Debunkers and cognitive dissonance

[bill smith]

And, in the same spirit of cognitive dissonance, maybe I should look at the surprisingly few responses by truthers to a thread which is not exactly complimentary or supportive of the motivations of debunkers.



By implication, do you recognise a similar level of futility in engaging with us? And if so, why do you bother to continue trying? There are surely people out there who are more likely to be convinced of your beliefs than the majority of members of this forum. Why bother trying to do the impossible?



Same question: if you don't expect your posting to have any effect, why do you do it?



I've snipped most of the reply because it's completely irrelevant. It seems to me that LGR is a self-admitted troll, which is why I don't normally reply to him; he's only here to disrupt and irritate. That, too, is a relatively pointless behaviour, but it's a different pointless behaviour, and a very common one. Therefore, I think we can safely ignore him entirely.



And finally, bill smith misses the point entirely; this is not about beliefs, but behaviour, and the YouTube video posted - with, I should note, a truly impressive Time To First Lie of ten seconds - is quite irrelevant to this discussion. I would ask bill the same question as I asked ergo and geggy, but my experience of bill smith is that the question he answers is never the one he was asked. Again, then, there's little point in trying to engage with him, because he will never reciprocate.

And yet, occasionally, I'm tempted to reply to at least some of these posters. And this is exactly the issue I'm trying to highlight.

Dave

I guess I post here to help stop the jref from becoming even more incestuous than it already is. Also to draw Reader's attention to the massive flaws and outright lies in the official story. Where better to do that than in the Lion's Den itself. I have no interest in converting debunkers and never did.

In contrast to what you say I submit to the Readers that the video I posted is highly relevant to this discussion as it directly deals with the pschology of debunkers and their cognitive dissonance.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Also to draw Reader's attention to the massive flaws and outright lies in the official story.

gibberish

In contrast to what you say I submit to the Readers that the video I posted is highly relevant to this discussion as it directly deals with the psychology of debunkers and their cognitive dissonance.

Nice ploy to stay on topic and not get your posts removed, but like pretty much everyone else here - except Dave Thomas, you haven't got a clue what cognitive dissonance is.

I guess I post here to help stop the jref from becoming even more incestuous than it already is.

But I do think that this would probably happen here, and as much as this is supposed to be a forum for debate about 9/11 conspiracy nuts and their beliefs, this would be a bad thing.

 

[newton3376]

Nice ploy to stay on topic and not get your posts removed, but like pretty much everyone else here - except Dave Thomas, you haven't got a clue what cognitive dissonance is.

Really? No one else has a clue?

I do not find cognitive dissonance to really be that complex of a topic in terms of understanding what it is....

It seems fairly straight forward.

 

[marplots]

Really? No one else has a clue?

I do not find cognitive dissonance to really be that complex of a topic in terms of understanding what it is....

It seems fairly straight forward.

I watched the video you posted. I couldn't tell at first if it was directed toward the cognitive dissonance felt by truthers or deniers. It seems the same case could be made for each side without too much trouble.

I also enjoyed reading the titles on the bookshelf behind the main speaker.

The real trouble isn't with the genesis of beliefs sans evidence, but what type of evidence we should rely upon and what credence we should give it. It should be about methodology instead of psychology. I do accept uncomfortable things as fact when they have been demonstrated -- a good example would be the place of humans in the universe as insignificant bugs and consequently my condition of being insignificant and temporary. So it isn't just about avoiding harsh truths, but on what basis we will accept a thing as true or false.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Really? No one else has a clue?

I do not find cognitive dissonance to really be that complex of a topic in terms of understanding what it is....

It seems fairly straight forward.

I suppose I did say that. Let me apologize and rephrase my intentions. The term cognitive dissonance - as well as the names of other cognitive biases - are widely used on this forum. Most of the time, the terms are used incorrectly or in a manner indistinguishable from their incorrect use. There was a thread a while back that involved our new found Truther friend Marokkaan babbling on about cognitive dissonance and citing Barry Zwicker as his expert on the matter. When others rushed in to talk about this, it still didn't clear up this problem.

One of the grave errors of Truthdom is its willingness to turn extremely complex matters into processes that are simple to the point of stupidity. Cognitive bias is a very complex phenomenon and generally not as simple a matter as engineers would make it.

So I don't know. Maybe there are others.

The real trouble isn't with the genesis of beliefs sans evidence, but what type of evidence we should rely upon and what credence we should give it. It should be about methodology instead of psychology. I do accept uncomfortable things as fact when they have been demonstrated -- a good example would be the place of humans in the universe as insignificant bugs and consequently my condition of being insignificant and temporary. So it isn't just about avoiding harsh truths, but on what basis we will accept a thing as true or false.

Absolutely. Words of wisdom. Forget about these psychological labels. They obscure the problem and add nothing to a real understanding.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I watched the video you posted. I couldn't tell at first if it was directed toward the cognitive dissonance felt by truthers or deniers. It seems the same case could be made for each side without too much trouble.

