> Cognitive dissonance is an essential requirement to work in
oh, boo. this is a sophomoric examination that does not do justice to the subject being critiqued.
cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they just have different values than you do.
the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.
> cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they just have different values than you do
But maybe, just maybe, their values are incompatible with the values that build up a society. And here is where the cognitive dissonance starts.
> the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.
That only works when all sides want this. I think it's pretty onbivous that any large corporation, doesn't want this kind of discussion. It mean admitting them doing a lot of cr*p in the name of profit.
Cognitive dissonance is a single person holding two contradictory views at once. A person holding views that contradict yours is not cognitive dissonance. "The values that build up a society" are not a universal truth.
That's actually incorrect. Cognitive dissonance means that someone's behavior, attitude or thoughts, beliefs are inconsistent. Or in other words someone participates in an action that goes against his beliefs, ideas, values. Which is exactly what the grandparent post refers to:
> They all have their own stories about how it's okay to exploit weakness in people.
This is definitely inconsistent and in contrast with almost all the above mentioned entities' mission statement and their corporate values.
In other words, beside my previous comment you missed the part of the discussion where we concluded (see the grandparent's post again) that both the value and the behavior originates from the same source.
This has nothing to do with an external third person's view.
You could argue in both directions actually, since they are part of society and they likely don't want to be held to the same standard as they treat their users. (still not necessarily a contradictory view, but it gets bendy)
However in general I do find cognitive dissonance badly used, since the experience of cognitive dissonance is usually the positive part, since you notice a problem in your view point. The resolution on the other hand ... So it would be better to just say contradiction and then it's obvious that one has to give a better explanation of it.
There's no need to have a good-faith debate with someone who has decided that my privacy is worth less than their salary. Those people should be punished. They can have good-faith debates with each other during their mandatory community service or what have you. That way they only waste each others' time.
Would you agree that a US Senator doubling down[1] that 'having slavery was a necessary evil[2] in order to get rid of it[3]' is correct usage of cognitive dissonance? How does it differ from the incorrect usage?
[2] I agree with him that it had been a necessary evil to form the original union. I disagree both that formation of that union was necessary, and that slave states joined the union with the intention of abolition.
[3] Luckily, like this senator, the confederate states and contemporary writers said why they seceded. Deepfakes are not an issue when people are willing to go "on the record" with their intent and state of mind.
====
As to "different values", I guess I can come up with some for the examples given above:
Exxon - We need oil profit now to fund later development of our green acquisitions
Wall St - Our arbitrages make the system more efficient for everyone else
the MIL complex - Our products only kill and maim baddies. Besides, we build them so we don't have to use them.
the gambling industry - If we were outlawed only criminals (and uncovered derivatives traders?) would gamble. Besides, people have a sure loss when they pay for other forms of entertainment. And we pay for cultural projects legislators don't want in their budgets!
big tobacco - There is controversy over long term costs, but in the short term smoking clearly demonstrates human mastery over fire. (besides, how are workers supposed to bond, and pace themselves, without the smoke break?)
However, the only clearly non-dissonant one I can come up with is "anything people pay me to do is by definition good."
> the MIL complex - Our products only kill and maim baddies. Besides, we build them so we don't have to use them.
Approximately no one thinks that in the military industrial complex. People are not dumb. They know what they are building. It's actually one of the least hypocritical industry I worked in.
I left because I was feeling uneasy about the foreign countries we were selling to and don't believe in the foreign policy of our last few governments. Still I am not loosing sleep about my contribution to my country military relevance.
Thanks. I'll gladly edit if you can provide me with a better justification? (to me, "contributing to my country's military relevance" would fall under "we build them so we don't have to use them," but I'm obviously the wrong person to be writing these.)
No, we build them so that we are credible when we threaten, can riposte if we are attacked, are less tempting as a bullying target and win when we wage wars (which we sadly still very much do even if it's mostly in support of allied countries nowadays).
I mean, I am far from fully Clausewitzian but force remains part of the way international relationships work.
> "But a measuring of strength may be effected in cases where the opposing sides are very unequal by a mere comparative estimate. In such cases no fighting will take place, and the weaker will immediately give way.
> If the object of a combat is not always the destruction of the enemy’s forces therein engaged—and if its object can often be attained as well without the combat taking place at all, by merely making a resolve to fight, and by the circumstances to which this resolution gives rise—then that explains how a whole campaign may be carried on with great activity without the actual combat playing any notable part in it."
(the problem here is that this strategy is unstable, as not everyone can follow it at the same time, something demonstrated twice during the prior century. Renaissance italians were fond of manoeuvre over direct combat, for which our more bloodthirsty age faults them.)
The OP gave a simplistic answer about baddies. In general though this does appear to be something of thinking of your side as pretty damn good in a moral sense. A few things I can think of that don’t feel like they align with the motives you gave:
- the US is close to near full support of course what Israel does. We have never had any issues supplying them with aid of all kinds. There doesn’t appear to be nuance there. The practice won’t stop. It exemplifies many of the general practices and uses of the military complex.
I have a hard time believing there isn’t some level of hypocrisy or dissonance to claim moral reasons like not being bullied, but on board with most of Israel’s actions.
Yemen is an easy case of how wrong things are. It is consistent with the frequency of the US not doing things for defensive purposes.
The first 3 points vs the waging war point appear To be conflicting and troublesome themselves.
> even if it's mostly in support of allied countries nowadays
Does "nowadays" include only the 1991 defense of Israel? Because that's the last time the US was in a war that was in defence of its allies, and there's basically a blank history before that.
You miss the point actually. The poster made a statement without any proof. It's a classic logical fallacy.
And your example...? Proves what exactly? It's the exact opposite of a cognitive dissonance. The behavior is consistent with the company values.
But the discussion point is that the company behavior is most of the time inconsistent with the company values. E.g. Exxon value is env friendly energy <-> Exxon true behavior is causing env disaster
There's a bit of a problem here because cognitive dissonance is harder to apply to companies, they are not a single mind even if they almost act like it. I doubt the people under the company's umbrella hold the 2 ideas in their head concurrently, they just put aside any moral aspect and let "the company" bear this moral weight, they just have a job to do regardless of personal preference.
Perhaps hypocrisy would be a better term to describe them. They'll say something is bad but they'll do the very same thing depending on how this suits their agenda.
Not at all. Hypocrisy is the act of criticizing OTHERS for something, while engaging in the same behavior. That's completely beside the point and no-one talks about that here.
> : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
> especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
Seems to me that this is exactly the point of what we're talking about here. It started from the "cognitive dissonance" which applies less effectively to a "hive mind" like a company than the above given definition for hypocrisy.
That feigning is exactly the difference between feigned and real values or behavior. And no matter which feigned/real pair you choose from this story (real values, claimed values, values and behavior towards themselves, or towards users, etc.) you will find evidence of hypocrisy.
I haven’t come across hypocrisy meaning one is criticizing others. I don’t think that needs to be a pretense for hypocrisy.
it would be hypocrisy for some one to be for small government always, but spend 1 trillion a year on a complex tax system beyond what any one else is doing. Regardless of any critiques they make or don’t make.
oh, boo. this is a sophomoric examination that does not do justice to the subject being critiqued.
cognitive dissonance has become a buzzword and its incorrect usage is exemplified here. those people aren't struggling with a value conflict, they just have different values than you do.
the path to togetherness, thoughtfull discussion, and mind-changing lies with honest recognition and good-faith debate, not name-calling.