Links
- Google News
- Ars Technica
- Talking Points Memo
- Washington Monthly
- Eschaton
- Daily Kos
- Media Matters
- Brad DeLong
- Pharyngula.org
Archives
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
Bad grammar, good beer
Monday, April 26, 2004
Cognitive dissonance and a crazy poll
As most of you have probably seen, 57% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave substantial support to al Qaeda, and 45% believe that there is clear evidence to support this allegation. Of course, if you follow politics at all, you will know that there is literally no evidence of either of these claims, and that our administration has been disingenuous, to say the least, with the truth as it stands today.
The real kicker is that belief in these claims falls pretty much along party lines: of those who believe that there is a connection between al Qaeda and the Hussein regime, 75% plan to vote Bush, and of those who know that there is no connection (as has been corroborated from many sources, and by Powell, and to a certain extent, Bush himself), 75% plan to vote Kerry.
From a psychological standpoint, it is pretty clear what is going on here. Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation (definition from here). Essentially, all of our cognitions in memory must "fit" or be consistent. If not, we feel uncomfortable, at least until we change our mind about some piece of information that is inconsistent, by either discounting it, ignoring it, or changing the rest of the mental structure so that it is consistent with the new piece of information. As one can guess, this last option is the most difficult, to the extent that those previously held cognitions are very well defined in memory. For the Bush supporter, the last option is nearly impossible.
As quoted from Juan Cole,
"If it were accepted that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that he had no weapons of mass destruction (nor any significant programs for producing them), and that no evidence for such things has been uncovered after the US and its allies have had a year to comb through Baath documents-- if all that is accepted, then President Bush's credibility would suffer. For his partisans, it is absolutely crucial that the president retain his credibility. "
Here is the dissonance equation for the Bush supporter:
1. (Established cognitive state): I support Bush because he said that there were weapons of mass destruction, and he is credible.
2. (New evidence): There is no evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction
3. (Cognitively consistent conclusion): Bush is not credible.
As you can see, 1 and 3 are not compatible. The individual must either change his belief about Bush, or ignore statement #2. What we are seeing in Bush supporters right now is the denial of #2, in order to keep their previously held beliefs about Bush intact.
As most of you have probably seen, 57% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein gave substantial support to al Qaeda, and 45% believe that there is clear evidence to support this allegation. Of course, if you follow politics at all, you will know that there is literally no evidence of either of these claims, and that our administration has been disingenuous, to say the least, with the truth as it stands today.
The real kicker is that belief in these claims falls pretty much along party lines: of those who believe that there is a connection between al Qaeda and the Hussein regime, 75% plan to vote Bush, and of those who know that there is no connection (as has been corroborated from many sources, and by Powell, and to a certain extent, Bush himself), 75% plan to vote Kerry.
From a psychological standpoint, it is pretty clear what is going on here. Cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation (definition from here). Essentially, all of our cognitions in memory must "fit" or be consistent. If not, we feel uncomfortable, at least until we change our mind about some piece of information that is inconsistent, by either discounting it, ignoring it, or changing the rest of the mental structure so that it is consistent with the new piece of information. As one can guess, this last option is the most difficult, to the extent that those previously held cognitions are very well defined in memory. For the Bush supporter, the last option is nearly impossible.
As quoted from Juan Cole,
"If it were accepted that Saddam had virtually nothing to do with al-Qaeda, that he had no weapons of mass destruction (nor any significant programs for producing them), and that no evidence for such things has been uncovered after the US and its allies have had a year to comb through Baath documents-- if all that is accepted, then President Bush's credibility would suffer. For his partisans, it is absolutely crucial that the president retain his credibility. "
Here is the dissonance equation for the Bush supporter:
1. (Established cognitive state): I support Bush because he said that there were weapons of mass destruction, and he is credible.
2. (New evidence): There is no evidence that there are weapons of mass destruction
3. (Cognitively consistent conclusion): Bush is not credible.
As you can see, 1 and 3 are not compatible. The individual must either change his belief about Bush, or ignore statement #2. What we are seeing in Bush supporters right now is the denial of #2, in order to keep their previously held beliefs about Bush intact.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
The ongoing list of must read books
There are a few books that I tell everyone they should read. I have asked Fropuff what some of his are, and I compiled them into a list that will be kept here.
The Age of Spiritual Machines, by Ray Kurzweil (C)
Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett (C)
Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan (F)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (C & F)
All of these are brilliant books, that will make you think hard, laugh, cry, get angry, and force your mind to see the world in a new way.
There are a few books that I tell everyone they should read. I have asked Fropuff what some of his are, and I compiled them into a list that will be kept here.
The Age of Spiritual Machines, by Ray Kurzweil (C)
Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Daniel Dennett (C)
Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan (F)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (C & F)
All of these are brilliant books, that will make you think hard, laugh, cry, get angry, and force your mind to see the world in a new way.
Welcome to The Unsatisfied Mind
Welcome to the unsatisfied mind, my space to post my thoughts about consumer behavior, physics, politics, music, the finer things in life, and all the other things that people post about that no one else reads. This blog will have a number of contributors:
A Business School professor (ChaNce).
A Theoretical Physics grad student (Fropuff).
And more to be announced.
Welcome to the unsatisfied mind, my space to post my thoughts about consumer behavior, physics, politics, music, the finer things in life, and all the other things that people post about that no one else reads. This blog will have a number of contributors:
A Business School professor (ChaNce).
A Theoretical Physics grad student (Fropuff).
And more to be announced.