I also enjoyed reading the titles on the bookshelf behind the main speaker.

The real trouble isn't with the genesis of beliefs sans evidence, but what type of evidence we should rely upon and what credence we should give it. It should be about methodology instead of psychology. I do accept uncomfortable things as fact when they have been demonstrated -- a good example would be the place of humans in the universe as insignificant bugs and consequently my condition of being insignificant and temporary.

I dunno, I think insignificant bugs is putting it a little bit too strongly.

[Cut to: int. Burpleson AFB. Mandrake walks hurredly through the halls with the portable radio producing another jazz tune, now upbeat. Mandrake enters Ripper's office]

Mandrake: Excuse me sir, something rather interesting's just cropped up. Listen to that. Music. Civilian broadcasting. I think those fellows in the Pentagon have given us some sort of exercise to test our readiness. Personally, I think it's taking it a bit too far; our fellows will be inside Russian radar cover in about twenty minutes. You listen to that. Traffic block full of stations all churning it out.

Ripper: Mandrake,

Mandrake: Yes sir?

Ripper: I thought I issued instructions for all radios on this base to be impounded.

Mandrake: [follows Ripper as he rises from his chair to lock his office door] Well you did indeed sir and I was in the process of impounding this very one when I happened to switch it on.

 

[newton3376]

I suppose I did say that. Let me apologize and rephrase my intentions. The term cognitive dissonance - as well as the names of other cognitive biases - are widely used on this forum. Most of the time, the terms are used incorrectly or in a manner indistinguishable from their incorrect use. There was a thread a while back that involved our new found Truther friend Marokkaan babbling on about cognitive dissonance and citing Barry Zwicker as his expert on the matter. When others rushed in to talk about this, it still didn't clear up this problem.

One of the grave errors of Truthdom is its willingness to turn extremely complex matters into processes that are simple to the point of stupidity. Cognitive bias is a very complex phenomenon and generally not as simple a matter as engineers would make it.

I agree with you here....understanding the definition seems straight forward enough.

I can even identify several cases of it within my own life....but the little bit that I have read on it since this thread started confirms to me that it is a complex topic that is far outside my field of study.

I will leave the deeper understanding of it to the experts in those kinds of fields and defer to them.

 

[bill smith]

I watched the video you posted. I couldn't tell at first if it was directed toward the cognitive dissonance felt by truthers or deniers. It seems the same case could be made for each side without too much trouble.

I also enjoyed reading the titles on the bookshelf behind the main speaker.

The real trouble isn't with the genesis of beliefs sans evidence, but what type of evidence we should rely upon and what credence we should give it. It should be about methodology instead of psychology. I do accept uncomfortable things as fact when they have been demonstrated -- a good example would be the place of humans in the universe as insignificant bugs and consequently my condition of being insignificant and temporary. So it isn't just about avoiding harsh truths, but on what basis we will accept a thing as true or false.

You may be able to face harsh realities but I can assure you that many oor even most people can not or will not.

'' ....once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.....'' --Part of a quote from Mike Rivero

Perfect terrain for the onset of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Bobby]

You may be able to face harsh realities but I can assure you that many oor even most people can not or will not.

'' ....once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.....'' --Part of a quote from Mike Rivero

Perfect terrain for the onset of cognitive dissonance.

So the exercise of pragmatism leads to cognitive dissonance? Interesting. Would it follow that you advise others that share your beliefs to be dogmatic?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

'' ....once a citizen acknowledgesthinks that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. "

like watch youtube and post on jref?

To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones.

Really? what evidence is there that twooferism is remotely likely to get the Gov. come kill you or your family?

To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles.

so why do most twoofers do nothing?

Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.....

Really? lets see your data to support that assertion.

 

[marplots]

You may be able to face harsh realities but I can assure you that many oor even most people can not or will not.

'' ....once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice.....'' --Part of a quote from Mike Rivero

Perfect terrain for the onset of cognitive dissonance.

I guess my problem with this is the "usual suspects" problem. Acknowledging that government is lying and corrupt doesn't constitute proof of any particular action. The fact that a crime has been committed may get me looking at the usual suspects, but I cannot rely on that other than a place to start. If there is no further evidence, I am wrong to assume history is repeating itself for my convenience -- that's the lazy way out.

"This kid died from a drug overdose."
"I know someone who sells drugs."
"He must be responsible."

Another case closed.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I guess my problem with this is the "usual suspects" problem. Acknowledging that government is lying and corrupt doesn't constitute proof of any particular action. The fact that a crime has been committed may get me looking at the usual suspects, but I cannot rely on that other than a place to start. If there is no further evidence, I am wrong to assume history is repeating itself for my convenience -- that's the lazy way out.

"This kid died from a drug overdose."
"I know someone who sells drugs."
"He must be responsible."

Another case closed.

So if you like Kim Philby sold secrets to the USSR
Kim Philby worked for MI6
Therefore MI6 sold secrets to the USSR.

