|
|
#1
12-20-2007, 04:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Herman Graf
|
|
#3
12-21-2007, 01:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
at last some NON pro-***** threads... about bleeding time. This place should/could consist of a lot more that a few feeble self-justifying arguments about... well you know ... Well done Uther! Appreciate the gesture.
Would be great though if you could collect all those links in one thread instead of so many, I suspect quite a few of them will not be commented at all, and they will quickly disperse and dissappear in forum oblivion, which is a shame. Thanx. PS: Leo(n) Festinger... anyone? Rings a bell? Last edited by F19_Klunk; 12-21-2007 at 01:30 AM.
|
|
#4
12-21-2007, 06:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Leo Festinger? No not heard of him Klunk!
I am starting to collect the threads a bit,but as no one was posting anything except you 'know what' then I thought it might be nice to see a few more threads on the page.
|
|
#5
12-21-2007, 08:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
He is really an interesting fellow.... social psychologist. Festinger is best known for his theory of cognitive dissonance, which suggests that inconsistency among beliefs or behaviors will cause an uncomfortable psychological tension, leading to people to change their beliefs to fit their behavior instead of changing one's behavior to fit their belief, as conventionally assumed... meaning... self justification. The key element is that we self justify to reduce cognitive dissonance. We want to appear logical and consistent rather than irrational beings and we constantly make up explanations for our behavior, regardless of their accuracy - we are rationalizing not rational beings. Some examples of how this works In 1964 Surgeon General released report that clarified exactly how bad cigarettes are for you, only 10% of non-smokers disagreed with the report's findings; 40% of heavy smokers. A person from North Carolina explains his reasons for smoking as aiding in the local economy. It is very difficult to change deep seated attitudes. Persuasive message leads to dissonance. Easiest way to reduce dissonance is to reject the message or distort the evidence. Kill the messenger! We will distort the objective world in order to reduce dissonance. Irrational, yes. Yet, try to view it as an ego-defensive behavior. It makes us feel better. In debates, we remember the plausible arguments that agree with our position and the implausible arguments agreeing with the opposing position. Another example, decisions in Vietnam. Numerous tactical decisions ran contrary to the facts. Decisions were made that were in-line (consonant) with previous decisions. e.g., if we stop bombing now, that suggests that it was a bad decision originally. Last edited by F19_Klunk; 12-21-2007 at 08:51 AM.
|
|
#7
12-21-2007, 08:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Just a reflection, and if a social psychologist had a look at this forum, he would have a field day.
Aronson (another social psychologist who took the theory further) argues that dissonance is tied to the self-concept: we want to appear good and honest and research supports this and leads to the following principle: dissonance effects are greatest when: 1. People feel personally responsible for their actions 2. Their actions have serious consequences That's it, end off class... let's continue ON topic 
Last edited by F19_Klunk; 12-21-2007 at 09:01 AM.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
