Dr A writes:
No, that would be decided by
whether there is any conflict or not.
Again — Yes. Absolutely. Conflict is the primary issue here. If I had spent that money on an new car or a grand holiday it would be relatively difficult to reconcile my own selfish actions with my denigration of greedy-self-interested-money- grabbing-bankers. In this case there would be conflict that I may well seek to resolve by some sort of self-justification or even more vitriolic advocacy of the evilness of bankers. But giving the money to charity means there is no such conflict.
So what the money is spent on is highly relevant to whether or not there is any conflict to be resolved.
Dr A writes:
And I gave an example in which there was, in fact, conflict, and therefore the diagnosis is quite properly placed.
You also asked What difference does it make what you spend the money on?. I have told you what difference it makes. It makes the difference between conflict or lack of it.
Dr A writes:
Really, I don't see where you're going with this.
I’m disputing the emphasis on symptoms that has so far been prevalent in this thread. There has been a lot of Oh look there is a bunch of people who hold an idiotic opinion. They
must be suffering from cognitive dissonance. Or Oh look that person has changed their behaviour after considering the facts. They
must be suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Now I’m not disputing that people do change their behaviour as a result of seeking to resolve cognitive dissonance. And you have done a good job of exemplifying the sort of idiotic beliefs that cognitive dissonance can result in. But there are numerous other reasons people hold idiotic beliefs and numerous other reasons people change their behaviour. If we actually want to look at the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance we need to look for evidence of actual internal conflict
and not just at actions or beliefs that may or may not be caused by such conflict.