What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cognitive Dissonance

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,964
Reaction score
10,481
Points
900
Location
On a hill
It all falls down to this...

We judge ourselves by intent; we judge others by results.
This is exactly how we consistently criticize others for doing the exact same thing we, ourselves do, on a regular basis.
It is also how we formulate "situation ethics". How we move the goal post of judgement for those we agree with, as opposed to those we do not.
This very thing is being played out, en masse, all across the nation.
It's just one more example of how human concepts of ethics are relative.
Which, itself, is not always a problem.
The problem is when society, in the name of solving one problem, creates a fix that is actually the same mechanism that IS the problem they are attempting to fix. Or, when protesting one thing, engage in the exact same behavior while protesting the very same one.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
6,666
Reaction score
3,781
Points
940
Cognitive Dissonance like.....
the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
Trump colluded with the Russians?
Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
late ballots are legitimate?
man made global warming?

I believe I touched on political examples already.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to make lists?

There is no discernable cognition in anyone of his posts, thus he never experiences cognitive dissonance.
 

Rye Catcher

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2019
Messages
6,666
Reaction score
3,781
Points
940
A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.

Great example.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,964
Reaction score
10,481
Points
900
Location
On a hill
A specific example (political) is the Obama birth certificate. Many people didn't believe he would ever produce it, and just said "let's see it" for months on end. When they finally released it the same people said "it's not real". They already have their mind made up, even the facts won't change them.

Great example.
It is actually.
Another is a different set of people, despite one evidence failure after another, despite chief witnesses so full of holes you could run a football team through them - people still believed Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
And you think wrong again
Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise. As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms. People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.

What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?

Oh yeah nothing.
Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality. People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization). Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality. It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.

And people deny reality all the time.

It's what people do.

It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.

That is the reality of humans
Like I said, the human mind cannot live in conflict so when behaviors don't match beliefs they change their beliefs and rationalize doing so.
Which is why people compartmentalize dissonant beliefs.

I gave you 2 links that explained compartmentalization as a defense mechanism
No, that would be rationalizations. Compartmentalization occurs when the event is to great to remember. You don't rationalize being brutally raped. You don't compartmentalize doing the opposite of what you believe. You just change the belief.
 

ESDRAELON

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
1,185
Reaction score
1,718
Points
1,893
Cognitive Dissonance like.....
the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal is fake?
Trump colluded with the Russians?
Trump colluded with the Ukrainians?
late ballots are legitimate?
man made global warming?

I believe I touched on political examples already.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just going to make lists?
It can be easily spelled- intellectual dishonesty- especially where politics are concerned- it seems Public Education failed to pass on the knowledge of honest vs dishonest in its passing on of information- facts and evidence mean nothing as long as feels is involved- opinion because it is felt rules the day-
The problem is most people are barely aware of it.

It's an aspect of the innate duplicitousness of human beings.
I think you've answered your own question. Human nature is immutable at the level of the masses. PEOPLE can change, humanity? Not so much. This the key truth that motivated our Founders to create a Constitution that tried to effectively tie the hands of people who would rule over us. They understood that human nature includes a lust for power over others AND ALWAYS WOULD.
 

iamwhatiseem

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
27,964
Reaction score
10,481
Points
900
Location
On a hill
I think you've answered your own question. Human nature is immutable at the level of the masses. PEOPLE can change, humanity? Not so much. This the key truth that motivated our Founders to create a Constitution that tried to effectively tie the hands of people who would rule over us. They understood that human nature includes a lust for power over others AND ALWAYS WOULD.

Indeed, I have said for years that the constitution is one of the greatest articles written in the history of mankind.
And is exactly why our government constantly seeks to weaken it.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
7,785
Reaction score
8,859
Points
2,118
I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.

Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else. When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy. Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom. I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them. Both of them have helped to live an examined life. But I digress.


Let's start with a working definition then some examples.

Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.

It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.

Examples:

One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.

People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support. This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.

One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.

Example:

A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades. A man with his child witness the event and call the cops. The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty. The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child. Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive. But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.

and one more

The sour grapes phenomenon. This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.

I think we all see people do this every day.

Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash? Does it bother people as much as it should? Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?

