Cognitive Dissonance - Don't Catch It

[kerry-is-my-prez]

Every candidate (Republican and Democratic) has followers who are afflicted with this malady... This phenomenon also helps to explain why so many people still support Bush despite all of the scandals.

What is it?

Dissonance is that uncomfortable feeling that we get when we strongly believe in something or someone and then a piece of contradictory information comes along that makes us question that person or belief.

People work to avoid dissonance. We have a drive to be consistent. We will have to either change our behavior or our belief in an effort to avoid this uncomfortable feeling. If a person has put a lot of energy (emotional or physical) in to something or someone or has invested a lot of money or time – they will stick to the behavior (supporting the person) instead of their beliefs. They will then have to “rationalize” their behavior. Amazingly, most people will change their beliefs in order to accommodate the behavior.

Cognitive Dissonance can cause people to suddenly do or believe in sorts of things that they normally wouldn’t, or to develop opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/10/25_bush.html
If (supporting someone or something) has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are not likely to change. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

When presented with the facts, though, Bush's True Believers do what the administration's neo-cons did when presented with intelligence that didn't square with their Iraq invasion plans: They blame the messenger. They get surly and defensive. ....They neatly parcel things into "us" vs. "them." "Good" vs. "evil." "Patriot" vs. "traitor." It's myopic and messianic, and it defies all logic and common sense.



http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/cogdiss.cfm

People avoid information that is likely to increase dissonance. ..... We usually choose to be with people who are like us. By taking care to ‘‘stick with our own kind," we can maintain the relative comfort of the status quo. Like-minded people buffer us from ideas that could cause discomfort. In that sense, the process of making friends is an example of selecting our own propaganda.


http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20030106/000551.html

So if you believe in George W. Bush -- and polls say that a significant majority of Americans do -- but don't approve of cutting pensions for long-term workers, then (1) you can turn against Bush. Or (2) you can decide that Bush is right and that corporate interests are more important than worker pensions. Or (3) you can take the easy path and simply deny that pensions are in jeopardy.

"There's a prediction you can make down the line: The more unpopular his policies, the higher his poll numbers are going to get," Cooper continued. Why? Because we are human, alas. As long as we support someone, we must incrementally increase our approval in the face of criticism. .... people either abandon Bush or their faith in him rises to a level greater than the sum of the condemnation.

…Opposition can …. harden, although not necessarily deepen, one's base of support. And remember, there's no small number of fence-sitters willing to side with a winner against all comers no matter what the party affiliation."

[Don Claybrook]

1. Good post

I've said it before, I'll say it now: my candidate is nowhere near perfect. But to me, he's better than the rest who have a chance at winning. If Howard Dean does or says something wrong, I have no problem disagreeing with him. It's a question of how close Dean comes to matching my set of ideals. Those ideals don't change in order to make me feel better about my candidate. Dennis Kucinich comes much closer to representing my views, but Howard Dean can and will kick Bush's butt. Idealism, tempered with pragmatism. Then we drag Dean to the left, after January, 2005.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

2. You missed the point of the article - I fear

It has nothing as to whether a candidate can win or lose - it just points out how a person can inexplicably support a candidate who stands for something/everything that is against their belief system.

Also - that the more a person invests in a candidate (money, time, emotions) the more likely they are to ignore "warning signals" that they should pay attention to.

[Don Claybrook]

6. Fear not. I didn't miss a thing

I was attempting to explain that I won't inexplicably support a candidate who stands for something/everything against my belief system. I was attempting to explain that to me, no candidate is perfect, but that I could certainly support one without supporting everything that candidate says or does, because I stick with my ideals, not with the candidate and his personality and foibles. I don't think there was anything too esoteric or difficult to understand about your post. I was just agreeing with it, and expanding on it, as opposed to just agreeing with it and having no further comment.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

7. OK - understood

n/t

[qwlauren35]

9. I've always wondered...

What does n/t mean?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

12. no text

n/t

[Don Claybrook]

13. Means "no text", i.e., nothing in the body of the message n/t

[no name no slogan]

17. I had this feeling in 1988 when I backed Dukakis

I backed Dukakis in 1988 because he was "electable" and seemed to appeal to the "vast" indecisive middle of American politics. I probably had more in common with Jesse Jackson or Paul Simon at the time, but I too believed that views didn't matter as much as that vague notion of "electability".

