View Full Version : Is it stupid to think.............
Matblack
27-01-2008, 19:52
.... you could change someones deep seated opinions and prejudices through rational argument on the internet?
MB
Von Smallhausen
27-01-2008, 19:55
.... you could change someones deep seated opinions and prejudices through rational argument on the internet?
MB
That would depend on the forum as well as the person Mat and certain people I have come across on the web are so ingrained through arrogance and lack of life experience that they are beyond rational argument.
I think I know where you are coming from.
Dymetrie
27-01-2008, 19:56
Optimistic, yes... Stupid, no...
Yeah I'd say it would depend on the person and how much they believed in their own prejudices.
I was trying to think of the prejudices I have and whether I would change them if someone gave me a rational arguement, but I don't think I would.
I'd also not bother trying to change peoples opinions either. Even if it's hurtful to me, I tend to let them have their own opinions and just get on with things. Don't get too worked up about stuff.
Matblack
27-01-2008, 20:02
Yeah I'd say it would depend on the person and how much they believed in their own prejudices.
I was trying to think of the prejudices I have and whether I would change them if someone gave me a rational arguement, but I don't think I would.
I'd also not bother trying to change peoples opinions either. Even if it's hurtful to me, I tend to let them have their own opinions and just get on with things. Don't get too worked up about stuff.
Thats good advice, I think I'll print one of these out and have a glass of wine
http://www.psidea.org/images/BangHeadHere.gif
MB
Stan_Lite
27-01-2008, 20:05
Opinions, I think, can be changed but prejudices are much more deeply ingrained.
I have a certain prejudice and as much as I know it is wrong to think that way and as much evidence as I see to contradict that prejudice, it's still there. It's so much a part of me that as much as I deny it and supress it, it's still there. There's absolutely nothing rational about it and that's the reason it's so difficult to alter someone's prejudices. It's almost impossible to argue rationally against something as irrational as deap-seated prejudice.
I think you'd be on a hiding to nothing. People have to be open to having their beliefs challenged to the extent where they will question them. Unlikely to happen via a screen I wouldnt have thought.
To expand Dym's post...
Optimistic? Yes. Stupid? No. Worth a try? Probably.
The only way you can really find out how ingrained someone's beliefs are is to challenge them. On receipt of such a challenge, people are likely to:
Tell you you're dumb and to go away. Whether or not you think you're right, probably time to give up.
Accept your view. Well done.
Provide a counter-argument. Prepare for a debate but don't get upset if they never agree with you. Some you win, some you lose. See also (4).
Bury their head in a bucket of sand and ignore your valid, reasoned argument. Most likely to respond as (1) above, but may engage in debate to try and ensnare or confuse you.
It's the last lot that are the problem cases. I can name a few individuals from other fora to which members here have access (and that's not just the obvious one). I don't know whether they do it for kicks or to be annoying, but they seem to want to pick holes in everything you say, no matter how minor and unimportant those things are. I, too, have got annoyed with these people, but in the end decided to ignore them and move on.
As for the poll, neither option really applies as far as my own views go.
Good luck. :)
Matblack
27-01-2008, 20:43
I think number 4 is whats going on here
People involved think they are cleverer than you and will try to use big words and twist things until you just give up.
(I think I shall dub this CleanBlueSky thinking.)
It might help people to form an opinion more if I tell you the people involved are CBS, Dirtydog and another muppet who doesn't seem to be able to think past the end of this boover boot :/
I've decided to give up, I've made my point, defended stereotypes which have been imposed on me and I'm just getting bored now
MB
Then it is not a debate at all, it's a point scoring exercise and you are flogging a very very dead horse. Back away from the thread!
What Pebs said.
Doesn't surprise me those two are involved. I'll bet one beginning with V is either involved or wants to be, but I'm not going to go scoring points there as that would make me just as bad.
That would depend on the forum as well as the person Mat and certain people I have come across on the web are so ingrained through arrogance and lack of life experience that they are beyond rational argument.
Absolutely.
Del Lardo
28-01-2008, 13:05
I agree with Will
Admiral Huddy
28-01-2008, 13:26
I think you can changes people's opinions but not their beliefs. That's if i'm getting the question right :p
I believe there are two kinds of people: 1. The person who debates to a point that he or she can accept that they are wrong and freely admits so thereby learning from the debate 2. Those that are so stubborn, no matter how much convincing, they will never back down. My old boss used to be like this and I asked him once about it. He said, "I never backdown.. Backing down is a sign of weakness. There is no room for weakness". Personally, I see this as form of ignorance and arrogance to be honest.
