←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 #
9283409232 ◴[] No.43643819[source]
> Ok. Now try that sentence with "leg of a dog". Does that still feel reasonable?

Yes. If dog legs are readily available in the store then sure.

replies(2): >>43643880 #>>43643889 #
wpietri ◴[] No.43643889[source]
Turns out this varies widely by culture. In many places, it's taboo: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

If you'd like a different example that gets the same feeling, try substituting something else considered treif in your culture, like "roasted eyeballs" or "a human hand". My point being that people who are used to eating some kinds of meat see it as perfectly reasonable, but that has a lot to do with what they've been socialized to. In contrast, raised in vegetarian cultures often find eating any meat equally horrific. Which is the position I find intellectually most rational.

replies(1): >>43643905 #
9283409232 ◴[] No.43643905{3}[source]
I don't understand what this has to do with what the original post was about. How is this relevant to someone enjoying the outdoors while simultaneously supporting people who are destroying the outdoors?
replies(1): >>43644008 #
wpietri ◴[] No.43644008{4}[source]
The original post was talking about cognitive dissonance in other people. My point was that we all experience things like this. Food is a convenient example, because the few people who aren't hypocritical about it in some way are very familiar with how other people are.

My goal is to get others to realize that cognitive dissonance is not an us vs them thing. I freely grant that MAGA followers, as part of a cult of personality, are notably worse. But it's a human problem.

Does that clear it up for you?

replies(1): >>43644128 #
9283409232 ◴[] No.43644128{5}[source]
I guess I'm not understanding how food is a good example to illustrate your point. If one culture finds eating dog normal and another culture doesn't, I don't see either person in this situation as hypocritical.
replies(1): >>43644255 #
1. wpietri ◴[] No.43644255{6}[source]
The dissonance I'm pointing out is that killing and eating some otherwise-equivalent animals is either fine or horrific purely depending on what you're used to.

Just running with Americans here, because that's what I'm most familiar with, but Americans are happy to eat burgers and would be horrified to eat dog. They are also happy to eat burgers but would generally be horrified by the killing of the cow. This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs; they're both cute, sociable mammals that raise adorable young. This isn't a rational position, and Americans who think at all about it experience cognitive dissonance.

replies(1): >>43644306 #
2. 9rx ◴[] No.43644306[source]
> This is not because there's any major difference between cattle and dogs

There is a major difference: Dogs have been deemed workers, thus eating them is seen as a threat to one's livelihood. Same reason Americans won't eat horses. You can't plow the fields tomorrow if you eat the horse tonight, so to speak. It has been an imperative that these animals be off limits for consumption. In other parts of the world where the working animals differ, they have no qualms about eating dogs and horses, but may not eat other animals.

replies(1): >>43644399 #
3. wpietri ◴[] No.43644399[source]
Sorry, but I think that's ridiculous. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses? For the vast majority of both, they are pets. Moreover, there are plenty of other animals Americans would flinch at eating that clearly aren't working animals.
replies(1): >>43644428 #
4. 9rx ◴[] No.43644428{3}[source]
> What percentage of Americans have working dogs? Or working horses?

Historically, ~100%. I considered caveating that while it is far less true today, the transition is still relatively recent and cultural norms haven't caught up yet, but I assumed you would have the capacity to figure that out on your own. My bad for assuming.