mozzaok wrote on Apr 17
th, 2018 at 7:49pm:
Aussie wrote on Apr 17
th, 2018 at 7:01pm:
Where is there any evidence that Stevens suffers from cognitive dissonance.....(such a lofty expression which basically means....having two conflicting positions or hyposcrisy.)
People do not "suffer" from cognitive dissidence, it is not an affliction, it is a description of stupidity, where a lying twat says any shite no matter how contradictory it is.
It would be like I suffer from smart arsery, as nif me being a smart arse is a mental disease I suffer from.
No, it is a choice I make, and those around me have to suffer it.
Same diff.
Cat is full of crap. I watched it the first time, I know what he said, I watched him say it.
I know what he meant, he was not unclear, or "joking" as he now lies.
100% gold plated take it to the bank, utter bald faced lying fricking muslom BS.
And that folks is the Alpha and Omega of this whole argument.
Actually, cognitive dissonance as it was originally conceived by social psychologists, isn't really conscious at all, and isn't merely a case of lying.
In the original experiment, subjects were asked to perform the most menial and boring task imaginable (turning cogs) for a very long time. But one group was paid $1 to do it, while the other group was paid $20 for doing the same task. When asked what they thought of the task afterwards, the people who were paid $20 simply said it was boring as hell. However the people who were paid $1 ended up saying that the task was ok, or even interesting. Why? Clearly the people who were paid $20 received a relatively generous compensation for the task, and so they had no qualms about being upfront about what they thought about the task. It was boring as hell, but they were ok with that because they were paid decently for it. On the other hand, the other group found themselves in an internal conflict - they did a poo task, and worse still got poo compensation for it. Why? This conflict, or "cognitive dissonance" could only be resolved by literally convincing themselves, internally, that somehow they actually didn't simply do the task for no reason - and that was because it was actually somehow fun or interesting for them.
Thats what cognitive dissonance is - an internal process that resolves a contradiction in the person's beliefs (ie, in the experiment, the belief that I would never do a crap task for no good reason or compensation). If we were to put it in Cat's perspective, we can argue that he really did say Salman should die, but after that his belief system changed. And I guess short of actually admitting he was wrong, the next best thing to resolve the dissonance is to convince himself that he never said such a thing. Who knows, maybe he really believes it, even if its clear to us its rubbish.