Myself on the other hand, can be convinced that I'm wrong and I have changed my opinions. However, my beliefs are much deeper and they will never change but I tend to keep them to myself.
That said, I'm going to say no. Why, because without one-to-one communication, some of the arguement is lost. Hard to explain but in text, important information can be either lost in translation, simply not read or understood. ???
SidewinderINC
28-01-2008, 18:41
I agree with Feek.
/hopes he's not the other muppet :p
SidewinderInc is very wise
*smug*
I agree with Pebs.
Deja vu? :)
Justsomebloke
28-01-2008, 19:30
That would depend on the forum as well as the person Mat and certain people I have come across on the web are so ingrained through arrogance and lack of life experience that they are beyond rational argument.
Nail/Head/Hit.
I love the posters that post with Authority about things they have No actual experience in :p I also love the Holier than thou crowd that Never do Anything wrong :p
It seems the Interweb not only makes people Brave but it makes them an Authority on any subject they have recently Googled ;D
Nail/Head/Hit.
I love the posters that post with Authority about things they have No actual experience in :p I also love the Holier than thou crowd that Never do Anything wrong :p
It seems the Interweb not only makes people Brave but it makes them an Authority on any subject they have recently Googled ;D
LOL! I just love you Malc!
Justsomebloke
28-01-2008, 19:38
LOL! I just love you Malc!
Not Fair, I have to be Witty & Funny to get your Love.
All you have to do is wear your Black boots :D
semi-pro waster
28-01-2008, 19:55
I sometimes wonder about this myself, I've been in quite a few debates over the internet now and most of the time I'd be as well blowing bubbles as I would presenting what I consider to be a reasoned argument. But then there are those rare occasions when someone actually opens up to the possibility of another viewpoint, they don't even have to accept the viewpoint, merely acknowledge that it does exist and it all seems worthwhile - at least until the next pointless argument. :)
Justsomebloke
28-01-2008, 20:06
I think you should still try, I personally have learnt loads off the Interweb & get to mix with people i wouldn't normally mix with (even Coppers :p)
I like hearing the other side of an argument/point of view & give things a lot of thought after the discussion has ended. At the time i just say what's on my mind as that's the way i work but i do give things a lot of thought afterwards so even if you don't seem to get the reaction you were looking for there are Cogs grinding away in there somewhere ;)
I s'pose what is key is trying to keep in mind just how different we all are, whether it be our up bringing, our education or our Current & Personal situation at the time :)
Pumpkinstew
29-01-2008, 14:05
MB with those two you're on a hiding to nothing because one is a bigot and the other is willing to play devils advocate just for the sake of an argument.
Generally speaking though it wouldn't stop me posting alternate points of view because you don't know if someone else is reading and prepared to from an objective opinion based on any evidence they're read.
i agree with all.
imo, you can try, but on the interwebz people love their opinions and debates. (*cough* sps)
you can try, and with an insane amount of effort possibly get through to them. but is it really worth it? they are 'from the internet' after all :)
killerkebab
30-01-2008, 14:00
I react differently on the internet, to provide a counter example. In real life if I have a debate with a friend or my father or other relative I tend to defend my position to the death, until I end up spinning myself in circles to the point where even I know I've contradicted myself a half dozen times.
Online though, I can't even remember the last time I saw a debate to it's end without changing my opinion, from a slight change to completely changing my mind...
I think I'm quite similar to you KK though I often get bored with them online and just go elsewhere. Some people just don't want to listen.
Heh, if I've got a bit of time I'll happily argue away, but it's more for the fun of it rather than an attempt to change someone's mind, if my ramblings result in someone's position changing then happy days but that's never my intention from the start. Also I'll try to state my position quite fully, if further questions come that are genuine then I'll answer, but if it's just nitpicking then I'll usually ignore them.
Not to mention that if someone gets annoying I'll just close the thread or ignore them :p
Treefrog
31-01-2008, 19:08
Well, I've had second thoughts about my position from some well reasoned arguments I've had, unfortunately I can't say the same about many others.
Always worth a try but in some cases you're simply throwing good money after bad by continuing IMHO.
And I'm slowly learning to tell which is which :)
Good point re CBS btw :D
A Place of Light
15-02-2008, 11:49
I think that once it becomes apparent that the other person (s) in your discussion will never see your side of things, mainly because it's your opinion and not one they'd made themselves, then it's time to bail out of that discussion. Too many people make their mind up about something ONCE then absolutely refuse to even consider that they may be wrong.
