Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 90 of 102 (672881)
09-12-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Panda
09-12-2012 7:45 AM


Re: The "fuckwitted" and "wanker" groups
But Straggler's issue was with RAZD pointing at both elephants and hat-stands and calling them both mammals.
Whereas I gave an example of a mammal and called it one.
I gave an example of someone whose thoughts were dissonant. Straggler replies that if he had different thoughts then they wouldn't be dissonant. This is true, but hardly worth saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Panda, posted 09-12-2012 7:45 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 102 (672906)
09-12-2012 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Straggler
09-12-2012 8:34 AM


Re: The "fuckwitted" and "wanker" groups
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.
It might. It might not. There probably are people so morally scrupulous that they always give their own money to charity instead of other people's. Good heavens, I'm one myself.
But sure, we can imagine someone who feels no moral conflict in stealing money to give it to charity, a letter-day Robin Hood, knock yourself out. However, in the example I gave, there is a conflict. That was stipulated, it's part of the example. It is not a critique of the example that you can imagine a different person who has different thoughts and different motives and therefore does not feel conflicted, any more than it's a critique of my saying that an elephant is an example of a mammal to reply that you can imagine a hat-stand which is not an example of a mammal.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2012 8:34 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2012 10:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 102 of 102 (828545)
02-20-2018 10:42 PM


Another Interesting Example
An interesting if nauseating example of this is the people who believe in "crisis actors".
On the one hand, they think that nothing should be done about gun violence whatsoever because then we'd all become gay transsexual communists or something ... the details are not clear, but they are very vehement about them.
On the other hand, it is hard to contemplate another school shooting and not think that something ought to be done.
These two moral imperatives of action and inaction can be perfectly reconciled by the supposition that no school shootings ever happen.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024