The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby jakell » Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:19 pm

Sounder » Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:40 pm wrote:The framing that the anti-critics propose is that Chomsky’s response to 911 ideation is responsible, given all the variables and whatnot.

That may well be, but my comment was more about the dissonance suppressing tenor (and shallowness) of his comments in that particular video. No my issues with Chomsky have more to do with his primary work in removing emotional markers so as to create more efficient command and control systems. (What he professes and says, and what he does do not seem to match up) That and his role in steering culpability away from Israel in regard to its crimes against the original Semitic Palestinian population. OK, well, those things and a few others; might as well mention his happy to be a fascist if that will ‘cure’ climate change.

Chomsky is a regular consensus making machine.


This seems an odd observation as the use of emotive markers appears (to me) to be central to mass control systems, in galvanising 'opinion' (belief really) as well as inhibiting deconstruction in retrospect.

I do see what you mean though, but more obvious in Hitchens' manner, he exuded a level of detachment that I often saw as overplayed.

(I hope someone didn't notice that you sneaked the f-word in there)
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby Harvey » Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:41 pm

Personally, I'd give Chomsky a pass. He did what he could when he could, more than most. If you never tried being a lightning conductor at any level, well, it hurts, a lot.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4165
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby beeblebrox » Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:42 pm

jakell » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:58 pm wrote:
beeblebrox » Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:35 pm wrote:
jakell » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:41 am wrote:I'm pretty sure that Chomsky decided fairly early on that the 9/11 issue was something that he wasn't going to get entangled with. A fairly wise route IMO, although, with external pressures, you are going to end up looking a fool either way, and he chose the sort of fool he was going to be.

I've been in a similar situation, and had to make similar choices. It takes a certain level of maturity to make that choice and not give yourself wholly up to manipulation.


What you are describing with that last paragraph is the beginning of CD. You made an instinctive decision to go along with a lie to protect your position in society. You then tried to rationalize this decision by labeling it as "maturity" in much the same way that others here are attempting to rationalize Chomsky's behavior with regard to the same situation......


I'm pretty sure that you don't know of any lies I have 'gone along with', nor of any position in society I hold that I have tried to protect.

In all, not a great set of opening remarks to initiate a dialogue with.


Yes, I assumed too much there. Your wording was vague enough to leave open the possibility for your situation to be dissimilar enough from Chomsky's to invalidate my comparison.

As for Chomsky, I do not know what is in his heart and mind. He took the very course of action that many here believe was the most sensible. That cannot be changed now. Time will tell if this was the proper course of action or not.
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:52 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby jakell » Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:55 am

beeblebrox » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:42 am wrote:
jakell » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:58 pm wrote:
beeblebrox » Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:35 pm wrote:
jakell » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:41 am wrote:I'm pretty sure that Chomsky decided fairly early on that the 9/11 issue was something that he wasn't going to get entangled with. A fairly wise route IMO, although, with external pressures, you are going to end up looking a fool either way, and he chose the sort of fool he was going to be.

I've been in a similar situation, and had to make similar choices. It takes a certain level of maturity to make that choice and not give yourself wholly up to manipulation.


What you are describing with that last paragraph is the beginning of CD. You made an instinctive decision to go along with a lie to protect your position in society. You then tried to rationalize this decision by labeling it as "maturity" in much the same way that others here are attempting to rationalize Chomsky's behavior with regard to the same situation......


I'm pretty sure that you don't know of any lies I have 'gone along with', nor of any position in society I hold that I have tried to protect.

In all, not a great set of opening remarks to initiate a dialogue with.


Yes, I assumed too much there. Your wording was vague enough to leave open the possibility for your situation to be dissimilar enough from Chomsky's to invalidate my comparison.

As for Chomsky, I do not know what is in his heart and mind. He took the very course of action that many here believe was the most sensible. That cannot be changed now. Time will tell if this was the proper course of action or not.


Even though I have no position to protect, I've certainly had the experience of becoming entangled in issues that cannot be resolved, and the continuance of which simply seems to satisfy the seemingly endless fantasies of obsessives who themselves seem not to seek any sort of resolution.

Sometimes the issue in question has been something close to my heart, and it's been a wrench to put it aside, but you have to take into account the environment in which issues are broached. If that is poor you will get at best poor results and waste your valuable time, at worst your involvement will cloud the issue even further.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby Sounder » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:48 am

I hear you jakell and Harvey, thanks.

BPH wrote...
I wish I had more enemies like Chomsky.


Chomsky is certainly not an enemy to me; call him a frenimy if you must.

To illustrate; One of my mentors is a Zionist Jew.

I greatly value our relationship because while I am not at all formally educated in regard to philosophical subtleties, my friend is.

Yet while I thought of our engagement as purely philosophical, I later learned of the political overlay involved with any kind of relationship.

My friend encouraged me to subscribe to the New Republic. I was not impressed, yet did not realize what was going on till several years later.

I had no idea my friend was even Jewish let alone him being Zionist. (he does not look Jewish or have a Jewish name.) At the time I did not know the history or the role of neo-cons, neo-liberals, or whatever it is those people are called.