Sorry for the thread revival, but I've had other things to deal with and haven't been about as much as I'd liked to have been.
dirtydog
12-09-2008, 08:02
I think number 4 is whats going on here
People involved think they are cleverer than you and will try to use big words and twist things until you just give up.
(I think I shall dub this CleanBlueSky thinking.)
It might help people to form an opinion more if I tell you the people involved are CBS, Dirtydog and another muppet who doesn't seem to be able to think past the end of this boover boot :/
I've decided to give up, I've made my point, defended stereotypes which have been imposed on me and I'm just getting bored now
MB
O rly? :huh:
cleanbluesky
12-09-2008, 11:04
I think number 4 is whats going on here
People involved think they are cleverer than you and will try to use big words and twist things until you just give up.
(I think I shall dub this CleanBlueSky thinking.)
It might help people to form an opinion more if I tell you the people involved are CBS, Dirtydog and another muppet who doesn't seem to be able to think past the end of this boover boot :/
I've decided to give up, I've made my point, defended stereotypes which have been imposed on me and I'm just getting bored now
MB
I use big words naturally, I read a lot. Rumour has it I come across as thinking I am smarter than other people, but I don't think its a case of one person being smarter than the other - I'm educated and I have no desire to hide that fact in order to forge a rapport with people - in short, I am who I am and I would rather be who I am than hide it in caseothers might be offended by that.
Regarding changing people's minds, that would require the belief that you are right - which would mean that your viewpoint is as inflexible as those you claim to be arguing with. Do you not fit into the category of poster that you are bemoaning? Complaining that others wont change their viewpoint yet never considering whether you should change your own?
Regarding changing people's minds, that would require the belief that you are right - which would mean that your viewpoint is as inflexible as those you claim to be arguing with. Do you not fit into the category of poster that you are bemoaning? Complaining that others wont change their viewpoint yet never considering whether you should change your own?
You surely need some conviction in your arguments though or what's the point in having an opinon? If I believe something strongly enough I wouldn't try and force someone to change their mind but I will argue my point until they understand my point of view. Maybe the OP was simply asking, 'do you believe in anything enough that you would never change your mind and think everyone else should feel the same?'
cleanbluesky
12-09-2008, 11:34
You surely need some conviction in your arguments though or what's the point in having an opinon? If I believe something strongly enough I wouldn't try and force someone to change their mind but I will argue my point until they understand my point of view. Maybe the OP was simply asking, 'do you believe in anything enough that you would never change your mind and think everyone else should feel the same?'
The OP carries the assumption that said people SHOULD change their mind, which in turn suggests that he is right and they are wrong.
The answer to the original question lies in WHY people hold their opinion. If person A believes something that isn't true and person B provides evidence that it isn't true, then person A would change their view of the world unless they simply wanted to believe a lie.
AboveTheSalt
12-09-2008, 11:54
The OP carries the assumption that said people SHOULD change their mind, which in turn suggests that he is right and they are wrong.Yes, I had noticed this rather strange starting point. There are also a whole range of questions as to where one draws lines between opinions, views, prejudices, etc.
The answer to the original question lies in WHY people hold their opinion. If person A believes something that isn't true and person B provides evidence that it isn't true, then person A would change their view of the world unless they simply wanted to believe a lie.There is also the whole issue of instances where it is impossible realistically to determine that one view is "right" or "wrong" - religious faith is a very obvious example.
... certain people I have come across on the web are so ingrained through arrogance and lack of life experience that they are beyond rational argument.Irony or what :confused:
semi-pro waster
12-09-2008, 11:57
The OP carries the assumption that said people SHOULD change their mind, which in turn suggests that he is right and they are wrong.
It's a question, you could rephrase it as "would I be naive to think that peoples opinions could be changed with a rational argument?". The answer to that is that it depends on the person in my experience, some people will respond to a rational argument and acknowledge that they are/could be wrong, others will ignore/deflect any suggestion of the sort.
The answer to the original question lies in WHY people hold their opinion. If person A believes something that isn't true and person B provides evidence that it isn't true, then person A would change their view of the world unless they simply wanted to believe a lie.
Or they don't believe it to be a lie, they may very firmly hold their view of the World as true. My truth is not necessarily the same as yours even if I base it on exactly the same evidence, my experiences will shape my viewpoint. Also on subjective areas (and of course these are usually the most contentious) absolute empirical evidence is frequently hard to come by.
