In our post yesterday, Irony VS Double Standard, one alert reader has this to say: "I know where your friends are coming from ... and I agree with them 100 percent."
"But if you are going to ask me ... there is still a third persona waving, trying to make his presence felt. And that is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
To understand cognitive dissonance in the example of my friends debating, we have to look past the irony and the double standard and focus on the internal psychological conflict of the partisans involved.
Cognitive dissonance is not just "holding two beliefs at once." It is the distressing mental tension that happens when a person's behavior or a new fact clashes with their core identity or their self-image as a "good, principled person."
Here is how cognitive dissonance manifests in yesterday's post:
1. The DDS Dissonance: "I am a seeker of truth and justice" vs. "I support a leader accused of stealing."
The Belief: The DDS supporter likely defines themselves as a patriot who wants a leader who is tough, competent, and honest about serving the country.
The Conflict: When they see their favored leader facing credible allegations of corruption or unexplained funds, it directly contradicts the "tough, honest leader" image they have cultivated.
The Behavioral Conflict: They believe in "anti-corruption," but their political allegiance demands they support a leader who is evading accountability.
The Dissonance Resolution: To avoid the pain of admitting they were wrong, they engage in justifying their action and resort to rationalization. They don't change their support; they change their reality. They claim the accusation is "weak," "politically motivated," or "fake news." By dismissing the evidence, they eliminate the discomfort and keep their self-image as a "patriot" intact.
2. The Kakampink Dissonance: "I am a champion of due process and consistency" vs. "I am attacking a candidate who hasn't been convicted."
The Belief: The Kakampink likely defines themselves as someone who values the rule of law, due process, and objective evidence (especially after the 2022 campaign).
The Conflict: They may feel a pull to aggressively attack the VP because they believe the corruption is obvious. However, their core identity as a "fair observer" or "advocate of the rule of law" reminds them that accusation is not conviction.
The Behavioral Conflict: They claim to stand for "due process," yet their emotional need to see their political rival brought down causes them to potentially jump the gun or engage in the same "trial by publicity" they previously criticized.
The Dissonance Resolution: They resolve this by telling themselves, "This is different. This isn't 'trial by publicity'—it's 'demanding accountability.' The situation is so grave that traditional rules of due process don't apply." They rationalize the aggressive behavior as a "necessary evil" to save the country.
Why this is "Cognitive Dissonance" and not just hypocrisy:
Hypocrisy is when you know you are acting differently from what you preach (you are deliberately being a liar).
Cognitive Dissonance is when you convince yourself you are being consistent, even when you aren't (you are successfully lying to yourself).
The DDS supporter truly believes they are defending the country against "persecution," even if they are ignoring evidence of theft.
The Kakampink truly believes they are fighting for "the truth," even if they are adopting the same aggressive tactics they once decried.
The anger, the defensiveness, and the urge to "attack the other side" rather than engage with the facts are all symptoms of a brain trying to protect itself from the horrifying possibility: "What if I am wrong about my team?"
The next time you see this exchange, remember: They aren't just arguing about politics.
They are both running away from the internal discomfort of realizing that their political idols—and their own principles—might not be as perfectly aligned as they thought.
Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.
RIP%20Walter%20Navarro.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment