Cognitive Dissonance

[sparky]

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

ah but, humans do have feelings Ding

~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Refined sugar isn't good for anybody. Chewing on sugar cane or getting one's sweets from honey or naturally sweet substances like sweet potatoes or quality stevia leaf or fruit is a far better choice for those with a sweet tooth of which I am one. But I avoid all refined sugars as much as is reasonable and use refined flour as sparingly as reasonable--I'm not fanatic about much of anything.

There isn't a single one of us who is willing to live naked in a cave somewhere, drinking only what natural water one can find and subsisting on whatever edible plants can be found in the wild. And are we sure those plants aren't stressed by having their leaves torn off or being yanked out of the ground? Sometimes this ethics thing can get that silly. I remember a very strange transient lady lecturing me one time that God told her it is immoral to eat seeds but nuts are okay. She had some sort of rationale for that. But perhaps the there a cognitive dissonance in us all when it comes to where we draw the line on what is and is not ethical/acceptable in consuming our planet's resources.

 

[ding]

ah but, humans do have feelings Ding

~S~

True. So when we tell them the truth we should do so in a compassionate and respectful manner and then acknowledge whatever feelings they feel by telling them it’s ok to feel that way. Mister Rogers was excellent at that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

There are few times that it is ethical to lie but such times do exist. If the prognosis for the patient is grim but there is a chance he/she can live, his/her mental attitude can improve his her chances. So for the EMT to say you're hurt badly but you'll make it could be a constructive lie.

Or to tell the would be murderer that you don't know where his intended victim is when you in fact do know is a necessary lie.

Self serving lies or those intended to harm or damage or inflict emotional pain on others because you want to hurt them are virtually never justifiable.

Personally I struggle with whether cognitive dissonance is 'sin' when the person is unaware that he/she is engaging in it. For some time I have made it my personal code to be as intellectually honest as I am capable. But am I always? I don't know.

 

[ding]

There are few times that it is ethical to lie but such times do exist. If the prognosis for the patient is grim but there is a chance he/she can live, his/her mental attitude can improve his her chances. So for the EMT to say you're hurt badly but you'll make it could be a constructive lie.

Or to tell the would be murderer that you don't know where his intended victim is when you in fact do know is a necessary lie.

Self serving lies or those intended to harm or damage or inflict emotional pain on others because you want to hurt them are virtually never justifiable.

Personally I struggle with whether cognitive dissonance is 'sin' when the person is unaware that he/she is engaging in it. For some time I have made it my personal code to be as intellectually honest as I am capable. But am I always? I don't know.

Most forecasts are best presented as distributions. So it’s not really a lie if the truth is presented that way. But it’s important to give a true assessment and not false hope.

 

[sparky]

True. So when we tell them the truth we should do so in a compassionate and respectful manner and then acknowledge whatever feelings they feel by telling them it’s ok to feel that way. Mister Rogers was excellent at that.

So for the EMT to say you're hurt badly but you'll make it could be a constructive lie.

lol, you two know me too well......

FWIW, i told him 'not on my shift you're not' , and proceeded to do my best for him as he died on me racing to the ER

I lied, then failed him, and further convinced myself it was ok to do so

And the real hard part? When you have to face family members who all show up to witness their loved ones laid out after we made a d*mn mess of 'em......

~S~

 

[ding]

lol, you two know me too well......

FWIW, i told him 'not on my shift you're not' , and proceeded to do my best for him as he died on me racing to the ER

I lied, then failed him, and further convinced myself it was ok to do so

And the real hard part? When you have to face family members who all show up to witness their loved ones laid out after we made a d*mn mess of 'em......

~S~

You only have to see them one time. You have to live with yourself every second of your life. So while I’m sure it is hard to face them, I believe it’s harder to face yourself.

I think it is noble of you to hold yourself to the standard that you failed him but not necessarily entirely accurate. You said you did your best. So whatever grief you have from these kind of situations eventually you need to make peace with yourself. Learn what you need to learn from it, strive to do better in the future and most importantly forgive yourself.

But next time maybe say “not if I can help it.”

 

[Foxfyre]

Most forecasts are best presented as distributions. So it’s not really a lie if the truth is presented that way. But it’s important to give a true assessment and not false hope.

There is certainly a compelling argument for that. I would want to know I think. But there's also a compelling argument to not strip a person of hope when he/she in fact could live and that hope gives them the will to do so.

Sometimes there are definite life illustrations to be taken from television and the movies.

The scene where Winchester, struggling with the question of whether there is life after death, gently asked the dying soldier who was taking his last conscious breaths: "Can you tell me what is happening to you.?" The soldier died without giving an answer, but it was a poignant moment that many who struggle with that question could relate to. The soldier in that case did know he was dying.

The scene on "Titanic" when the boats were gone and the single Irish mother realized there was no hope for her and her two young children. She didn't tell them that she was wrong when she assured them earlier everything would be okay. Instead she put them to bed and told them their favorite story until they fell asleep thus sparing them the terror of maybe hours of knowing they were going to die.

In short there are no hard fast rules for when absolute honesty is warranted and when the ethical choice is something different.

Cognitive dissonance? Or reasoned choice? No hard and fast rules for that one.

 

[Foxfyre]

lol, you two know me too well......

FWIW, i told him 'not on my shift you're not' , and proceeded to do my best for him as he died on me racing to the ER

I lied, then failed him, and further convinced myself it was ok to do so

And the real hard part? When you have to face family members who all show up to witness their loved ones laid out after we made a d*mn mess of 'em......

~S~

It likely made no difference whatsoever to the patient. If you failed him it is because you did not know how to not do that. Believe me, at some point in our lives we have all been in that position. It is unfortunate for your conscience and sense of personal ethics that this situation was life or death.

But I have no doubt in the world that you handled it well with the knowledge and resources you had and, right or wrong, of necessity you followed your caring gut to say what seemed right to say at the time.

If I was your advisor/counselor, I would tell you not to beat yourself up over that but simply know that all humankind is fallible. We simply are not given power to fix everything.

And there is absolutely no cognitive dissonance in that.

 

[ding]

There is certainly a compelling argument for that. I would want to know I think. But there's also a compelling argument to not strip a person of hope when he/she in fact could live and that hope gives them the will to do so.

Sometimes there are definite life illustrations to be taken from television and the movies.

The scene where Winchester, struggling with the question of whether there is life after death, gently asked the dying soldier who was taking his last conscious breaths: "Can you tell me what is happening to you.?" The soldier died without giving an answer, but it was a poignant moment that many who struggle with that question could relate to. The soldier in that case did know he was dying.

The scene on "Titanic" when the boats were gone and the single Irish mother realized there was no hope for her and her two young children. She didn't tell them that she was wrong when she assured them earlier everything would be okay. Instead she put them to bed and told them their favorite story until they fell asleep thus sparing them the terror of maybe hours of knowing they were going to die.

In short there are no hard fast rules for when absolute honesty is warranted and when the ethical choice is something different.

Cognitive dissonance? Or reasoned choice? No hard and fast rules for that one.

I think each situation is different and deserves to be handled on a case by case basis. But when a direct question is asked it deserves an honest answer. If one does not truly know then saying I don’t know is an honest answer.

I don’t see any of that as cognitive dissonance.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think each situation is different and deserves to be handled on a case by case basis. But when a direct question is asked it deserves an honest answer. If one does not truly know then saying I don’t know is an honest answer.

I don’t see any of that as cognitive dissonance.

We can gently disagree on that one except I do agree situations can differ and each should be assessed on the immediate circumstances.

I honestly believe that "I don't know" can be the right answer even when we do know. When the truth will do measurable harm and there is no harm in withholding it, the ethical choice could be that "I don't know."

But even if I knew there was a 99% chance he would die, I sure wouldn't tell a badly injured patient he was probably not going to make it if there was the slightest chance that he could.

That is not cognitive dissonance. That in my opinion would be the ethical choice in most cases. Perhaps not all.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Although nutrition education varies by school, a 2021 survey of medical schools in the U.S. and U.K., published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, found that most students receive an average of 11 hours of nutrition training throughout an entire medical program.May 24, 2023


Compared with regular meat-eaters, the risk of developing any type of cancer was lower in low meat-eaters (2% less), fish-eaters (10% less), and vegetarians (14% less).