If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
Delusional bullshit.. A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed. The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male. GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers. You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
again you are wrong
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
And you think wrong again
Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise. As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.

We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize. Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
I have to say this topic has always fascinated me.

Over my life I have been as affected by it as anyone else. When I was in my early 30's I met a couple of exceptional people, a Buddhist monk and a man who was a welder but held a PhD in Philosophy. Both these men were such positive influences that to this day I am grateful to both of them for their friendship and wisdom. I don't want to think about where i would be today if I hadn't met them. Both of them have helped to live an examined life. But I digress.


Let's start with a working definition then some examples.

Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person's beliefs conflicts with other previously held beliefs. It describes the feelings of discomfort resulting from having the two conflicting beliefs. In order to reduce or possibly eliminate the dissonance, something must change because of the discrepancy between the person's beliefs and behaviors.

It's a simple definition for such a prevalent condition.

Examples:

One that is very relevant today is the CD that involves politicians.

People will find a way to excuse the bad deeds the person they support and to magnify the bad deeds of the person they don't support. This also manifests in being unable to credit a politician you do not support for doing something you might actually agree with and ignoring the deeds of the politician you support when they do something you disagree with.

One that I experience a lot these days is People saying they love animals but who eat animals.

Example:

A man is mowing his lawn and purposely runs over a flock of baby ducks and macerates them with the mower blades. A man with his child witness the event and call the cops. The man on the mower gets charged with animal cruelty. The witness then takes his child out to breakfast and orders scrambled eggs for himself and his child. Now the egg industry doesn't want male chicks so right after male chicks are hatched they are fed into a macerating machine where they are ground up alive. But the man calmly eats his eggs without feeling the need to call the police.

and one more

The sour grapes phenomenon. This is actually addressed in one of Aesop's fables about a fox who cannot reach grapes that he wants. He experiences cognitive dissonance and to ease his frustration; he decides the grapes must be sour and therefore undesirable.

I think we all see people do this every day.

Are we as humans cursed to live with these thoughts and behaviors that clash? Does it bother people as much as it should? Do we just accept that humans are duplicitous?

If we don't want to live a life in contradiction to our beliefs what should we do?
Delusional bullshit.. A man mowing over baby ducks is a psychopath---and needs to be removed. The chicken industry does not macerate baby chicks just because they are male. GEEBUS Christ....they are raised and then butchered as young fryers. You think an imaginary fox eating grapes is based on facts?
The egg industry does that very thing because male chicks don't lay eggs.

It seems you are misinformed.

 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
And you think wrong again
Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise. As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.

We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize. Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory. When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality. Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs. Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
again you are wrong
Prove it.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
And you think wrong again
Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise. As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.

We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize. Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory. When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality. Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs. Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
No they do not block it from their memory.

Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.

Blocking memories is dissociation.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
again you are wrong
Prove it.
I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
again you are wrong
Prove it.
I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
Thus proving you applied it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
84,344
Reaction score
8,641
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
And you think wrong again
Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise. As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.

We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize. Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory. When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality. Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs. Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
No they do not block it from their memory.

Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.

Blocking memories is dissociation.
Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
again you are wrong
Prove it.
I already did by using the definition of compartmentalization.
Thus proving you applied it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
Compartmentalization has nothing to do with denying reality. READ THE FUCKING DEFINITIONS
 
OP
Blues Man

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
And you think wrong again
Your refusal to acknowledge that rationalizations are the number one means of denying reality by a large margin says otherwise. As does your lack of understanding the key distinction between rationalization and compartmentalization.
rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.

We can rationalize behaviors and belifs but when we actually hold 2 opposing beliefs we compartmentalize. Both of thoose oppsing belifs can be rationalized on their own but not together because they are oppositional so those conflicting belifs are compartmentalized then rationalized individually.
When one compartmentalizing something they block it from their memory. When one rationalizes something they change their perception of reality. Rationalizations are not made because one has opposing beliefs. Rationalizations are because one's actions don't match one's beliefs.
No they do not block it from their memory.

Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.

Blocking memories is dissociation.
Compartmentalize literally means to keep separate.
No shit Sherlock

It doesn't mean blocking from memory.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top