I only even realized how much Jewish identification was a central element in my friend’s life when I was at his wedding, and my wife and I and a black couple were the only (apparently) non-Jewish folk at the event.

I was naïve, but still grew to detest the New Republic rhetoric. Even more so when they continued to send the rag for several years after I cancelled the subscription.

I will always be grateful for the help provided in organizing my speculative pondering, (don’t laugh jack) but still; Zionism is racism, and all the brilliance in the world cannot change that fact.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:52 pm

Via: http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-re ... m-justice/

The Doctrine of Academic Freedom
Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice

By Sandra Y.L. Korn February 18, 2014

In July 1971, Harvard psychology professor Richard J. Herrnstein penned an article for Atlantic Monthly titled “I.Q.” in which he endorsed the theories of UC Berkeley psychologist Arthur Jensen, who had claimed that intelligence is almost entirely hereditary and varies by race. Herrnstein further argued that because intelligence was hereditary, social programs intended to establish a more egalitarian society were futile—he wrote that “social standing [is] based to some extent on inherited differences among people.”

When he returned to campus for fall semester 1971, Herrnstein was met by angry student activists. Harvard-Radcliffe Students for a Democratic Society protested his introductory psychology class with a bullhorn and leaflets. They tied up Herrnstein’s lectures with pointed questions about scientific racism. SDS even called for Harvard to fire Herrnstein, along with another of his colleagues, sociologist Christopher Jencks.

Herrnstein told The Crimson, “The attacks on me have not bothered me personally… What bothers me is this: Something has happened at Harvard this year that makes it hazardous for a professor to teach certain kinds of views.” This, Herrnstein seems not to have understood, was precisely the goal of the SDS activists—they wanted to make the “certain kinds of views” they deemed racist and classist unwelcome on Harvard’s campus.

Harvard’s deans were also unhappy. They expressed concerns about student activists’ “interference with the academic freedom and right to speak of a member of the Harvard faculty.” Did SDS activists at Harvard infringe on Herrnstein’s academic freedom? The answer might be that yes, they did—but that’s not the most important question to ask. Student and faculty obsession with the doctrine of “academic freedom” often seems to bump against something I think much more important: academic justice.

In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable. Perhaps it should even be applied more broadly. Does Government Professor Harvey Mansfield have the legal right to publish a book in which he claims that “to resist rape a woman needs … a certain ladylike modesty?” Probably. Do I think he should do that? No, and I would happily organize with other feminists on campus to stop him from publishing further sexist commentary under the authority of a Harvard faculty position. “Academic freedom” might permit such an offensive view of rape to be published; academic justice would not.

Over winter break, Harvard published a statement responding to the American Studies Association’s resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions until Israel ends its occupation of Palestine. Much of the conversation around this academic boycott has focused on academic freedom. Opponents of the boycott claim that it restricts the freedom of Israeli academics or interrupts the “free flow of ideas.” Proponents of the boycott often argue that the boycott is intended to, in the end, increase, not restrict, academic freedom—the ASA points out that “there is no effective or substantive academic freedom for Palestinian students and scholars under conditions of Israeli occupation.”

In this case, discourse about “academic freedom” obscures what should fundamentally be a political argument. Those defending the academic boycott should use a more rigorous standard. The ASA, like three other academic associations, decided to boycott out of a sense of social justice, responding to a call by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions until Israel ends its occupation of Palestine. People on the right opposed to boycotts can play the “freedom” game, calling for economic freedom to buy any product or academic freedom to associate with any institution. Only those who care about justice can take the moral upper hand.

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby jakell » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:14 pm

Not sure how to interpret the above article in the present context, but the first of the comments (echoed several times) reflects my own views.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby brainpanhandler » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:03 am

Sounder » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:48 am wrote:I hear you jakell and Harvey, thanks.

BPH wrote...
I wish I had more enemies like Chomsky.


Chomsky is certainly not an enemy to me; call him a frenimy if you must.

To illustrate; One of my mentors is a Zionist Jew.

I greatly value our relationship because while I am not at all formally educated in regard to philosophical subtleties, my friend is.

Yet while I thought of our engagement as purely philosophical, I later learned of the political overlay involved with any kind of relationship.

My friend encouraged me to subscribe to the New Republic. I was not impressed, yet did not realize what was going on till several years later.

I had no idea my friend was even Jewish let alone him being Zionist. (he does not look Jewish or have a Jewish name.) At the time I did not know the history or the role of neo-cons, neo-liberals, or whatever it is those people are called.

I only even realized how much Jewish identification was a central element in my friend’s life when I was at his wedding, and my wife and I and a black couple were the only (apparently) non-Jewish folk at the event.

I was naïve, but still grew to detest the New Republic rhetoric. Even more so when they continued to send the rag for several years after I cancelled the subscription.

I will always be grateful for the help provided in organizing my speculative pondering, (don’t laugh jack) but still; Zionism is racism, and all the brilliance in the world cannot change that fact.