New study finds lower risks of cancer for vegetarians, pescatarians and low meat-eaters — Nuffield Department of Population Health

[2 minute read]

www.ndph.ox.ac.uk

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

People live with it all the time. Nobody goes mad. You watch too many movies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

failure to reconcile it in the proper manner.

Proper manner? sigh


you may need to -- confront some realities.

I apologize for being harsh with you, but I rarely suffer fools gladly.

I apologize.

 

[buttercup]

Of course if I knew that I never would have ordered the eggs in the first place. So I buy uncaged eggs and choose free range poultry and meat whenever possible. In a restaurant I can't know so just hope. I do what I reasonably can to promote the ethical treatment of animals.

I honestly hate to say this, but "cage-free," "free-range," etc... all of those terms are just marketing labels that mean next to nothing. They are designed to make people feel better.

Here's a video to watch, on this topic of "humane washing".... I hope you watch it:

 

[buttercup]

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.

Wow, I'm honestly amazed you said that, because it is well established that the exact opposite is true, according to numerous studies going back many years. High amounts of animal protein are linked to cancer.

In fact, there are TONS of stories of people who had cancer and beat their cancer - not because of chemo or other money-making treatments, but by radically changing their diet and going to a strictly whole food plantbased diet.

Here's some stuff to look at....







And I highly recommend watching this next one. This is a guy named Chris who had colon cancer in his late 20's, and decided he didn't want to go the standard chemo route, so he radically changed his diet and beat cancer. Now he has a fantastic YouTube channel called "Chris beat cancer" that is filled with tons of testimonies of people who beat cancer and other diseases by simply changing their diet.

Here is his story, this is a great interview, very interesting and worth watching:

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow, I'm honestly amazed you said that, because it is well established that the exact opposite is true, according to numerous studies going back many years. High amounts of animal protein are linked to cancer.

In fact, there are TONS of stories of people who had cancer and beat their cancer - not because of chemo or other money-making treatments, but by radically changing their diet and going to a strictly whole food plantbased diet.

Here's some stuff to look at....







And I highly recommend watching this next one. This is a guy named Chris who had colon cancer in his late 20's, and decided he didn't want to go the standard chemo route, so he radically changed his diet and beat cancer. Now he has a fantastic YouTube channel called "Chris beat cancer" that is filled with tons of testimonies of people who beat cancer and other diseases by simply changing their diet.

Here is his story, this is a great interview, very interesting and worth watching:

I've been on a modified Budwig protocol for years as a cancer fighter, but I did not mention anything about preventing cancer in previous posts. My comments were about those undergoing cancer treatment. And not having ability to do the research myself I am as dependent on the opinions/conclusions of others as anybody else is.

Experts: During Cancer Treatment, Animal-Based Proteins Are Best

Experts say animal-based protein sources are best for helping cancer patients build muscle during treatment. But what about vegans and vegetarians?

www.verywellhealth.com

Animal-based protein recommended for people being treated for cancer

If you're being treated for cancer, don't leave meat, fish and dairy off your plate, University of Alberta experts advise.

medicalxpress.com

I am not at all knocking those who choose vegan or vegetarian lifestyles. Have many among my friends and relatives and have learned how to cook for all. Some cancer centers like MD Anderson nix the high fat and red meat/processed meat that isn't good for anybody and recommend certain fish and lean poultry and less of that than others recommend. And support those who want to be vegan and vegetarian.


But vegan/vegetarianism isn't for everybody. And I refuse to feel guilty because some people think I should.

Nor is all animal based protein equal. Some should be avoided. Some is strongly recommended.

There's a plan for everybody out there.

 

[Blues Man]

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."

OK so is that all you wanted to say?

 

[ding]

People live with it all the time. Nobody goes mad. You watch too many movies.

Actually that was from an article from Psychology Today. Would you like for me to recant what it said? But I'm sorry anyone disagreeing with you turns you into an asshole. You seem to have an external locus of control, coupled with a normalization of deviance layered on top of the dunning effect. Would you like for me to give you your power back? I didn't realize I had so much control over you.

 

[ding]

Proper manner? sigh


you may need to -- confront some realities.

I apologize for being harsh with you, but I rarely suffer fools gladly.

I apologize.

Parsing things out of context is a sign of low intelligence and low integrity.

Just because I prefer to take the high road doesn't mean I don't know how to take the low road. Come at me, bro.