Cognitive Dissonance

  •  December 31, 2005

BummerDietz:

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological discomfort, and the human reaction to eliminate the discomfort, experienced by 60′s Dems who find themselves as part of the Establishment. A discomfort develops between their core political beliefs – which are largely based upon their coming of age during Vietnam, Watergate and the Civil Rights movement – and the facts and circumstances of the political world existing almost 40 years – 2 generations!- after Vietnam, Watergate and MLK.
Again: Modern facts don’t match up with their 40-year old worldview. Alas, their brains are bombarded by daily doses of facts** that conflict with their core paradigms

Read the whole thing.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://Array WOOF

    The straw man arguments that follow, breakdown in the begining. Calling for the

    overhaul one’s entire moral and political paradigms.

    After giving up morals you have nothing of value.

  • Carrick

    WOOF: “overhaul one’s entire moral and political paradigms”==”After giving up morals you have nothing of value.”

    What do you have when you give up the ability to read? See likwidshoe’s comment for elucidation.

    If you’re stuck in the ’60s, stands to reason you’re a bit dated in your world view.

    And are you sure you know what a straw man is? The argument may be wrong (or simply doesn’t apply to the real world), but it doesn’t start out by constructing a sham opposing argument that it then easily defeats.

  • Carrick

    WOOF:

    Morality has been updated?

    I see you’ve still got the same tired habit of taking words out of their surrounding context.

    You also appear to be having a problem with cognitive dissonance, as your ability to parse this simple, easily understood truism appears challenged:

    discarding one’s core beliefs and rebuilding new ones that are consistent with facts and reality.

    is not the same as updating morality.

    Other sad fact is you don’t appear to know the difference between “ethics” and “morality”.

    Ethics = belief system, and it definitely should change over time as our internal world view becomes more sophisticated. You aren’t still stuck at the ethics code of a 4 year old, are you?

  • WOOF

    The problem with you liberals is you think that the meaning of words isn’t(sic) important, or at least, can be morphed to fit your arguments.

    The problem with the article is BummerDietz’s absolute declamations of liberal beliefs wedded to his surety of historical fact. That’s the strawman.

  • WOOF

    Morality has been updated?

    Didn’t get the memo.

    Did read

    discarding one’s core beliefs and rebuilding new ones that are consistent with facts and reality.

  • WOOF

    core beliefs=morality

    Enough word parsing.

    Seth writes a more cogent screed than BummerDietz.

  • http://randomnumbers.us/ bullwinkle

    Speaking of cognitive dissonance, WOOF is worried about giving up his morals, but he has none. Morals would prevent him from posting one dishonest comment after another after another…

  • Dave

    The problem with you liberals is you think that the meaning of words isn’t(sic) important, or at least, can be morphed to fit your arguments.

    Woof: Why the “(sic)”? There’s no error.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    After giving up morals you have nothing of value.

    Who said anything about “giving up morals”?

  • Dave

    What’s the excuse for young conservatives?

  • Carrick

    core beliefs=morality

    Ethics: Principles or standards of human conduct.

    They are an approximation of “right and wrong” derived from our experiences, as well as inherited from our society. Hence they are our “core beliefs”. Because they are approximations of moral behavior, they need updating as our understanding gets more sophisticated (example: 4 year old child versus adult).

    Morality: Objective reality of what is “right” (good, beneficial) and “wrong” (evil, harmful).

    As we gain experience in making moral decisions, our understanding of morality improves, and our code of ethics should follow.

    Contemplate this:

    Just because a person is ethical, doesn’t imply that he is acting morally. (E.g., Robert E. Lee choosing to fight for the South, resulting in a long & bloody conflict. He probably cost 100′s of thousands of people their lives.)

    Nor, if a person is behaving unethically, does it imply he is acting immorally (the Buddha killing a pirate to prevent the pirate from killing everyone on board while they slept).

    Enough word parsing.

    The problem with you liberals is you think that the meaning of words isn’t important, or at least, can be morphed to fit your arguments.

    Words have meaning for a reason. It allows organized thought as well as organized debate. In this case, it prevents you from getting confused about how one’s belief structures may need revamping overtime.

    Seth writes a more cogent screed than BummerDietz.

    We agree once a week, apparently. This doesn’t detract from BummerDietz’s thesis, you just have to be willing to work at it a bit harder.

    I’m sure you can do better in a rebuttal than quibble over the meaning of one word.

  • http://ndconservative.blogspot.com/ Dan

    Very interesting article. My first thought is what is the excuse for young libs? Parents influence, or lack there of? I think its mostly the potent pot they smoke.

    d.narloch

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I suspect it is a combination of parental influence, influence from teachers, influence from college professors and influence from celebrities.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Good parenting and a healthy dose of common sense, of course.
    ;-)

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development