Cognitive Dissonance

[ShawnChris13]

If you're not familiar with the term, Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will give you a brief overview.

I find that while debating points and counterpoints, it is far too common for people to be angry. I believe cognitive dissonance leads to most of the anger we experience when confronted in our beliefs.

I believe we could improve political debate by raising awareness of this happenstance so that people can stop and look at what they're frustrated about. Most frustration lies in the facts that are held within other peoples perspective.

 

[whitehall]

The phrase perfectly describes so-called political moderates. It comes close with the global warming crowd.

 

[ShawnChris13]

In what way?

 

[KokomoJojo]

If you're not familiar with the term, Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will give you a brief overview.

I find that while debating points and counterpoints, it is far too common for people to be angry. I believe cognitive dissonance leads to most of the anger we experience when confronted in our beliefs.

I believe we could improve political debate by raising awareness of this happenstance so that people can stop and look at what they're frustrated about. Most frustration lies in the facts that are held within other peoples perspective.

Unfortunately however for some people thats all they have, especially those who raised their politics to the level of a religion!

Who can penetrate those shields?

Well I suppose the borg can!

Cognitive Dissonance Example

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:




In an intriguing experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). As you can imagine, participant's attitudes toward this task were highly negative. They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (relay a confederate) that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the subject accomplice that the boring experiment would be fun.

Aim

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behavior.
Method

In their laboratory experiment, they used 71 male students as participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour).

They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a confederate) that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the confederate that the boring experiment would be fun.




Results

When the participants were asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.

Conclusion

Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1 experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs and there is therefore no dissonance.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIpacdGcyJc#t=54[/ame]
​

 

[KokomoJojo]

Pride and Preferences – Or How We Live With Our Decisions

No one likes to admit to having made a mistake. Just look at all the politicians and business people who, with a mess on their hands and owing the public or shareholders an explanation, have uttered the famously weak cop out “Mistakes were made” – a rhetorical device that political consultant William Schneider has suggested we call the "past exonerative” tense. While acknowledging an error, the passive voice of the past exonerative distances the speaker from any causal role in their execution.

Realising — and, worse still, publicly admitting — that we have made an error of judgement, a bad call, or acted in a way we are less than proud of is frequently a painful experience. Whether it’s our choice of job, which political party we voted in, the stereo we bought, or how we responded to the homeless guy panhandling at the ATM, most us like to think that we’re intelligent, competent decision-makers and, in general, morally worthy people. When we’re confronted with evidence to the contrary, we feel a mental strain and discomfort that psychologists call cognitive dissonance – two dissonant cognitions, such as “I’m a smart consumer” and “I’ve paid my hard-earned cash for this crappy stereo”, are in conflict, and something has to give. Typically, the preferred cognition is preserved and the other discarded (1).

Since the notion was first put forward some 50 years ago, psychologists have made cognitive dissonance one of the most-studied mental phenomena around. And one thing is abundantly clear from this research: humans are equipped with a variety of dissonance-reducing mechanisms that enable us to live with our decisions, our actions and, ultimately, ourselves.

The study of cognitive dissonance has thrown up some paradoxical results. For example, people tend to prefer an outcome if they endure more hardship, pain or suffering to achieve that end. In one study, participants were more satisfied with a fraternity they joined the harsher the initiation into the fraternity, all else being equal. From the behaviourist perspective dominant when the idea of cognitive dissonance was first mooted, this makes no sense: why should an outcome associated with pain or suffering be deemed more rewarding than one reached through a less unpleasant route?

Seen through the lens of dissonance reduction, however, it makes more sense. As an intelligent, sensible person, we wouldn’t go through a painful or humiliating experience if it wasn’t worth the outcome – in this case joining the fraternity. The dissonance produced by the two cognitions “I am not an idiot who would suffer pointlessly” and “I underwent a severe hazing to join this fraternity” is resolved by declaring the fraternity to be worth joining – and the harsher the hazing, the better the decision (2).