The OP carries the assumption that said people SHOULD change their mind, which in turn suggests that he is right and they are wrong.
The answer to the original question lies in WHY people hold their opinion. If person A believes something that isn't true and person B provides evidence that it isn't true, then person A would change their view of the world unless they simply wanted to believe a lie.
Ok then, is it stupid to think you could change someones deep seated opinions and prejudices through rational argument on the internet? I'm assuming you'll say yes it is stupid as you believe you shouldn't expect someone to change their opinion when you won't.
cleanbluesky
12-09-2008, 12:37
Ok then, is it stupid to think you could change someones deep seated opinions and prejudices through rational argument on the internet? I'm assuming you'll say yes it is stupid as you believe you shouldn't expect someone to change their opinion when you won't.
The statement still carries an implied assumption. If the question were "Is it possible to change someone's mind over the internet?" then I'd say yes, but it depends on WHY they believe what they believe.
dirtydog
12-09-2008, 12:39
Ok then, is it stupid to think you could change someones deep seated opinions and prejudices through rational argument on the internet? I'm assuming you'll say yes it is stupid as you believe you shouldn't expect someone to change their opinion when you won't.
But it is a loaded question isn't it. Just because MB considers my or CBS's opinions to be prejudiced or based on ignorance etc. doesn't make it the truth, it is just his opinion. As CBS says, it is ironic that MB appears to be the very type of person he is criticising.
The statement still carries an implied assumption. If the question were "Is it possible to change someone's mind over the internet?" then I'd say yes, but it depends on WHY they believe what they believe.
Fair enough.
I use big words naturally, I read a lot. Rumour has it I come across as thinking I am smarter than other people, but I don't think its a case of one person being smarter than the other - I'm educated and I have no desire to hide that fact in order to forge a rapport with people - in short, I am who I am and I would rather be who I am than hide it in caseothers might be offended by that.
Slightly OT: I have frequently been criticised in the workplace for the same thing CBS. Both publicly and behind my back, co-workers have suggested I look down my nose at people and propagate a 'holier than thou' attitude because I am able to express myself in more than two syllables. It pissed me off because I was guilty of nothing besides doing what came naturally to me, and other people felt so self-conscious about their own shortcomings that they deflect that feeling of ill-will on to me.
Fair play for sticking to your guns, I have too and eventually people came to see that it is not an attempt to put others down, it is simply how I choose to communicate.
Chuckles
12-09-2008, 17:23
But it is a loaded question isn't it. Just because MB considers my or CBS's opinions to be prejudiced or based on ignorance etc. doesn't make it the truth
Doesn't make it untrue either ;)
If someone believes something deeply and holds that as a truth in their life, when you say something that is the complete opposite of what they believe they will only cling more strongly to their belief. If you present an idea closer to what they believe, they are more likely to at least consider the idea.
There is a communication theory that related to this called the Cognitive Dissonance theory. It's been around since the 1950's and the basic point is that if you say something that doesn't make sense to a person and conflicts with their core beliefs, they will avoid the idea/communication that is causing the conflict and just completely disregard the information you gave them.
Slightly OT: I have frequently been criticised in the workplace for the same thing CBS. Both publicly and behind my back, co-workers have suggested I look down my nose at people and propagate a 'holier than thou' attitude because I am able to express myself in more than two syllables. It pissed me off because I was guilty of nothing besides doing what came naturally to me, and other people felt so self-conscious about their own shortcomings that they deflect that feeling of ill-will on to me.
Fair play for sticking to your guns, I have too and eventually people came to see that it is not an attempt to put others down, it is simply how I choose to communicate.
Personally, I know all the big words too. I am well educated and well read. But relationships and good communication are more important to me than being able to say things using my super vocabulary words.
Wether you are a manager or an entry level employee, I think it is vital to be able to communicate clearly and openly with fellow employees.
If that means altering your speech patterns slightly, I think that is a very small price to pay. Not being able to change your speech makes you appear unwilling to change and out of touch with others.
I am able to express myself in more than two syllables
Huh? :confused: ;)
^^ imo that's why discussing religion can be so difficult. People are scared to open up to the possibility that they aren't completely right, so ignore questions and facts that question what they believe.
