Cognitive Dissonance

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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

Sure it does. Denying reality by ignoring reality.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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

Sure it does. Denying reality by ignoring reality.

Compartmentalization of one's own conflicting belifs has nothing to do with the physical world

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.

If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong? Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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

Sure it does. Denying reality by ignoring reality.

Compartmentalization of one's own conflicting belifs has nothing to do with the physical world

The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Blocking something out is denying reality or the state of things as they actually exist.

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization. Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict. Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.

If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong? Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.

Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?

I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization. Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict. Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.

The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.

If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong? Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.

Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?

I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.

You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals. A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization. Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict. Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.

The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.

He absolutely did change his belief. His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food. He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.

If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong? Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.

Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?

I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.

You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals. A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.

I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated. YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization. Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict. Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.

The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.

He absolutely did change his belief. His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food. He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.

No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.

If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong? Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.

Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?

I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.

You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals. A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.

I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated. YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.

So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization. Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict. Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.

The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.

He absolutely did change his belief. His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food. He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.

No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes

No. He rationalized that killing animals isn't wrong.

I'm actually quite surprised you don't see killing animals as wrong.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

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.

Why the US egg industry is still killing 300 million chicks a year

Hatcheries promised to stop killing male chicks by 2020. What’s taking so long?

www.vox.com

I had no ideal that any of the companies would be doing this--what a waste. Apparently, not all of them do this.

It was pretty shocking to me when I first saw the videos of it.

I went vegan over a year ago for health reasons but I am glad I'm no longer contributing to the suffering cuased by the meat, poultry , and diary industries.

If you don't believe truth exists in and of itself how can you argue anything is right or wrong? Because it seems you are saying that what the meat, poultry , and diary industries are doing is wrong.

Where did I mention right or wrong in that post?

I stated a fact that the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals.

You implied that it is right to be a vegan because the meat, dairy and poultry industry causes the suffering of animals. A position you can't take unless you believe there really is such a thing as objective truth which defines right and wrong based upon logical reasons.

I did no such thing I merely stated that I am a vegan for the reasons I stated. YOU are the one attaching all that other shit to a simple statement.

So there is nothing wrong with killing animals?

You seem to think it's just fine to kill animals for food. I have no authority to judge your actions.

I choose not to eat animals for my own reasons. I do not tell others what they should do.

You know what i find really interesting is when I say I don't eat meat I get a lot of flack from people yet I never say anything about what they choose to eat.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization. Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict. Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.

The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.

He absolutely did change his belief. His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food. He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.

No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes

No. He rationalized that killing animals isn't wrong.

I'm actually quite surprised you don't see killing animals as wrong.

It's not up to me to judge the behaviors of others.

i do what I do for my own reasons if someone asks me why I tell them why but I never try to tell anyone else what they should do.

I don't have to live with anyone's choices but my own.

 

[ding]

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

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...

www.psychologytoday.com

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.

Same difference. It's the whole purpose of compartmentalizing. To keep from having to think about it. Whereas rationalizations are done to remove the conflict so that it can still be thought of and not needed to be compartmentalized. Rationalizations are the dominant way of denying reality. Compartmentalization is how someone ignores reality.

Compartmentalizing in no way means you never think about something. it means you are able to ignore one belief while acting on a conflicting belief.

Like believing it's cruel to run over birds with a lawn mower but then thinking it's perfectly OK for millions of other birds to be ground up alive so you can have your omelette. You compartmentalize those conflicting beliefs you don't block them from your mind

If I asked a person who was eating on omelette if running over chicks with a lawn mower was cruel he would look at me, take a bite of his eggs and say yes that is cruel. Then if I told him the egg industry chops up millions of chicks alive every year so he could eat that omelette he wouldn't forget that he thinks running over chicks with a lawn mower is cruel

Or you change your belief which is a rationalization. Changing your belief alters reality but allows the event to be remembered without conflict. Compartmentalization denies reality by blocking out or ignoring what happened.

The guy who finished his omelette didn't change his beliefs because he kept right on eating his eggs which is what most people do.

He absolutely did change his belief. His belief is it's not wrong to kill animals for food. He rationalized the difference being unnecessary cruelty.

No he compartmentalized the fact that the egg industry needlessly kills millions of male chicks because he doesn't want to stop eating omelettes

No. He rationalized that killing animals isn't wrong.

I'm actually quite surprised you don't see killing animals as wrong.

It's not up to me to judge the behaviors of others.

i do what I do for my own reasons if someone asks me why I tell them why but I never try to tell anyone else what they should do.

I don't have to live with anyone's choices but my own.

Wrong. It's not up to me to judge the person. I would be an idiot if I didn't judge their behaviors and actions. You don't understand the difference or why it's important.