One of the ugliest sides to cognitive dissonance comes to light in the self-serving rhetoric we use to justify prejudices. It is depressingly common that persecuted individuals and groups are dehumanised and made to appear as animals — by being kept cramped and naked and filthy in concentration camps, for instance. The victimisers then respond with disgust at the debased and depraved creatures they have created: “Look at these revolting people! How justified I am in treating them as animals!”.

Yet for all the importance of cognitive dissonance, the precise mechanisms by which we deal with discordant thoughts and feelings, and the ultimate purpose these mechanisms serve, are not well understood. One way to approach these issues to look at the origins and evolutionary roots if dissonance reduction in human children and nonhuman primates. And in a recent study published in Psychological Science, Louisa Egan, Laurie Santos and Paul Bloom have taken just such a comparative, developmental tack to the problem of cognitive dissonance (3).

The Proper Study Of Mankind: Pride and Preferences ? Or How We Live With Our Decisions

 

[ShawnChris13]

The main point I'm trying to make is that we all rationalize our political choices. Then we get stuck and frustrated with other points of view. If people could understand its natural to be frustrated by new information then they in time would be better at progressing debate.

 

[ShawnChris13]

The same could be said for almost every person on this forum. I'm glad you pointed it out because debating politics is where I'd really like to see this thought process utilized.

The left versus right mentality has been perpetuated by the mainstream media and both political parties for over a hundred years. Any differences that Gunny and Luddly have can be traced to that political system.

If we debated without party lines being drawn and without preconceived ideas based on what the media feeds us we would see a grander debate with unlimited potential for progress.

Our responses should not be constructed to prove others wrong, but to prove facts right. If we took the focus off of ourselves and actually considered the implications of actions to the majority we could find middle ground. And the root of all this, I believe, is the term cognitive dissonance. That which drives us to rationalize or marginalize our positions to justify our beliefs.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Its human nature to seek out that which agrees with our preconceived ideas of what is right and wrong. Its also our nature to seek out our own tribe - people who lo.ok like us ro talk like us, believe what we believe.

In general, "whites" don't have a tribe. If we're Irish, we fight with Italians, Germans fight with Poles and so on. And then, they all shift and fight with some other tribe.

in the case of no tribe then your first para applies, the attraction mechanisms would be based on more so on culture which I realize is cutting very close to indistinguishable synonymous.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Using progressing and progressive (the political progressive) as synonymous is apples and oranges. I bear no affiliation to either party, or the current political definition of progressive or conservative. While I have views that could potentially be categorized anywhere on the linear structure of American politics, I strive to show that my views are meant to be more 3 dimensional in nature. I will not be constrained by the party lines drawn generations ago.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Have you come to the realization yet that statism in the manner in which is has been and continues to be used is a curse thrust upon us by the powered elite to insure their perpetual dominance over us, partys, despite their titles not with standing?

talk about lack of dissonance, someone says "We the People" I ask which People? Anyone who asks a question like that is promptly ridiculed despite the fact, though opined upon, it is not a known fact precisely by "result" of law just who the "people", or "People" really are?

Ironically Patrick Henry asked the same question, but he was not ridiculed for it.

 

[ShawnChris13]

The current political powers have consistently ensured that their power would not easily be taken from them. The Womens League used to run the presidential debates. Until the candidates and their parties had demanded ridiculous processes. Consequently both parties founded the CDP and election debates have been exclusive ever since. This must change before people can we true facts in public debate as a whole.

 

[Billo_Really]

The current political powers have consistently ensured that their power would not easily be taken from them. The Womens League used to run the presidential debates. Until the candidates and their parties had demanded ridiculous processes. Consequently both parties founded the CDP and election debates have been exclusive ever since. This must change before people can we true facts in public debate as a whole.

The government is basically a reflection of the people it governs. If there is corruption in government, it is because there is corruption in each of our own lives. Quite frankly, if we want a better government, we have to become a better society.

