Cognitive Dissonance

[ding]

There is the hypocrisy of some on the issue(s), and then their is the cognitive dissonance of some on the issue(s). To be hypocritical is not the same as suffering from cognitive dissonance. And ignorance vs denial comes into play.

Cognitive dissonance exists because the human mind cannot live in conflict.

 

[Blues Man]

When a party platform or political credo takes a firm stance, makes a dogmatic statement.


If you agree with the premise: "Conservatives demanded that the national government should promote respect for law and order and contempt for those who violated it, regardless of cause."


One example of cognitive dissonance would be a true conservative supporting anyone who violated the above demand.

I don'ts see who politics plays into it.

 

[ding]

You didn't prove your point all you did was tell lies , Pinocchio

You are still proving my point.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don'ts see who politics plays into it.

You completely sidestepped what I posted.

 

[Blues Man]

You are still proving my point.

You have to first prove your point and you have failed miserably at that because you provide no proof of anything you claim

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Cognitive dissonance exists because the human mind cannot live in conflict.

Actually, it can. The human mind can and does often live in conflict.

 

[Blues Man]

You completely sidestepped what I posted.

Not really.

I see both sides of the political spectrum exhibiting the same dissonance regarding law enforcement

Which is why politics really has nothing to do with it

 

[ding]

Actually, it can. The human mind can and does often live in conflict.

I disagree. The human mind has three options when presented with an incongruent belief. It will either compartmentalize it, rationalize it away or surrender to it. All three result in the mind reconciling the conflict, but only the last one will lead to learning and growth. The other two are forms of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Foxfyre]

religion would be far more stark FF......~S~

In some cases yes. Those who take the Bible for instance absolutely literally word for word of necessity must engage in at least some cognizance dissonance to rationale the differences and contradictions that are inevitable when you have different writers reporting what happened or making a point or how it is decided what rules/law must be followed and what is not necessary to follow now. And it gets worse when we get into the theories, concepts, rules/regs, dogma and doctrine that have been added since the Old and New Testaments were closed.

Likewise those embracing the theory of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center or Flat Earthers who say the moon landing was faked or those who deny the Holocaust must push aside the testimony of eye witnesses, disbelieve thousands of photographs and video and believe that tens of thousands of people, are all participating in the same conspiracy to put false information out there.

Human existence is a series of paradoxes, contradictions, failures, successes, evolving morals, ethics, knowledge. Every generation gets some things right and some things wrong and every human engages in rationalization of some of that along the way. And that from time to time probably of necessity does require us to engage in some form of cognizance dissonance in the process.

 

[sparky]

Human existence is a series of paradoxes, contradictions, failures, successes, evolving morals, ethics, knowledge. Every generation gets some things right and some things wrong and every human engages in rationalization of some of that along the way. And that from time to time probably of necessity does require us to engage in some form of cognizance dissonance in the process.

History proves your point FF

~S~

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not really.

I see both sides of the political spectrum exhibiting the same dissonance regarding law enforcement

Which is why politics really has nothing to do with it

You just sidestepped it again, and re-framed everything. And you left out an important piece: "One example of cognitive dissonance would be a true conservative supporting anyone who violated the above demand."

When a party platform or political credo takes a firm stance, makes a dogmatic statement.

If you agree with the premise: "Conservatives demanded that the national government should promote respect for law and order and contempt for those who violated it, regardless of cause."

One example of cognitive dissonance would be a true conservative supporting anyone who violated the above demand.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I disagree. The human mind has three options when presented with an incongruent belief. It will either compartmentalize it, rationalize it away or surrender to it. All three result in the mind reconciling the conflict, but only the last one will lead to learning and growth. The other two are forms of cognitive dissonance.

You just agreed that the human mind can and does often live in conflict.

Cognitive dissonance is the experience of the struggle some people have. Cognitive dissonance is not the resolution -- the end result of dealing with the conflict(s).

 

[ding]

You just agreed that the human mind can and does often live in conflict.

Cognitive dissonance is the experience of the struggle some people have. Cognitive dissonance is not the resolution -- the end result of dealing with the conflict(s).

Actually I didn’t. I listed 3 ways the mind resolves the conflict. If the mind doesn’t resolve the conflict in one of those three ways, it will go mad.

Granted the first two options don’t really resolve the conflict but they allow the conscious portion of the mind to believe it has. When people lie to themselves to resolve their conflicts or compartmentalize it, it’s a defense mechanism.

I agree CD is not a resolution. I did not intend to imply it was. It’s a condition brought about by an incongruent belief and the failure to reconcile it in the proper manner.

 

[sparky]

I disagree. The human mind has three options when presented with an incongruent belief. It will either compartmentalize it, rationalize it away or surrender to it. All three result in the mind reconciling the conflict, but only the last one will lead to learning and growth. The other two are forms of cognitive dissonance.

spot on Ding

from the bowels of this soul suckin' device>

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~S~

 

[ding]

spot on Ding

from the bowels of this soul suckin' device>

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

~S~

I never read that before. I got the part about the mind not being able to live in conflict from a Psychology Today article 35 or so years ago.

Here’s a good example of what I am talking about. Let’s say a man believes cheating on his wife is bad then he cheats on his wife. He can choose to compartmentalize it by just putting it out of his mind and never thinking about it. He can choose to rationalize it by saying it makes his marriage better which changes his original belief and most likely allows him to continue cheating. Or he can surrender to it and admit he was wrong to do it. Or he can go mad with guilt. Of these four possible outcomes only one will lead to learning and growth. The others are a form of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Foxfyre]

I went plant based for health reasons.

