca]

Because worshiping a politician is a faith-based activity, and one should BELIEVE without proof.

 

[konradv]

The birth certificate has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii. Refusal to accept that should be investigated as a case of how for some no amount of authentication will ever be enough. I'm sure there's some sort of psychological term describing that particular neurosis, but you can hardly put the onus on those who just want to move on.

 

[asaratis]

The birth certificate has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii. Refusal to accept that should be investigated as a case of how for some no amount of authentication will ever be enough. I'm sure there's some sort of psychological term describing that particular neurosis, but you can hardly put the onus on those who just want to move on.

I am sure the "authorities" in Hawaii that "authenticated" the birth certificate could have been well paid to do so...or threatened with ruination. Are you sure they were not?

 

[konradv]

The birth certificate has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii. Refusal to accept that should be investigated as a case of how for some no amount of authentication will ever be enough. I'm sure there's some sort of psychological term describing that particular neurosis, but you can hardly put the onus on those who just want to move on.

I am sure the "authorities" in Hawaii that "authenticated" the birth certificate could have been well paid to do so...or threatened with ruination. Are you sure they were not?

That's right, they've been "paid". Listen to yourself some time. Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. Get over it. Your guy lost. The black guy won, TWICE!!!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How come his bc was accepted when he ran for the senate? Why didn't anyone say it was false back then?

The whole bc non-issue was manufactured. Even so, his mother was an American citizen = end of story. Doesn't matter how old she was at the tine of his birth any more than any of the phony issues matter.

The black guy won, TWICE!!!

And he would win again.

 

[asaratis]

The birth certificate has been authenticated by the state of Hawaii. Refusal to accept that should be investigated as a case of how for some no amount of authentication will ever be enough. I'm sure there's some sort of psychological term describing that particular neurosis, but you can hardly put the onus on those who just want to move on.

I am sure the "authorities" in Hawaii that "authenticated" the birth certificate could have been well paid to do so...or threatened with ruination. Are you sure they were not?

That's right, they've been "paid". Listen to yourself some time. Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. Get over it. Your guy lost. The black guy won, TWICE!!!

I didn't say they were paid. I said they could have been. What you are saying is that they could not have been. You are being foolish.

How come his bc was accepted when he ran for the senate? Why didn't anyone say it was false back then?

The whole bc non-issue was manufactured. Even so, his mother was an American citizen = end of story. Doesn't matter how old she was at the tine of his birth any more than any of the phony issues matter.

The black guy won, TWICE!!!

And he would win again.

Of course he would win again. He could literally shit on the Constitution and you Obamabots would applaud and offer him sainthood. I have learned not to underestimate the power of a large group of stupid people.

 

[Surfer]

There will never be any proof. Liberals lie about everything and have dozens of fake "authentic" certs on Hussein. He was born in Kenya just like his Grandma said before she mysteriously died.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why would someone be opposed to the verification of something he believed to be true? For example, if someone believed the President's birth certificate to be genuine and accurate, why would that person oppose any effort authenticate it?

This is not a political question, since it is now a moot point. Rather, it is an inquiry into the cognitive dissonance which must occur when two opposing positions are held at the same time.

I think it is not a moot point. It is indeed still open to debate (as is any moot point) but it is not inconsequential (as would be a moot point).

This article describes recent findings by a forgery expert (so well respected in that field that he has been an expert witness in several cases tried by the firm that represents Obama). Why would anyone that vehemently believes Obama was indeed born in Hawaii object to the examination of this man's evidence that the birth certificate is a forgery?


***************
Forensic findings on Obama?s birth certificate: ?A 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it? | World Tribune

The difference between a conspiracy theory and a crime is that a conspiracy theory cannot stand against the test of forensic evidence. Those who dismiss this investigation as merely “kooky” must answer these questions: Are leading experts in their field who have provided their professional assessment to a criminal investigation merely to be ignored?

Why would these experts risk their reputation and also commit perjury? It is therefore kookier to disregard these assessments summarily than to view them with an unbiased eye.

The evidence currently being accumulated by the Cold Case Posse requires consideration. It is time for Congress to do its constitutional duty and examine all this hard evidence in the clear light of day.
**************

Something is still fishy here....so I have cognitive dissonance in calling Obama Mr. President. It could very well be that he was illegally elected by virtue of a scam on the American public.

\\Please do not reply to me without reading the entire article.\\

And, as pointed out, his mother was an American ergo he is an American. The existence of the piece of paper is irrelevant.