We have no one to blame but ourselves, for the state the government is in today.

 

[ShawnChris13]

The current political powers have consistently ensured that their power would not easily be taken from them. The Womens League used to run the presidential debates. Until the candidates and their parties had demanded ridiculous processes. Consequently both parties founded the CDP and election debates have been exclusive ever since. This must change before people can we true facts in public debate as a whole.

The government is basically a reflection of the people it governs. If there is corruption in government, it is because there is corruption in each of our own lives. Quite frankly, if we want a better government, we have to become a better society.



We have no one to blame but ourselves, for the state the government is in today.

I refute that logic. The actions of the top 10% can't be correlated with the bottom 50. It is years of closed door meetings withheld from the public that led the government down the road it's on.

 

[Billo_Really]

I refute that logic. The actions of the top 10% can't be correlated with the bottom 50. It is years of closed door meetings withheld from the public that led the government down the road it's on.

Whether we like it or not, we're responsible for everything the government does.

If we get off our lazy asses and become a more well-informed republic, the top 10% have no way of competing with all our votes.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I refute that logic. The actions of the top 10% can't be correlated with the bottom 50. It is years of closed door meetings withheld from the public that led the government down the road it's on.

Whether we like it or not, we're responsible for everything the government does.



If we get off our lazy asses and become a more well-informed republic, the top 10% have no way of competing with all our votes.

Amen!

Now just to get people to vote...

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We have one group wanting and working for progress while another group works to repress and regress.

Every single fight or argument is based on that difference.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I was being facetious.

Yes I'm sorry I meant to point out that I caught that. I only continued to prove a point.

And isn't that the whole point?



We have one group wanting and working for progress while another group works to repress and regress.



Every single fight or argument is based on that difference.

I disagree with that. Just because one group claims they fight for progress doesn't make it so. "It takes a village to raise a child" is the worst BS I've ever heard. When was the last time you lived in a village? Leave my child alone. That's backwards reasoning to me.

If the people that aren't making up new ideas just for the sake of new ideas are arguing for personal freedom I would argue that our idea of freedom is still a relatively new term for the world. Only in the last couple hundred years have we strayed from royalty and hierarchies.

Anyone who argues that the government should be more involved in my life is saying I need some ruler watching over me to make me feel safe. I feel safe in my own home with my own family on my own land. My personal rights and freedoms are my security. I feel safer with freedom. Anyone that has power over what I can receive has the power to determine what can be taken from me.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I am not going to get into the details but the jury has under the standing federal constitution the right to determine both the facts and apply or nullify the law. Simply put several supreme court justices made note of that.

However judges the last thing the judges want is to lose their power on the bench and jurys are not informed of the extent of their duties.

Nothing in the constitution gives a black robed priest the authority to overrule a jury. Yes I know, they do it anyway.

the solution is free legal services for anyone going up against the state and fully empowered jurys for anything regarding state. That includes traffic tickets.

With this system they will be very careful to insure your rights are guarded rather than stomped upon forcing you to pay enormous legal fees to fight them on all their growing encroachments as it is now

 

[KokomoJojo]

wel they charge (tax) you for their protection then as you can see in the deshaney case when you sue them for not protecting you they inform you they have no obligation to protect you!

the system has 2 factions the commies and the nazis, like democracy, both are contrary to the "individual" and support force by mob.

it is supposed to be infividual and mob protection of "individual rights", not "mob rights" that the party system perpetuates despite the attached labels

 

[Intense]

I refute that logic. The actions of the top 10% can't be correlated with the bottom 50. It is years of closed door meetings withheld from the public that led the government down the road it's on.

Whether we like it or not, we're responsible for everything the government does.

If we get off our lazy asses and become a more well-informed republic, the top 10% have no way of competing with all our votes.

When they control who and what is voted on, who gets to vote, who gets to count the vote, and how, they pretty much do whatever they want.