←back to thread

150 points pmags | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
RajT88 ◴[] No.43643433[source]
I've observed this weird cognitive dissonance with outdoorsmen, since I am quite fond of fishing.

They tend to be a pretty hardcore MAGA bunch, but also don't like pollution because it messes up their sport. When you ask them about stuff like this (how can you support someone who pretty openly wants to mess up your pastime?), they get mad or change the subject.

I get it - people are complicated and can care about many things at once. Nobody likes it when someone is seemingly poking at their belief systems. Still - you'd think it'd give them some kind of pause.

replies(21): >>43643451 #>>43643457 #>>43643479 #>>43643497 #>>43643522 #>>43643549 #>>43643589 #>>43643595 #>>43643605 #>>43643648 #>>43643677 #>>43643697 #>>43643736 #>>43643834 #>>43643883 #>>43643896 #>>43643976 #>>43643993 #>>43644002 #>>43644450 #>>43644811 #
wpietri ◴[] No.43643605[source]
I think everybody has this sort of cognitive dissonance, albeit perhaps in different amounts; we just allocate it differently. And I think society is set up to help that. For example, I like animals and I eat meat. Would I kill a cow? No, but I'm happy to eat a burger. I've worked to get relatively comfortable with unresolved cognitive dissonance, so I can at least recognize my hypocrisy here. But I think it's way easier for people to refuse to think about it.

As with distributed systems, coherence is hard and expensive. Being rational about something, as opposed to just rationalizing, is long, slow work. We don't live in an age of patience. But perhaps one will come again, and until then we can at least try to be exceptions.

replies(6): >>43643647 #>>43643704 #>>43643705 #>>43643712 #>>43643961 #>>43644014 #
9rx ◴[] No.43643704[source]
> Would I kill a cow? No, but I'm happy to eat a burger.

You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice. Likewise, if a certain party is the best choice in front of you during an election, it is equally reasonable to choose it. Such decisions always require making tradeoffs.

However, the original comment seems to imply that it is not only a case of voting for a party, but also carrying out activism for that party. This is akin to you eating a burger while protesting with PETA proclaiming the evils of killing cattle. That may be still cognitive dissonance, but to a very different degree.

replies(2): >>43643796 #>>43643829 #
wpietri ◴[] No.43643796[source]
> You have to eat. If a burger is the best choice in front of you, it is reasonable to make that choice.

Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable? I think the difference isn't that one is more moral, it's that one is more familiar.

I also don't think he was talking about activists. There are plenty of "hardcore MAGA" types who are pretty passive about it. And even there that doesn't necessarily involve cognitive dissonance. I know plenty of people who vote for Democrats that are able to oppose it on certain particulars while still deciding it's the best voting option. But I think MAGA in particular is a cult of personality, which is very hard to justify intellectually.

replies(2): >>43643819 #>>43643899 #
9rx ◴[] No.43643899[source]
> Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog".

If that's the best choice in front of me, sure. I'm not going to starve to death just because it is dog. Are you?

> I also don't think he was talking about activists.

There was said to be support. That requires activism of some sort. You don't have to gather in the streets in mass promotion, wear certain colored hats, or fly party flags, but there has to be some kind of activity to suggest that the support is there. That isn't someone quietly eating a burger (or dog leg) in the corner.

replies(1): >>43643951 #
wpietri ◴[] No.43643951[source]
Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death. I am pretty clearly discussing one's normal dietary choices. What people do in extremes is an entirely different topic, one I'd be happy to discuss on some other day, but here I think it's a gross distraction from my point.
replies(1): >>43644007 #
9rx ◴[] No.43644007[source]
> Sorry, but I don't think anybody in this discussion is starving to death.

We were talking about making tradeoffs amid the choices available to you, where a burger was supposed, for the sake of discussion, to be the best choice available. I assume you haven't randomly changed the subject.

If you can choose between a hamburger and a dog leg, then, sure, a hamburger, at least to my taste, would be the better choice. I would choose it. But that doesn't mean I would never eat a dog leg. Where the dog leg is the best choice, why wouldn't you eat it?

replies(1): >>43644060 #
1. wpietri ◴[] No.43644060[source]
That's not what I was talking about.

My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance. Eating meat is a convenient example, because almost nobody reading this has no other choice, and almost nobody here hates animals (or at least will admit to it).

I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice". If you are, godspeed, but it's unrelated to the point I was making.

replies(1): >>43644138 #
2. 9rx ◴[] No.43644138[source]
> That's not what I was talking about.

That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it?

> My point is that everybody experiences cognitive dissonance.

That point was already made earlier in this thread. For what reason does it need to be pointed out again?

> I'm not interested in pursing weird desert-island hypotheticals where eating a dog is the "best choice".

You submitted the idea of the dog leg. Why would you introduce it if you don't want to talk about it?

replies(1): >>43644287 #
3. wpietri ◴[] No.43644287[source]
> That is what I was talking about. You replied to it. Why would you reply if you had nothing to add to it?

Because you replied to me in a spirit of contradiction while apparently missing my point. I had some hope of clearing that up, but I see now that was a mistake.

replies(1): >>43644458 #
4. 9rx ◴[] No.43644458{3}[source]
Your point wasn't missed. But your point was made! Thus there was nothing else that could be done with it. Hence why we carried it forward into its natural progression.

For the sake of my understanding, are you trying to suggest that you didn't make a point by, counterintuitively and contradictorily, telling us that you made a point? Or what is it that you are trying to do here?