54 Results

Personal

Video

Happiness Relativity

 
Aside

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1] The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions or adding new ones to create consistency.[1] The diagram to the right shows a new cognition being integrated into a person’s belief system to resolve such a conflict. An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the smoking is worth short term benefits.

The phrase was coined by Leon Festinger in his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, which chronicled the followers of a UFO cult as reality clashed with their fervent belief in an impending apocalypse.[2][3] Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology. Cognitive disequilibrium is a closely related concept in the cognitive developmental theory of Jean Piaget: the inevitable conflicts a child experiences between current beliefs and new information will lead to disequilibrium, which in turn motivates the child’s progress through the various stages of development.

Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. This bias gives the theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and even destructive behavior.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 
Link

30 things to stop doing to yourself

 

How to argue with idiots

Fidelbogen

All right. I believe it is important to engage femmies in a non-abrasive way, and to genuinely LISTEN to them. That may be impossible to do with the radical haters, but with the mainstream foot-soldiers it is quite easy. When they start spouting off their ill-formed opinions about “MRAs” and whatnot, you should switch into Disengage Mode, and engage them in that mode.

Suspend your personal feelings about what they are saying. And forget about debating or explaining. Just take a hint from Socrates, and commence to asking them questions in order to draw them into clarificatory statements. They might actually say something inculpatory — you never know — but that is not what you seek. What you seek, rather, is to know their actual thinking, with all possible precision, from their 0wn subjective vantage point.

To put that more cleverly, you should go about to gain objective information about their subjectivity.

In such manner, by repeated experiment, we chart the psychic topography of the enemy. Yes, good maps are vitally important for successful campaigns. There is no substitute for a correct definition of the situation in all of its its dimensions.

Learning the mind of the enemy in this manner will give you a great power boost in the practice of rhetorical discipline, teaching you precisely how NOT to fall afoul of their prejudices. This will help you to craft your message to the best possible effect, so that you cut off all their avenues of escape from the realization of what you are saying, thus driving them into a corner in their own minds and bottling them up in a way that neutralizes their effectuality.