Cognitive Dissonance

[Intense]

Reminder. This is the CDZ. No Insulting other Posters, No Flames. Please try to Not stray too far from the OP.

 

[Intense]

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.

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'd argue that it is one possibility of many.

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.

Again, you at least appear to be applying something with specific reference, universally. Square peg, round hole, inless you get really lucky..

Honestly, where do you find yourself in any discussion when light is shed on the subject matter? Do you even prejudge what your reaction will be? Too many determining factors to fairly do that. If there was a consistent stumbling block, that consistently effected reaction, that is a red flag, something worth looking into, granted. How do you do that? Soberly, with sensitivity, if part of the equation, granted. When new awareness or discovery is upon us, what can stand in it's way? Pride, arrogance, for example, where humbleness or humility, might be the free pass. Why should any of us be offended by the revelation of new information? Higher Self V.S. Lower Self, is fought to some extent, within each of us, at least at some point in our lifetime.

Within Each of us, what obstructs development, recognition, acceptance?

When we face even an appearance of contradiction, why not take the time to fully explore the relevant factors? Doesn't working through the process, the details, bring reward? As opposed to compounding the damage of a misstep, which we are under no obligation to do.

Thoreau had a nice slant on a Litmus Test here....

It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. Thoreau - Webtext on "Resistance to Civil Government"

If I found myself wanting here, should my first reaction be denial? Denial, False Justification and False Reason? Should it be to first cease and desist from doing harm, and seek right action?

Isn't it at the least a possibility that how we react to information, is determined by what is motivating us to speak and act in the first place?

 

[Casjah]

It doesn't matter which form of government that is chosen, the result will be the same: a cycle of civilizations being built up, and then broken back down. History reveals the rise and fall of countless great civilizations, many of which fell due to corruption and greed. There is no cure for what is ultimately found within each person.. many call it "sin nature." In my view, it is what we all are at our core. Animals trying to survive. Our instincts demand that we take all that we can as if we live in a constant famine even if we have all that we need. Even if the rest of the world live in poverty eating only the bones of what's left of the feast of the first world. The US is 2% of the world's population, and yet it uses 25% of the world's resources. In the US 1% own 90% of the resources. How can 1% of the population earn so much? Can one person really be worth billions of dollars? And furthermore, how do they live with that? I can stand in a bathtub made from the plastic that Chinese families cooked on their stoves. I can watch countless gallons of clean, heated water run down the drain as I take a hot shower for twenty minutes for my own enjoyment. I can open a container of food and decide I don't like the way it tastes and toss it in the trash. Meanwhile, millions die from preventable diseases from unsafe drinking water. Millions suffer from malnurishment, thousands die from starvation each day.
I can write a platitude and say some alms. Or I can humbly admit that at the end of the day, I push it into the back of my mind and enjoy every single minute of that hot shower. Did I earn that? Did you?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

And Now For Your 1 Minute Of Inspiration ? How Change Happens

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FSA5VWgp0XI]What gives you meaning? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Okay, I'll rephrase:

We have one group whose stated agenda is progress while another group's stated agenda is to repress and regress.

I won't be posting very much more in this thread but again, it was a good try and thank you again for that.

 

[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.

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'd argue that it is one possibility of many.

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.

Again, you at least appear to be applying something with specific reference, universally. Square peg, round hole, inless you get really lucky..



Honestly, where do you find yourself in any discussion when light is shed on the subject matter? Do you even prejudge what your reaction will be? Too many determining factors to fairly do that. If there was a consistent stumbling block, that consistently effected reaction, that is a red flag, something worth looking into, granted. How do you do that? Soberly, with sensitivity, if part of the equation, granted. When new awareness or discovery is upon us, what can stand in it's way? Pride, arrogance, for example, where humbleness or humility, might be the free pass. Why should any of us be offended by the revelation of new information? Higher Self V.S. Lower Self, is fought to some extent, within each of us, at least at some point in our lifetime.



Within Each of us, what obstructs development, recognition, acceptance?



When we face even an appearance of contradiction, why not take the time to fully explore the relevant factors? Doesn't working through the process, the details, bring reward? As opposed to compounding the damage of a misstep, which we are under no obligation to do.



Thoreau had a nice slant on a Litmus Test here....

It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. Thoreau - Webtext on "Resistance to Civil Government"

If I found myself wanting here, should my first reaction be denial? Denial, False Justification and False Reason? Should it be to first cease and desist from doing harm, and seek right action?



Isn't it at the least a possibility that how we react to information, is determined by what is motivating us to speak and act in the first place?

Granted there are a multitude of factors that influence out emotions and reactions in debate. I think that if you were to read several other threads you would see the same rhetoric spouted again and again. My point is that people use sound bytes they are accustomed to hearing on television. If we a a whole could take in new information and process it, as you suggested, then we would see less of these rhetorical euphemisms the main stream parties are so find of using. I disagree that it is I don't see it as square or ground hole so long as we only apply this in a general manner.

I attempt to stay away from prejudging others' response since I try not to guess what it will be.

 

[Listening]

Okay, I'll rephrase:

We have one group whose stated agenda is progress while another group's stated agenda is to repress and regress.

I won't be posting very much more in this thread but again, it was a good try and thank you again for that.

A classic example of the oversimplification others have been pointing at. Unless this poster wants to identify the groups and the "progress" they've been pushing, it is a meaningless assertion.

What is more funny is that some people actually feel justified in such assertions at this kind of level.

I would submit this post (and overall attitude) is a representation of the dissonance described in the OP.

 

[Listening]

Granted there are a multitude of factors that influence out emotions and reactions in debate. I think that if you were to read several other threads you would see the same rhetoric spouted again and again. My point is that people use sound bytes they are accustomed to hearing on television. If we a a whole could take in new information and process it, as you suggested, then we would see less of these rhetorical euphemisms the main stream parties are so find of using. I disagree that it is I don't see it as square or ground hole so long as we only apply this in a general manner.

I attempt to stay away from prejudging others' response since I try not to guess what it will be.

Your point can be proven time and time again on this board alone. Most threads typically devolve into a debate on the components of the foundations for different points of view.

One of the most common problems I run into is when people say "the government" and I ask "which one ?". There is this blank stare that comes back.

We have several levels of government and each has it's scope of responsibilities. They still function, but the arguments anymore are as much about the "right" of some levels of government (in most cases the federal government) to take over and conduct affairs that were historically left to others.

It seems most people, on both sides, index to only one form of government.....sad.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

[MENTION=46050]ShawnChris13[/MENTION]

You must be referring to statements like the one in my signature line made by a flaming liberal and welfare queen.

You would do well not to be trying to do the psychology number until you become better informed to do so.

 

[Sunshine]

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

In the book The Hiding Place, Corrie Ten Boom tells of being in a prison camp where she and her group got lice or fleas, I don't recall which. They were miserable from the bites. But they saw what the guards were doing to others, and thanked God for the vermin because the prison guards wouldn't come near them, and they could live in relative peace considering where they were.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Like the liberals are with Obamacare, the results of which they can justify on no rational level. However, anger, hateful worlds, AND avoidance also comes into play. When they are out classed they simply won't make any effort to discuss it. I reference this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It is all too clear.

 

[KokomoJojo]

When they are out classed they simply won't make any effort to discuss it. I reference this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It is all too clear.

...or they create and use a pejorative to ridicule you.

 

[Listening]

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.

Improving political debate by itself serves no value.

What we are looking for is some improvement in "something".

You hear it oft stated that Liberty and Equality are inversely proportional. People can debate that if they want.......

But, as an example, the right values liberty (or what they call liberty) over equality. They assume that the above axiom is true.

The left things equality IS liberty and hence look for something else.

Those are the kinds of gut level differences that push every discussion into the same few ruts that are the fate of so many threads on this board.

Maybe you could provide an example of where you think this improvement could take place if emotions were held in check.

 

[Listening]

When they are out classed they simply won't make any effort to discuss it. I reference this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It is all too clear.

...or they create and use a pejorative to ridicule you.

Are you referencing one side or both.

In my experience, both sides do it.

 

[KokomoJojo]

When they are out classed they simply won't make any effort to discuss it. I reference this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It is all too clear.

...or they create and use a pejorative to ridicule you.

Are you referencing one side or both.

In my experience, both sides do it.

"most anyone", with a political agenda when they are outclassed.

However its a tool mostly used by proponents of status quo, statism and statist agenda.

 

[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.

Improving political debate by itself serves no value.

What we are looking for is some improvement in "something".

You hear it oft stated that Liberty and Equality are inversely proportional. People can debate that if they want.......

But, as an example, the right values liberty (or what they call liberty) over equality. They assume that the above axiom is true.

The left things equality IS liberty and hence look for something else.

Those are the kinds of gut level differences that push every discussion into the same few ruts that are the fate of so many threads on this board.

Maybe you could provide an example of where you think this improvement could take place if emotions were held in check.

You mostly nailed it, however "liberty" (a government sanctioned and acknowledged privilege) that presumes to have a directly inversely proportional obligation. (not true with the elite however)

Its basically the ability to do private acts in public without fear of reprisal.

freedom is franchised political slavery in exchange for the yoke, or chained slavery in common law countries like the us britain au nz etc.

(from a dictionary of the time of the US constitutors, aka so called founders)

 

[Toro]

Everyone has cognitive dissonance.

Everyone.

And by "everyone," I mean you.

Not me.

I'm perfect.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Everyone has cognitive dissonance.

Everyone.

And by "everyone," I mean you.

Not me.

I'm perfect.

Yeh because life is too complex to have a simple list of facts forcing us at some point to manufacture and exercise actions based upon belief, the substance of personal religion. Most of which can be neither proved or disproved.

 

[PMZ]

Politics invariably applies simplification to perplexing life. It increases contrast. Moves things to more black and white. Reduces confusion and increases certainty. Makes everyone on all sides of every issue feel smarter and better informed and in possession of THE answer.

Now someone from the opposing side comes along and says A, which is a point that the opposing position relates to better than your position.

Cognitive dissonance results. You want so to be right in your position and your adversary just threw up an obstacle.

Then the name calling starts and rational debate ends.

Debate can only proceed when both sides accept that they could be wrong. The opposing side could be right in this instance.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Politics invariably applies simplification to perplexing life. It increases contrast. Moves things to more black and white. Reduces confusion and increases certainty. Makes everyone on all sides of every issue feel smarter and better informed and in possession of THE answer.

Now someone from the opposing side comes along and says A, which is a point that the opposing position relates to better than your position.

Cognitive dissonance results. You want so to be right in your position and your adversary just threw up an obstacle.

Then the name calling starts and rational debate ends.

Debate can only proceed when both sides accept that they could be wrong. The opposing side could be right in this instance.

Politics as a result of the incorporation of statism [mob rule] and its attached sovereign status [haha cant sue me] above it creators [thought to be you and I] encroaches upon our personal religion [within our private lives] and enforces theirs upon us at the end of a barrel of a gun all while telling us its what we want.

Most political arguments are born from little napoleans who want to rule the planet in their own image most often without due consideration of others or the consequences of their customs, religion, tradition, way of life or status.