But of course Guy Burgess was never authorised by MI6 to sell secrets - or at least to the best of our knowledge.

On the other hand there must come a point when penetration of the the military, intelligence and government becomes so pervasive that we have to assume identity between the official employers of the principle actors and the actions they carried out - even though government itself officially gave no approval of such actions.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Dave, while pondering all of this, it struck me that your description is exactly what Chris Mohr is attempting. Not only is he attempting an evidence-based discourse with Truthers, he is doing absolutely everything he can to assure that his motives are 'pure'. He doesn't call anyone names. He has avoided any psychological or social interpretations of Truthdom that might make it look like he's trying to stigmatize Truthers. He does everything out in the open.

I figure he's burning rubber. I can imagine he'll be the #1 pick for some nutted out 9/11 Truth freak who takes hostages and needs a negotiator, but I doubt he's making much impact in the Truth community. Anything to add?

 

[SezMe]

Debunkers and cognitive dissonance is a recognised condition Dave. See what this swarm of Ph.d Pschologists are saying. They are trying to help you and your kindred to face the Truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEGgAk1AbA4&feature=player_embedded#

I watched the whole thing. Utter nonsense, although one shrink really nailed me with the line, "... fear of psychological deterioration." Yep, that's what drives me. <--- there aren't enough of these to convey my "Truth"

 

[little grey rabbit]

So if you like Kim Philby sold secrets to the USSR
Kim Philby worked for MI6
Therefore MI6 sold secrets to the USSR.

But of course Guy Burgess was never authorised by MI6 to sell secrets - or at least to the best of our knowledge.

On the other hand there must come a point when penetration of the the military, intelligence and government becomes so pervasive that we have to assume identity between the official employers of the principle actors and the actions they carried out - even though government itself officially gave no approval of such actions.

Oh and Guy Burgess should read Kim Philby (or Guy Burgess all the way through).

 

[marplots]

On the other hand there must come a point when penetration of the the military, intelligence and government becomes so pervasive that we have to assume identity between the official employers of the principle actors and the actions they carried out - even though government itself officially gave no approval of such actions.

I don't know if I understand this part (although I admire the sentence length and structure!). It sounds like I'm supposed to agree to a certain type of inevitable incrementalism with the added spice of nefariousness intent.

It may be a better case in the UK. Here in the States we are fond of firing people as administrations come and go. That's not to say there isn't opportunity, but the downward spiral is at least partly mitigated by pink slips.

I'd also rely on competing agendas and the willingness to expose your opponent's scandals as another check to outright dictatorial tyranny.

I prefer the idea of emergence where solo actors and motivations collide to generate something no one person really intended. Perhaps we can see evidence of this by looking at the goals organizations are trying to accomplish openly and how they fail in these overt activities. Surely, the same forces that prevent the DEA from winning the war on drugs are also at work with "black ops," "false flags" and the like.

My preferred picture doesn't prevent a kind of cultural evildoing, but it does make it much more difficult to blame any particular actor or to point out a clear agenda and policies derived from that. My sense is that the best a conspiracy can do is use a very small, discrete set of agents with a very minimal objective. For the general case, it's more along the lines of "fear of communism" being tacked on to other items of interest, like increasing my department's budget. Overall, I suspect "banal" as the default.

If I missed your point, forgive me. I still like the stuff it made me think about.

 

[bill smith]

I guess my problem with this is the "usual suspects" problem. Acknowledging that government is lying and corrupt doesn't constitute proof of any particular action. The fact that a crime has been committed may get me looking at the usual suspects, but I cannot rely on that other than a place to start. If there is no further evidence, I am wrong to assume history is repeating itself for my convenience -- that's the lazy way out.

"This kid died from a drug overdose."
"I know someone who sells drugs."
"He must be responsible."

Another case closed.

'' Millions think the government did it
We want to talk to them
They Stonewall
We think that means they are guilty''

Case reopened.

 

[SezMe]

'' Millions think the government did it

Not in evidence.

Case reopened.

Case reclosed.

 

[twinstead]

'' Millions think the government did it
We want to talk to them
They Stonewall
We think that means they are guilty''

Case reopened.

bill, all I can say, since you obviously will never get it, is we'll just let time tell, okay? Just let me know as the years go by just how much time has to elapse without your new investigation, trials, and executions before you start being just a liiiiiiittle more contrite, okay? I mean seriously; you're just like those religious crazys who say, "Jesus is coming. Aaaaaaaany day now.

They've been saying that for 2000 years, and there's a LOT of people who believe in him!


BTW, who exactly is "we" again? I keep forgetting. You're talking the cult members, right?

 

[chrismohr]

My cognitive dissonance issue is less about rationality and more about trying to see if a civil debate can happen among people who deeply disagree and have strong emotional investments in their position. Publicly, Richard Gage and I indeed had a very civil and respectful debate, and we both hoped it would be a model for future disagreements of all kinds. I don't think I was being realistic though, and my disappointment at the continued nastiness of this debate is where my cognitive dissonance lies right now.