I was in good shape in no way even close to being overweight and I exercise but was on blood pressure and cholesterol medication and my triglycerides were high . The statins made my muscle sore and I wasn't recovering from workouts because of that.

So I went 100% whole food plant based I didn't eat the fake processed vegan "meat" products I just stuck to fruits , veg and whole grains beans and legumes that's it

And I was off all my medications in less than 6 months

I was always marginally aware of the conditions in the factory farming industry but when I realized that I didn't have to eat meat or any animal products to be healthy and fit it was easy for me to make the choice not to add to the suffering of all those animals and I'm glad i did.

I won't go back to eating meat because you are right we just don't know if "free range" animals are really treated well and the word organic on packaging is basically meaningless.

Whatever works is my motto. For awhile I was eating virtually no meat, poultry or fish simply because I preferred fruit and vegetables. And I was conscious to combine veggies to create complete proteins. But my doctor said my blood work would be better if I would include some animal protein. So I still don't eat a lot of meat or poultry but I do eat some fish and I did become healthier.

Also all studies conducted report that people undergoing cancer treatment generally tolerate it better and stay healthier if they do consume substantial amounts of animal protein. Why? Dunno. But that's the results of several studies on the subject.

Certainly those who avoid a lot of processed foods, salt laden, bad fat, etc. are going to be healthier than those who don't avoid that stuff.

The Japanese people as a demographic are the healthiest, longest lived people on Earth despite a high salt diet. They have few issues of cholesterol and high blood pressure and their diet consists of natural vegetables and lots of fish and seafood. They do not consume much refined sugar if any.

Humankind has been carnivorous or omnivorous, rarely ever herbivorous, according to most paleontological scientist dating back at least to the Pleistocene epoch more than two million years ago.
Those early hunters probably didn't give a moment's thought to the discomfort of the animals they killed for food.

That humankind has now evolved to care about other creatures on Earth does not of necessity require them to be vegan or vegetarian. One can be carnivorous and still demand ethical treatment of animals. And in my opinion it is cognitive dissonance to care about ethical treatment of all animals but not ethical treatment of all one's fellow human beings.

 

[ding]

Whatever works is my motto. For awhile I was eating virtually no meat, poultry or fish simply because I preferred fruit and vegetables. And I was conscious to combine veggies to create complete proteins. But my doctor said my blood work would be better if I would include some animal protein. So I still don't eat a lot of meat or poultry but I do eat some fish and I did become healthier.

Also all studies conducted report that people undergoing cancer treatment generally tolerate it better and stay healthier if they do consume substantial amounts of animal protein. Why? Dunno. But that's the results of several studies on the subject.

Certainly those who avoid a lot of processed foods, salt laden, bad fat, etc. are going to be healthier than those who don't avoid that stuff.

The Japanese people as a demographic are the healthiest, longest lived people on Earth despite a high salt diet. They have few issues of cholesterol and high blood pressure and their diet consists of natural vegetables and lots of fish and seafood. They do not consume much refined sugar if any.

Humankind has been carnivorous or omnivorous, rarely ever herbivorous, according to most paleontological scientist dating back at least to the Pleistocene epoch more than two million years ago.
Those early hunters probably didn't give a moment's thought to the discomfort of the animals they killed for food.

That humankind has now evolved to care about other creatures on Earth does not of necessity require them to be vegan or vegetarian. One can be carnivorous and still demand ethical treatment of animals. And in my opinion it is cognitive dissonance to care about ethical treatment of all animals but not ethical treatment of all one's fellow human beings.

I think it’s because our bodies function better when burning fat instead of sugar. At least when one is older anyway. I have seen remarkable physiological changes by switching to burning fat instead of sugar in as little as 3 days. That’s a blood chemistry thing for sure.

 

[sparky]

I never read that before. I got the part about the mind not being able to live in conflict from a Psychology Today article 35 or so years ago.

Here’s a good example of what I am talking about. Let’s say a man believes cheating on his wife is bad then he cheats on his wife. He can choose to compartmentalize it by just putting it out of his mind and never thinking about it. He can choose to rationalize it by saying it makes his marriage better which changes his original belief and most likely allows him to continue cheating. Or he can surrender to it and admit he was wrong to do it. Or he can go mad with guilt. Of these four possible outcomes only one will lead to learning and growth. The others are a form of cognitive dissonance.

well, wouldn't it be presumptuous to consider the example wants to learn & grow Ding?



ergo the rub.....

but examples seem to work best in this thread.....


A dying patient is coherent enough to ask his EMS providers if he's going to die

what would you tell him/her?

.....~S~

 

[ding]

And in my opinion it is cognitive dissonance to care about ethical treatment of all animals but not ethical treatment of all one's fellow human beings.

Amen

 

[ding]

well, wouldn't it be presumptuous to consider the example wants to learn & grow Ding?



ergo the rub.....

but examples seem to work best in this thread.....


A dying patient is coherent enough to ask his EMS providers if he's going to die

what would you tell him/her?

.....~S~

Sure but our lessons will continue to be brought back to us until we learn from them.

The truth has no feelings. So I’d tell them the truth.