Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

[David G]

Recent irrational posts by some of our fellow Bilge denizens made me think of the study that this article talks about and references:

http://www.classwarfareexists.com/study-republicans-more-likely-to-make-up-facts-in-order-to-justify-their-beliefs/#axzz262URbd40

Even though both liberals and conservatives alike had a tendency to rationalize their views … conservatives created a new reality essentially in all four of these areas in order to square their thought process. The conservative movement by and large suffers from this; another term for this is cognitive dissonance. For whatever reason – the brains of conservatives just make stuff up in order to justify their support for two conflicting beliefs.


Conservatives are against “socialism” but love Medicare. They hate Obamacare but nominated a guy who created the model for Obamacare. They’re against abortion but don’t want to teach kids about condoms. They don’t like Wall Street but want fewer regulations. The list goes on. And that’s why people search for the news that reassures them that they are correct instead of simply searching for the truth; cognitive dissonance is the reason that Fox News is profitable.

[hanleyclifford]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

Maybe conservatives are not really as conservative as they think.

[L.W. Baxter]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

I ain't no psychotigist, but the examples in the paragraph quoted are not "cognitive dissonance".

There is no cognitive dissonance in being against both abortion and the teaching of children about condoms. Those are two separate, moral positions, which can, and do, arise consistently from a particular moral system. You may disagree with these positions, but they do not represent "cognitive dissonance".

Likewise, a distaste for Wall Street and a distaste for government regulation are hardly mutually exclusive or conflicting. Some people just have a lot of distaste for different things.

As for conservatives "loving medicare", or "hating Obamacare", what kind of scientific study is this, exactly? 7th grade science fair?

As noted, "the list goes on."

Sorry David, this is crapt.

[B_B]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

...There is no cognitive dissonance in being against both abortion and the teaching of children about condoms. Those are two separate, moral positions, which can, and do, arise consistently from a particular moral system. You may disagree with these positions, but they do not represent "cognitive dissonance"....

The two are intertwined irrevocably. I agree that being for or against one does not necessitate one be for or against the other, but the RESULTS of one policy definitely have consequences in the other.

Being against teaching how to use condoms/making condoms available typically arises out of a moral stance against sexual activity occurring outside a marriage for the purpose of procreation.

Being against abortion arises out of some moral ideal about the 'sanctity of life'.

Both of these can be seen as independent issues. But the reality, and this is the dissonance, is that, statistically, teaching kids abstinence sans proper sex ed. leads to higher out of wedlock pregnancy rates and, therefore, abortion.

The dissonance isn't in holding the two ideals (condoms/abortion) simultaneously, the dissonance is the lack of understanding that the one moral stance leads to negative outcomes in the other.

I am against abortion except in some very narrow circumstances - because of this I am very pro- sex ed. and for the availability and use of prophylactics. This isn't the typical moral stance promoted by most 'conservatives'.

[L.W. Baxter]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

...the dissonance is the lack of understanding that the one moral stance leads to negative outcomes in the other.

Nope.

You and David, and these would-be psychological scientists, need to look up "cognitive dissonance". It does not mean what you/he/they think it means. And even if it did, you/he/they would still be wrong.

[L.W. Baxter]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

Maybe read the Wiki article on it. I just did. I remain entirely correct.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

Maybe read the Wiki article on it. I just did. I remain entirely correct.

Which suggests that conservatives do not suffer from some psychological problem, but that they are just batshyte crazy stupid.

The inability to do joined up thinking is not unique to American conservatives. I have commented on another thread the stupidity of the Thatcher government where Maggy championed a policy to encourage everyone to buy their rented social housing, thereby locking them into their current location. At the same time her minister was telling the unemployed to move to another part of the country in search of work. Clever that.

[Paul Pless]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

And even if it did, you/he/they would still be wrong.

...

[LeeG]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

advocating self-defeating policies isn't cognitive dissonance.

[B_B]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

Nope.

You and David, and these would-be psychological scientists, need to look up "cognitive dissonance". It does not mean what you/he/they think it means. And even if it did, you/he/they would still be wrong.

I didn't use the phrase "cognitive dissonance" - I used the word "dissonance".

I don't need to look up the words I use

But for your benefit - definition 2 would be the preferred use given the context:

dissonance[ˈdɪsənəns], dissonancy n
1. a discordant combination of sounds
2. lack of agreement or consistency
3. (Music, other) Musica. a sensation commonly associated with all intervals of the second and seventh, all diminished and augmented intervals, and all chords based on these intervals Compare consonance [3]
b. an interval or chord of this kind

edit: since you're lumping me in David for not knowing something, would you mind if I lump you in with Phillip for not understanding what one is reading?

[Concordia 33]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

Recent irrational posts by some of our fellow Bilge denizens made me think of the study that this article talks about and references:

http://www.classwarfareexists.com/st...#axzz262URbd40

Perhaps this is the better psychological study. What seems dissonant may not be so if one is more open minded....

To be “close-minded” is, according to the dictionary, to be “intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.” To be conservative and close-minded, according to popular portrayal, is a redundancy—a package deal that liberals can and do take for granted.

But University of Virginia Professor Jonathan Haidt’s new book TheRighteous Mind doesn’t simply suggest that conservatives may not be as close-minded as they are portrayed. It proves that the opposite is the case, that conservatives understand their ideological opposite numbers far better than do liberals.

Haidt’s research asks individuals to answer questionnaires regarding their core moral beliefs—what sorts of values they consider sacred, which they would compromise on, and how much it would take to get them to make those compromises. Bythemselves, these exercises are interesting. (Try them online and see where you come out.)

[L.W. Baxter]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

I didn't use the phrase "cognitive dissonance" - I used the word "dissonance".

I don't need to look up the words I use

But for your benefit - definition 2 would be the preferred use given the context:


edit: since you're lumping me in David for not knowing something, would you mind if I lump you in with Phillip for not understanding what one is reading?

Well, Braam, it sure seemed from your post #4 that you were arguing against me, in support of the o.p. and the quoted article.

You dropped the word "cognitive", and now claim that your meaning is entirely different from the words in the o.p.. So, do you therefore agree with me that the o.p. and the "study" quoted are gross abuses of language and science, so called? Am I correct in my assertion that the study and the o.p. incorrectly use the terminology of psychology and are therefore guilty of promulgating garbage?

I just want to make sure I understand what I am reading.

But I will take you at your word, that you are operating under definition #2 of "dissonance". I have to persist in suggesting that, even employing your own definition, you continue to be wrong. There is no dissonance in the examples quoted above.

For example: "hating Obamacare", yet nominating the guy who created the model for it, creates no "lack of agreement or consistency". The very simple and ideologically consistent explanation is that Romney's model was intended for control at the state level, and that he is ideologically opposed to the Federal government mandating a similar program for the nation as a whole. No dissonance. You might find the ideological distinction goofy, but that is just opinion, not logic.

The same reasoning applies to all of the examples from the o.p., like it or not. Each of the supposedly conflicting positions can be shown to have perfectly logical consistency. Just because you or I disagree with the moral or ideological system required to make those positions consistent does not mean that we need resort to seeking psychological defect in those who espouse them.

[John Smith]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

I ain't no psychotigist, but the examples in the paragraph quoted are not "cognitive dissonance".

There is no cognitive dissonance in being against both abortion and the teaching of children about condoms. Those are two separate, moral positions, which can, and do, arise consistently from a particular moral system. You may disagree with these positions, but they do not represent "cognitive dissonance".

Likewise, a distaste for Wall Street and a distaste for government regulation are hardly mutually exclusive or conflicting. Some people just have a lot of distaste for different things.

As for conservatives "loving medicare", or "hating Obamacare", what kind of scientific study is this, exactly? 7th grade science fair?

As noted, "the list goes on."

Sorry David, this is crapt.

Explain this to me: how is it they hate single moms and families on food stamps, so the pass laws restricting abortion and birth control that will lead to more of both?

How do they trust in God, but just in case, pass laws?

[John Smith]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

Maybe read the Wiki article on it. I just did. I remain entirely correct.

Wiki is not an accepted source in our high school, and for good reason. It ought not be an accepted source here.

[B_B]

Re: Cognitive Dissonance - 'conservative' thinking?

Well, Braam, it sure seemed from your post #4 that you were arguing against me, in support of the o.p. and the quoted article.

You dropped the word "cognitive", and now claim that your meaning is entirely different from the words in the o.p.. So, do you therefore agree with me that the o.p. and the "study" quoted are gross abuses of language and science, so called? Am I correct in my assertion that the study and the o.p. incorrectly use the terminology of psychology and are therefore guilty of promulgating garbage?

I just want to make sure I understand what I am reading.

But I will take you at your word, that you are operating under definition #2 of "dissonance". I have to persist in suggesting that, even employing your own definition, you continue to be wrong. There is no dissonance in the examples quoted above.

For example: "hating Obamacare", yet nominating the guy who created the model for it, creates no "lack of agreement or consistency". The very simple and ideologically consistent explanation is that Romney's model was intended for control at the state level, and that he is ideologically opposed to the Federal government mandating a similar program for the nation as a whole. No dissonance. You might find the ideological distinction goofy, but that is just opinion, not logic.

The same reasoning applies to all of the examples from the o.p., like it or not. Each of the supposedly conflicting positions can be shown to have perfectly logical consistency. Just because you or I disagree with the moral or ideological system required to make those positions consistent does not mean that we need resort to seeking psychological defect in those who espouse them.

Hmm, I wasn't arguing for or against either you nor the OP.

The point of the OP - in my interpretation at least, and my post - very condescending of you to 'take my word for it', is to suggest that 'dissonance' exists. Whether or not this falls under the rubric of 'cognitive dissonance' or not was, to me, not of import.

I was trying to move beyond that very narrow, supercilious, and misplaced discussion.

What is of import is that there appears to be no connection between policy positions and the results of those policies. While each policy may or may not have a logical, and/or moral, clarity in of themselves, does not mean that as a cohesive set of ideals they work together towards a coherent goal.

While trees are nice, it's also important to recognize that there's a forest.