Latent Understanding

[MrWonka]

I'm not exactly sure what if any would be the right place to put a discussion on this. If there's a better one then a moderator is welcome to move this thread, but I'll start here.

I have a theory about political argumentation. Particular online discussion. I think a lot of people feel like debating politics online is an exercise in frustration that serves little to no good. It seems like no matter how good of a point you make, no matter how flawless your argument is, no matter how good the evidence is it really doesn't seem like anybody's mind is ever changed. People just dig their heals in further and further no matter how absurd their beliefs are. I'm wondering however if there isn't some form of latent understanding that can come about long after the discussion. I feel like while the discussion is happening there is a defensive attitude that makes it hard for anybody to admit they're wrong, but down the road a more personal reflection on the topic may have results.

It reminds me some what of the movie "Inception" where they have to convince the guy they're manipulating that the idea they're trying to place into his head originated from himself. It's the notion that an idea will be rejected if the mind believes it's being imposed upon it. The Ego just says nope, and won't allow you to believe that someone else could have made a good point. However down the road upon reflecting on the topic on your own it is possible that you could subconsciously tell yourself that it is a good point when your ego gets out of the way without realizing it.

It sort of reminds me of the how sometimes in movies as a joke a lowly henchmen will suggest an idea to his boss, and his boss will immediately reject the suggestion, but then a moment later he'll have the exact same idea himself and think it's brilliant all of a sudden giving all credit to himself for thinking of it.

Is this a thing at all? Is there a term for this in Psychology already?

 

[Fenton]

Cognitive dissonance.....


Progs are known for it

 

[Chomsky]

I'm not exactly sure what if any would be the right place to put a discussion on this. If there's a better one then a moderator is welcome to move this thread, but I'll start here.

I have a theory about political argumentation. Particular online discussion. I think a lot of people feel like debating politics online is an exercise in frustration that serves little to no good. It seems like no matter how good of a point you make, no matter how flawless your argument is, no matter how good the evidence is it really doesn't seem like anybody's mind is ever changed. People just dig their heals in further and further no matter how absurd their beliefs are. I'm wondering however if there isn't some form of latent understanding that can come about long after the discussion. I feel like while the discussion is happening there is a defensive attitude that makes it hard for anybody to admit they're wrong, but down the road a more personal reflection on the topic may have results.

It reminds me some what of the movie "Inception" where they have to convince the guy they're manipulating that the idea they're trying to place into his head originated from himself. It's the notion that an idea will be rejected if the mind believes it's being imposed upon it. The Ego just says nope, and won't allow you to believe that someone else could have made a good point. However down the road upon reflecting on the topic on your own it is possible that you could subconsciously tell yourself that it is a good point when your ego gets out of the way without realizing it.

It sort of reminds me of the how sometimes in movies as a joke a lowly henchmen will suggest an idea to his boss, and his boss will immediately reject the suggestion, but then a moment later he'll have the exact same idea himself and think it's brilliant all of a sudden giving all credit to himself for thinking of it.

Is this a thing at all? Is there a term for this in Psychology already?

I only agree with this for a certain number of members here, but definitely not all.

I personally have gotten a bit of an education from some members here, and have indeed moved some of my positions and even reversed one or two. I also believe I've gotten a few people here to either change their minds, or (more commonly) better understand or ameliorate their positions. The above may not be the most common interactions, but they do occur.

But the biggest deal here is I highly suspect most of us had to research our positions (perhaps strongly) in order to more effectively argue, and that's a very good thing!

So I think you'll get out of this forum what you put into it, given that you have a desire to respectfully interact with an open mind, and discern those who appear likewise. There's a lot of value in this, and I feel better informed since I started my tenure here.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Cognitive dissonance.....


Progs are known for it

A global-warming-denying, gun-rights-make-everybody-safer, discrimination-is-part-of-freedom conservative complaining about liberals having a problem with cognitive dissonance. Right.

 

[MrWonka]

Cognitive dissonance.....

Cognitive Dissonance makes you come up with a justification for a contradiction like when you ignore the fact that virtually all liberal states are doing better economically than virtually all conservative ones. You then focus on just the two states that appear to confirm your beliefs, and then when it's demonstrated that even those two states don't support your theory and you can't explain why you simply accuse the source of being biased.

What I'm wondering is if down the road like a month from now when you're sitting at home alone watching reading Forbes or something like Neil Cavuto and he confirms everything I already told you then suddenly you'll find that you can explain why and believe it's something you realized on your own even though it was actually explained to you a month ago by me.