The Observation Deck

Here are some basic definitions of Cognitive Dissonance.

The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.


It occurs to me that all the talk about 'reforming" the Deck relates in some way to cognitive dissonance. To be clear, every human being engages in cognitive dissonance.

The problem for the advisory committee can be underscored by four distinct examples:

1. Someone posts something that is entirely factual, and another Observer then avoids the Deck because the fact disrupts their belief system and they don't want to accept the fact.

2. Someone posts a belief, and another Observer then avoids the Deck because the belief disrupts their belief system.

3. Someone posts a combination of facts and beliefs and another Observer holding different beliefs and who cannot accept the facts engages in a debate, but then avoids the Deck because the debate does not resolve the internal inconsistency.

Is there any way that the new advisory panel can moderate this ongoing and perpetual phenomenon to avoid losing Observers?

Hmm . . . ?

I think I remember having this discussion with someone recently - trying to remember whom?

Mr. Essi,

Or it could be that the quality of discussion/discourse in general is this:

m buckley wrote:What started out as the drip, drip, drip of Team Summers' attempting to erode support for those who opposed the Hospital deal has now turned steadily, into a full fledged assault on our right to express political thought in an open forum.

(I know, this is just a single example... but is it really worth the effort to quote more when you can pretty much click on any topic and get about the same content. But hey, why not make it about Brian Essi and him having achieved argument superiority.)

Brad



-----------------------------------------------------
"Caught in a lie? You have no names. You just made all that crap up. Just admit it. "I Corey Rossen lied when I claimed people joined Summers and BL because of the Deck and SLH--I have no names or evidence of that. I just made it up to get attention."- Brian Essi

"It was Corey above, not me who used the term "liar" so you aren't being entirely accurate. "- Brian Essi

"Did Brian Essi just call me inaccurate or did I say it, I'm so confused" - Brad Humphreys

Brian Essi wrote:The problem for the advisory committee can be underscored by four distinct examples:

1. Someone posts something that is entirely factual, and another Observer then avoids the Deck because the fact disrupts their belief system and they don't want to accept the fact.

2. Someone posts a belief, and another Observer then avoids the Deck because the belief disrupts their belief system.

3. Someone posts a combination of facts and beliefs and another Observer holding different beliefs and who cannot accept the facts engages in a debate, but then avoids the Deck because the debate does not resolve the internal inconsistency.

Is there any way that the new advisory panel can moderate this ongoing and perpetual phenomenon to avoid losing Observers?

Brian

Does a hammer worry about the fact there are no nails to be pounded in?

Eckhart Tolle said “Emotional suffering is created in the moment we don’t accept what is.”

The world through social media, which is actually closer to anti-social media by its very nature has become a place where people build constructs that are not real. Thousands of articles have been written about...

16 Defense Mechanisms and Ego Anxiety
http://psychology.about.com/od/theories ... semech.htm

1. Neurotic anxiety is the unconscious worry that we will lose control of the id's urges, resulting in punishment for inappropriate behavior.

2. Reality anxiety is fear of real-world events. The cause of this anxiety is usually easily identified. For example, a person might fear receiving a dog bite when they are near a menacing dog. The most common way of reducing this anxiety is to avoid the threatening object.

3. Moral anxiety involves a fear of violating our own moral principles.

All of this was dealt with in the set-up and what we brought to the table. While some of the more desperate in their efforts avoid reality. The Lakewood Observer project was two years in the making with some of the finest minds in Lakewood and around the country. We looked very deeply into the psychology effects on a community, and we have produced many white papers on it, from before and after. Ken and I were working on the book when he died.

If you have noticed, I do not call it a newspaper, but a tool and a project. It is a community assessment tool that is second to none. You just have to know how to read it and use it.

.

Brad T Humphreys wrote:Mr. Essi,

Or it could be that the quality of discussion/discourse in general is this:

m buckley wrote:What started out as the drip, drip, drip of Team Summers' attempting to erode support for those who opposed the Hospital deal has now turned steadily, into a full fledged assault on our right to express political thought in an open forum.

(I know, this is just a single example... but is it really worth the effort to quote more when you can pretty much click on any topic and get about the same content. But hey, why not make it about Brian Essi and him having achieved argument superiority.)

Brad

Brad,

Would you agree that the "quality of discussion/discourse in general" as you put it as well as your example of Mr. Buckley's post are a matter of belief or perception and not a "fact"?

If that is the case then it follows that your use of the word "OR" is misplaced, since your use of the word "OR" suggests that "quality of discussion/discourse in general" is grounded in fact and not a matter of interpretation.

Nevertheless, can we assume from your post that your answer to the thread heading question is "No"?

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."--John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962. From the series Great Ideas.

.

Brad T Humphreys wrote:Mr. Essi,

Or it could be that the quality of discussion/discourse in general is this:

m buckley wrote:What started out as the drip, drip, drip of Team Summers' attempting to erode support for those who opposed the Hospital deal has now turned steadily, into a full fledged assault on our right to express political thought in an open forum.

(I know, this is just a single example... but is it really worth the effort to quote more when you can pretty much click on any topic and get about the same content. But hey, why not make it about Brian Essi and him having achieved argument superiority.)

Brad

I was in front of the Post Office the other day collecting signatures for the new referendum. A well dressed man driving a BMW ignored me as he went into the post office when I asked him if he would be willing to sign. On his way out he said "I work for the Clinic. They are scanning those petitions and there will be retribution if I sign." It's not the first time someone from the Clinic has told me about their fear of retribution. I've heard the same story from City employees and local business. If you don't toe the line your job is at risk. If you don't toe the line your business is at risk. If you post on the Observer the police will come knocking on your door.

The Mayor and his supporters are using threats and intimidation to silence the opposition and men like your remain silent.

Their criticism of the Observer is not based on anything but their fear of debating the issues. Like they say, if you don't have the facts or the law or the truth on your side, bang the table. Or is it bang heads?

The recently passed deal is nothing a bad real estate deal. I've said to supporters of the deal that I would be willing to change sides if they could explain to me why it is such a good deal. They get angry and walk away.

If it's such a great deal why don't they explain why its such a great deal?

If it's such a great deal why do they have to lie about the deal?

A Build Lakewood supporter has a post on the Observer asking Build Lakewood supporters to tell when they first realized that the Hospital should be closed. No one from Build Lakewood responded. Are they also afraid?

Bill,

Despite the thread drift, its a good example of cognitive dissonance by the guy at the post office, the Blers and City employees----"the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

Your comment about Jim Kenny's post that has been almost ignored also applies--when I tried to lead people to it, two posters chastised me claiming I was bullying and treating Jim poorly while they simultaneously called me names--i.e. they were treating me poorly, i.e. they were in a "state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change."

I was trying not top mention the "unmentionables" in this thread, but this also proves a point I made earlier in the week--free speech is free to go anywhere it pleases---you can't really build a fence to contain it---which was also why Brad is so upset about Mr. Buckley's quote above.