6 ms·

The Cognitive Dissonance Cluster Bomb

16 points by mgdo 10y ago

simonh 10y ago
A well reasoned and cogent argument. Yes, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the anti_trump world right now. But I think there's just as much on the pro-Trump side. he's already started furiously backtracking on many of his key policies which he swore he would implement, such as scrapping Obamacare, building a wall (now fence!) across the Mexican Border, and I'm sure many more to come. Who knows what his approach to Cuba will be, he's both told opponents of rapprochement to get over it because it's been 50 years after all, and also committed to burning down the agreement and pulling out US staff. So part of the cognitive dissonance for anti-Trumpers is we don't actually have any idea what the pro-Trumpers voted for, as against what they think they voted for. Other than 'Not Hillary'.
- custos 10y ago
  "So part of the cognitive dissonance for anti-Trumpers is we don't actually have any idea what the pro-Trumpers voted for..." Obviously to "Make America Great Again!!1!!" >_>
  - cpncrunch 10y ago
    >Obviously to "Make America Great Again!!1!!" >_> It's basically showmanship and hot air, with some vague promises that he'll somehow get all the manufacturing jobs back by scrapping NAFTA and kicking out the illegal immigrants. He also promised to fix all the laws that allowed him to dodge taxes, but I don't really hold out much hope for that. I suspect Bernie would have been a better choice for the working class, as he would really have given the corporate tax dodgers a kick in the nuts.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  One working hypothesis is that he doesn't seem to really know what he believes - he's just in it for the sheer ego rush (as were probably many who pulled the lever for him), and will let his advisors and appointees take up the matter of implementing actual working policy. The scary part is that most of these people (Thiel, Pence, Gingrich, Bolton, etc) know perfectly well what they believe, and have been licking their chops at an opportunity gram the reigns of power, and execute on these beliefs at scale. That's where the damage is going to come from.
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    I'm sure he believes in giving himself and his kids 100s o f millions of dollars in tax cuts.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Right, there's always that part. I just mean this, you know, abstract and political, "how to actually run the country" business.
cpncrunch 10y ago
Well, both sides clearly can't be right. If you look at Trump's actual policies, you'll see he wants to ban Muslim immigration, based on the results of an opt-in internet poll: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... So, his policies seem to be unconstitutional, racist, and based on dubious science. I think must people voted for Trump because he had a great campaign, and as Scott Adams says he is a great persuader. I infer from Adams' post that he thinks the anti-trump protesters are protesting based on beliefs rather than facts. However that's simply not true. The facts have been presented by Trump himself in the campaign promises on his website. I'm thinking that Adams himself might be engaging in some cognitive dissonance. What would be the reason for that? He's clearly highly intelligent, and understands that Trump is a great persuader. Could he himself have fallen for the persuasion? Or does he have some beef with Hillary which allows him to ignore Trump's nasty policies? (Again, more cognitive dissonance).
- TrevorJ 10y ago
  Playing devils' advocate, should we not reserve the right to screen immigration based on the ideology of those entering? Would it be ok to, say, deny entry to a Neo-Nazi supremacist wanting to immigrate from Norway?
  - custos 10y ago
    Screening would be fine. Banning outright would not be. And the screening must be universal. Not just based on whatever ideology used by violent extremist currently is.
    - TrevorJ 10y ago
      I agree. The real question then is do we have enough information about individuals in order to screen on a case by case basis, and what rubric should we use to determine who should be screened out.
      - 10y ago
kafkaesq 10y ago
Those “facts” can’t be reconciled in the minds of the anti-Trumpers. Mentally, something has to give. That’s where cognitive dissonance comes in. His operating premise seems to be: "If a bare plurality† of voters threw their lot for candidate/party/plebiscite X, then, ipso facto, X cannot be considered dangerous or extremist." History instructs that this is a very dangerous axiom to hold. † Leaving aside the popular vote / electoral college rift, for the purpose of discussion.

16 points by mgdo 10y ago

A well reasoned and cogent argument. Yes, there's a lot of cognitive dissonance in the anti_trump world right now. But I think there's just as much on the pro-Trump side. he's already started furiously backtracking on many of his key policies which he swore he would implement, such as scrapping Obamacare, building a wall (now fence!) across the Mexican Border, and I'm sure many more to come. Who knows what his approach to Cuba will be, he's both told opponents of rapprochement to get over it because it's been 50 years after all, and also committed to burning down the agreement and pulling out US staff. So part of the cognitive dissonance for anti-Trumpers is we don't actually have any idea what the pro-Trumpers voted for, as against what they think they voted for. Other than 'Not Hillary'.

custos 10y ago
"So part of the cognitive dissonance for anti-Trumpers is we don't actually have any idea what the pro-Trumpers voted for..." Obviously to "Make America Great Again!!1!!" >_>
- cpncrunch 10y ago
  >Obviously to "Make America Great Again!!1!!" >_> It's basically showmanship and hot air, with some vague promises that he'll somehow get all the manufacturing jobs back by scrapping NAFTA and kicking out the illegal immigrants. He also promised to fix all the laws that allowed him to dodge taxes, but I don't really hold out much hope for that. I suspect Bernie would have been a better choice for the working class, as he would really have given the corporate tax dodgers a kick in the nuts.
kafkaesq 10y ago
One working hypothesis is that he doesn't seem to really know what he believes - he's just in it for the sheer ego rush (as were probably many who pulled the lever for him), and will let his advisors and appointees take up the matter of implementing actual working policy. The scary part is that most of these people (Thiel, Pence, Gingrich, Bolton, etc) know perfectly well what they believe, and have been licking their chops at an opportunity gram the reigns of power, and execute on these beliefs at scale. That's where the damage is going to come from.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  I'm sure he believes in giving himself and his kids 100s o f millions of dollars in tax cuts.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Right, there's always that part. I just mean this, you know, abstract and political, "how to actually run the country" business.

cpncrunch 10y ago

Well, both sides clearly can't be right. If you look at Trump's actual policies, you'll see he wants to ban Muslim immigration, based on the results of an opt-in internet poll: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-... So, his policies seem to be unconstitutional, racist, and based on dubious science. I think must people voted for Trump because he had a great campaign, and as Scott Adams says he is a great persuader. I infer from Adams' post that he thinks the anti-trump protesters are protesting based on beliefs rather than facts. However that's simply not true. The facts have been presented by Trump himself in the campaign promises on his website. I'm thinking that Adams himself might be engaging in some cognitive dissonance. What would be the reason for that? He's clearly highly intelligent, and understands that Trump is a great persuader. Could he himself have fallen for the persuasion? Or does he have some beef with Hillary which allows him to ignore Trump's nasty policies? (Again, more cognitive dissonance).

TrevorJ 10y ago
Playing devils' advocate, should we not reserve the right to screen immigration based on the ideology of those entering? Would it be ok to, say, deny entry to a Neo-Nazi supremacist wanting to immigrate from Norway?
- custos 10y ago
  Screening would be fine. Banning outright would not be. And the screening must be universal. Not just based on whatever ideology used by violent extremist currently is.
  - TrevorJ 10y ago
    I agree. The real question then is do we have enough information about individuals in order to screen on a case by case basis, and what rubric should we use to determine who should be screened out.
    - 10y ago

kafkaesq 10y ago

Those “facts” can’t be reconciled in the minds of the anti-Trumpers. Mentally, something has to give. That’s where cognitive dissonance comes in. His operating premise seems to be: "If a bare plurality† of voters threw their lot for candidate/party/plebiscite X, then, ipso facto, X cannot be considered dangerous or extremist." History instructs that this is a very dangerous axiom to hold. † Leaving aside the popular vote / electoral college rift, for the purpose of discussion.