Do you believe Chomsky is a zionist? If so, why?

sounder wrote:his role in steering culpability away from Israel in regard to its crimes against the original Semitic Palestinian population


I'll bet I can find way, way, waaaaay more evidence to the contrary in his published writings and speeches; direct, clear, unambiguous evidence.

I wonder what Alice thinks of Chomsky?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5088
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby Sounder » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:29 am

Alice thinks well of Chomsky, but you already know that.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby jakell » Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:15 am

Is this 'steering culpability' another example of him shifting focus in a way that displeases people. like him steering culpability via him not favouring the conspiratorial angle around 9/11?

It sounds like a woolly phrase that would be hard to prove or disprove.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:38 pm

On the Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance, if we begin with the assumption that "Cognitive Dissonance" is the normal functional state of the civilized human being, we can grope towards some curious insights into how the precise tuning & composition of our social myths lead to optimal and sub-optimal results. In other words, The Care and Feeding of Group Consciousness.

For instance, according to The Rats from NIMH, "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year." Especially common are the garden variety existential complaints of depression and anxiety.

On a larger scale, WHO Data indicates this is pretty much the background noise of Capitalism. Most interesting to me is the fact that, even in larger/wider studies, the onset remains statistically the same: "mental illness" begins with the transition from adolescence to adulthood. In the US that shakes out to 14-21 years old, result vary depending on where you're observing the unfortunate denizens of Countries Other Than Murka, their precise results of course do not merit discussion.

On an individual level, I think a lot of "Cognitive Biases" is the direct result of the schizoid visual conditioning we've all undergone whereby what we read shapes what we see, rather than the reverse. They still print NYT & WSJ because the printed word is the core power of the spell; their annual losses are a small sacrifice for such security.

Humans who crave purpose will fare poorly in a culture with none; all humans crave purpose.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby jakell » Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:03 pm

In line with what I was saying earlier in the thread. I see the term 'cognitive dissonance' as describing the state within a singular human mind, and don't see how it is usefully applied outside of it, ie in relation to groups of people.

The phrase may have taken on a different popular usage lately that encompasses this, but I haven't seen it.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:42 pm

jakell » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:03 pm wrote:In line with what I was saying earlier in the thread. I see the term 'cognitive dissonance' as describing the state within a singular human mind, and don't see how it is usefully applied outside of it, ie in relation to groups of people.


Quite so; after all, there is no plausible means of transmission from singular human minds to groups of people, ergo there is really nothing further to be said here.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby jakell » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:00 pm

Wombaticus Rex » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:42 pm wrote:
jakell » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:03 pm wrote:In line with what I was saying earlier in the thread. I see the term 'cognitive dissonance' as describing the state within a singular human mind, and don't see how it is usefully applied outside of it, ie in relation to groups of people.


Quite so; after all, there is no plausible means of transmission from singular human minds to groups of people, ergo there is really nothing further to be said here.


I'm taking this to be irony as there clearly is a means of transmission from singular minds to groups, but it isn't the symmetrical peer-to-peer route that would model transmission in a singular mind.

What I'm saying is that to compare the group mind with the singular one is a bad model, and therefore the phrase 'cognitive dissonance' doesn't really work well in that context.

If we are talking of some sort of group mind, then the opposite of cognitive dissonance would be something like the Borg, ie not a good thing, and also one of the goals of totalitarianism.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Psychology of Cognitive Dissonance

Postby Lord Balto » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:33 pm

jakell » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:00 pm wrote:
Wombaticus Rex » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:42 pm wrote:
jakell » Wed Apr 02, 2014 2:03 pm wrote:In line with what I was saying earlier in the thread. I see the term 'cognitive dissonance' as describing the state within a singular human mind, and don't see how it is usefully applied outside of it, ie in relation to groups of people.


Quite so; after all, there is no plausible means of transmission from singular human minds to groups of people, ergo there is really nothing further to be said here.


I'm taking this to be irony as there clearly is a means of transmission from singular minds to groups, but it isn't the symmetrical peer-to-peer route that would model transmission in a singular mind.

What I'm saying is that to compare the group mind with the singular one is a bad model, and therefore the phrase 'cognitive dissonance' doesn't really work well in that context.

If we are talking of some sort of group mind, then the opposite of cognitive dissonance would be something like the Borg, ie not a good thing, and also one of the goals of totalitarianism.


If we take cognitive dissonance to result from a divergence from consensus reality, then any such divergence, for example, the notion that the earth revolves around the sun, would produce dissonance in many minds, especially those who take their belief system from higher authority, in the exampled case, from the Church with its earth centered universe. The condition isn't "[transmitted] from singular minds to groups," it exists in potential form (by analogy to potential energy) in multiple minds at once and only becomes kinetic when those minds are exposed to certain notions that challenge that reality. Though cognitive dissonace itself cannot be transmitted, the stimulus that converts it from potential form to kinetic form travels through the population as the new notion reaches more and more people.
User avatar
Lord Balto
 
Posts: 733
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 pm
Location: Interzone
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests