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.No shit SherlockCompartmentalize literally means to keep separate.No they do not block it from their memory.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.rationalization and compartmentalization are 2 entirely different things.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.And you think wrong againAgain... 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.No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.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.So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.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.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)?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.
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?
Interesting.
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.
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.
Read the links to the definition of the word as it is used in psychology.
Blocking memories is dissociation.
It doesn't mean blocking from memory.