That is so true! That is why it is such a process to share your beliefs with others. They either have to be willing to ask you about it, or they have to know you and know that you are the kind of person they can trust before they will take anything you say seriously.
when I did missionary training, they said there was an XYZ model or something. Basically saying that people shift along a scale of A-Z in what they believe through their lives, A being completely athiestic and Z being accepting religious beliefs as the truth. The people need to go through A-Y before getting to Z, and if you are the lucky person to be there for Z you get to see people make decisions to change their lives!
that's true Lana, but it's also true that people get defensive about their point (which is only natural) but that they also get angry with their own inability to express themselves properly - which then means that they start turning on your choice of phrase or choice of words and blaming you because you can put your point forward better than they can. Doesn't mean my point is better, but I guess it's frustrating to not be able to put that across properly.
On the down side, I find altering the way I speak to people makes me guilty of 'dumbing down' for want of a better phrase and can be incredibly patronising - more so than using the 'big' words in the first place.
It's not so much "dumbing down" as just knowing what context you are in! When I am speaking with someone who doesn't speak English as their native language, I'll slow down and not use slang because I know that makes it easier for them. If I am speaking to the VP of my company, I can use all the big words I want because I know she knows them.
It's all about adaptability to me. I know some people struggle with this (apparantly women take to it more naturally than men? Not sure where I heard that) and I think that trying is what matters.
But that said, I do understand your point. If it isn't natural to you people do notice that, but I think it can change and become easier. I've found that repeating the same words people use back to them is an easy way to do that if you want to try. Not in a repeating after them way, but in a respectful this-is-how-you-said-it-so-thats-how-I'll-say-it-too way.
the thing is, if you believe something - then you listen to something that could question your belief structure, but yet you still believe then the question has STRENGTHENED the faith you have, not weakened it! It flabbers my gast that some people can't see this.
Questioning something might make you think differently or it might make you believe more - it's a risk but if you are confident in your faith (not you, just in general) then it should be looked at as a positive step. I love learning about religion and faith systems and the people who make the biggest impression on me and who are more likely to make me understand what faith is are those who can listen to my questions and try to answer them because they are confident in their belief and aren't threatened by the questions.
Whoops sorry, slightly OT There :embarrassed:
This is a cool conversation. I'm enjoying it a lot :-D
The first bit is SO exactly the cognitive dissonance theory. You avoid something that makes you question your beliefs!
And I have found the same thing... I have a good impression of Mormonism and Islam and a bunch of other religions because I met someone who has comfortable enough to answer my questions and not be offended by them.
semi-pro waster
12-09-2008, 19:16
On the down side, I find altering the way I speak to people makes me guilty of 'dumbing down' for want of a better phrase and can be incredibly patronising - more so than using the 'big' words in the first place.
I'd have to say it depends how you do it, I alter the language I use to a degree depending on who I'm speaking to and always have done. Most of the time it isn't even a concious action on my part but if I think about what I've just said I can usually tell if I would have phrased it differently in other company or as Lana has just pointed out slowing down when speaking to a foreigner.
That is so true! That is why it is such a process to share your beliefs with others. They either have to be willing to ask you about it, or they have to know you and know that you are the kind of person they can trust before they will take anything you say seriously.
when I did missionary training, they said there was an XYZ model or something. Basically saying that people shift along a scale of A-Z in what they believe through their lives, A being completely athiestic and Z being accepting religious beliefs as the truth. The people need to go through A-Y before getting to Z, and if you are the lucky person to be there for Z you get to see people make decisions to change their lives!
And I suppose the converse is true, if you are religious then a belief that there is no deity out there will lead to cognitive dissonance as you try to either ignore this information or alternatively refute it.
cleanbluesky
12-09-2008, 19:18
the thing is, if you believe something - then you listen to something that could question your belief structure, but yet you still believe then the question has STRENGTHENED the faith you have, not weakened it! It flabbers my gast that some people can't see this.
Like Pat Condell suggested, the less evidence you have for a belief - the stronger your conviction has to be in order to hold it.
As for convincing someone that their 'faith' is wrong, it depends on WHY they want to believe it in the first place. You can make a person do whatever you want if you apply the right pressure, but that doesn't mean you can always change their mind in discussion.
AboveTheSalt
12-09-2008, 19:20
...
When I did missionary training, they said there was an XYZ model or something. Basically saying that people shift along a scale of A-Z in what they believe through their lives, A being completely atheistic and Z being accepting religious beliefs as the truth. The people need to go through A-Y before getting to Z, and if you are the lucky person to be there for Z you get to see people make decisions to change their lives!What of those people who are brought up in a religious background, accept a belief in God as entirely reasonable and later in life decide that it is no such thing?
What of those people who as they approach the end of their lives, feel fear and resort to religion as a way of fighting that fear?
What of those people who have lost a loved one and see an after-life as a way of meeting that loved one again?
With all due respect, your "XYZ model" seems to be complete opportunistic mumbo-jumbo to me.
I don't think that "rational argument" can EVER convince any sane person as to the existence of a God ... on the other hand, since you referred to "religion" that may not be what you meant :confused:
Perhaps this is why I 'like' Jehovas Witness' beliefs so much, because I spent a couple of days with a very patient minister who gave me very very plausable reasons and reasonable argument and debate for his beliefs.
What about those of us who are too scared to nail our flag to any tree, in case we're wrong? Or is that just hedging bets ;)
ChemicalKicks
12-09-2008, 19:31
It really depends on whether the person is closed or open minded. SOmetimes people have genuine, personal reasons for believing something they do, and in that case it's going to be really hard however you want to get across to them. Other people are just idiots who think they are always right. Other people are open to argument and different opinion. I like it when someone can change my mind - it doesn't happen often but I do like it when someone makes me question what I think. I don't think it's a yes or no answer - it's relative to the person in question and the subject.
Pretty much sums it up for me really.
I like to think that I'm pretty open minded and open to ideas, I change my mind based on valid arguments but I think the most important thing is to be rational about whatever you're told, that way you remain open.
WRITE PENETRATION ON YOUR ARM
What of those people who are brought up in a religious background, accept a belief in God as entirely reasonable and later in life decide that it is no such thing?
What of those people who as they approach the end of their lives, feel fear and resort to religion as a way of fighting that fear?
What of those people who have lost a loved one and see an after-life as a way of meeting that loved one again?
With all due respect, your "XYZ model" seems to be complete opportunistic mumbo-jumbo to me.
I don't think that "rational argument" can EVER convince any sane person as to the existence of a God ... on the other hand, since you referred to "religion" that may not be what you meant :confused:
You know what, I may have messed up the XYZ model. :-/ it is more than possible. I once started telling Garp a story about a friend of mine, then it turned out that it was HIS story about a friend of HIS. I mix my stories sometimes.
I agree with you, I do not think argument alone can convince anyone of the existence of God. I know many sane people and not one has been convinced because of rational argument. I will also say that there are a good amount of people who DO believe in God and were convinced by things other than argument.
I won't even touch the rest of it. I know where you stand and I imagine you know where I stand. I don't want to give you cognitive dissonance by pushing it:-)
cleanbluesky
12-09-2008, 19:36
Perhaps this is why I 'like' Jehovas Witness' beliefs so much, because I spent a couple of days with a very patient minister who gave me very very plausable reasons and reasonable argument and debate for his beliefs.
Religious arguments are fine until you get to the single point that there is no proof - if you are willing to believe something without ever knowing if its true and whilst people show you things that show contradictions in the holy book that a person reads from - then religion is as meaningful as any other theory.
What about those of us who are too scared to nail our flag to any tree, in case we're wrong? Or is that just hedging bets ;)
I WORSHIP THE HAWK!
What about those of us who are too scared to nail our flag to any tree, in case we're wrong? Or is that just hedging bets ;)
This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?"
When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..."
-- (Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
:D
semi-pro waster
13-09-2008, 10:07
Although I used the term earlier I do have a fairly big problem with the theory of cognitive dissonance, at least in regard to certain things (first one to point out the irony in that wins nothing). It can be used as a tool to try and prove the 'correctness' of a view when it actually does nothing of the sort - "oh XXX won't accept that pan-dimensional tomatos rule us by pizza, displaying typical cognitive dissonance". No, XXX doesn't accept it because it's clearly a load of bull dookie that I've just made up on the spot. Rejecting a viewpoint as absurd does not intrinsically give it some credence because your cognitive dissonance means you are unable to accept the 'truth'.
My point I suppose is that you've got to be careful where you apply the theory and just because something appears to be true for you doesn't automatically make it true for everyone else.
I don't really like labelling things, because it puts you in a particular box. Things like personal choice and your ability/willingness to take on board other people's point of view vary so differently from person to person that I suppose you might take elements of certain theories and be able to apply more than one.
Heehee, I like labelling things (not people, mind!) but I love it when things fit neatly into their little boxes. rarely happens in real life, does it? :-)
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.