No matter how much we want to believe it, a "centrist" candidate WILL NOT "move to the left" after an election. Look at Clinton, for example. After he won, he tacked way over to the right, giving us NAFTA and "welfare reform". Not only did he alienate a number of liberals (like myself), he pissed off the Repubs for stealing their talking points (and platform!).

We, as voters and citizens, need to look at not only what a candidate says, but also how s/he VOTES. We cannot (and should not) "project" our views or beliefs onto somebody, just because we need to select somebody who is "electable".

If a candidate is right on the issues, s/he will be "electable" if we work to get the message out. We need to give undecided voters something to believe in. We need to give them a candidate who not only has vision, but has the plan to make her/his vision a reality. We don't have to "settle" for the "lowest common denominator" in some vainglorious hope that s/he is "electable".

[kerry-is-my-prez]

18. Kucinich supporters = no Cognitive Dissonance

You must all be able to sleep well at night because you are truely loyal to your beliefs. I admire you all for that.

[Salviati]

15. I hope it not so much drag...

As just keep fighting for him. I think (hope) that Dean realizes that he's riding on something that is not entirely of his creation, and that he'll keep fighting for us as long as we keep fighting for him.

In any case, regarless who wins, the real fight only starts after Nov 2004...

[qwlauren35]

3. This is easier to swallow than...

The S Theory that was posted elsewhere.

I ran into a few Bush supporters over the holidays. It was not a pleasant experience. In one case, Bush was making him richer, in another case, Bush was making him suffer. But both guys are still planning to vote for the man.

I wish I knew what it would take to make Bush unpopular. But in some ways, I think the advent of Bart Simpson has had an effect on the American populace. Bush is Homer Simpson. Quite fallible, but still held up as a popular hero.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

4. What is the S .Theory?

Do you have a link?

[qwlauren35]

5. I'll try to find a link.

Look in Editorials.

It's the idea that Bush leads because Americans are Stupid.

[qwlauren35]

8. Here ya go...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/155107_firstperson05.html

[kerry-is-my-prez]

11. Yikes! I agree I like the theory of Cognitive Dissonance

Basically - my theory says that it is emotions NOT stupidity that makes people behave in inexplicable ways.

Although, there is a correlation between "emotional thinking" and intelligence. People with high IQ's tend to reason and make choices logically instead of emotionally. (That's what makes them so aggravating to the rest of us mere mortals !! LOL)

[rucky]

10. It's a good thing that most voters don't emotionally invest themselves

in politics, beyond their vote (if even that).

Now if you touch on things they do invest themselves in - jobs, family - and reinforce their beliefs, you could win 'em over. People will connect with lofty messages that apply to their daily lives. People like to hear stories.

Keep it positive. Keep it personal. Tell stories.

crisis = opportunity

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. However, with some the mere act of "voting" is an emotional investment.

If you voted for someone THAT is an investment.

[rucky]

16. Not anywhere near the degree we see on DU

...the intended audience of your message, and the ones least likely to "get it". That's psychology for ya.

:shrug:

From that perspective, there really isn't much difference between DU and Free Republic.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

19. Yeppers. Glad at least one person picked up on that - LOL!

n/t

[oasis]

20. Kick.This should stay near the front for maximum exposure. (n/t)

[imhotep]

21. I hope you are talking about

when a Democrat is President....
This is something I plan on fighting when our candidate wins.
I don't want to see what happened with Clinton again. This is also why I am totally against the ABB philosophy. It lays the foundation of destroying liberal ideology the same way Bush has done to the Buchananite paleo-cons. ABB is a euphamism for DLC.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

22. It is an important phenomenon in politics and important to know

n/t

[oasis]

23. A kick then, for knowledge.