Posted on 08/04/2010 8:32:41 AM PDT by genghis
Last Friday, it was reported that economic growth was only 2.4 percent in the second quarter of this year - far below what the Obama administration had forecast. Yet the administration and its supporters continue to be in denial about the fact that their policies are not working. Psychologists refer to the refusal to change one's mind when confronted with contrary evidence as cognitive dissonance. As almost everyone now knows, there are two competing theories about how to revive the American economy. One theory is to promote the supply-side of the economy by cutting tax rates or at least to maintain the Bush-era tax rates and reduce spending and government regulation; the other theory is to follow the Keynesians' advice by allowing some or all of the Bush-era tax rates to increase while also increasing government spending and government regulations (which proponents call "more stimulus"). The new data, as captured in the accompanying chart, provides even more evidence as to which of these competing theories is correct.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
This entry raises a point: it says cognitive dissonance is refusal to intellectually adapt to data which contradict held belief. I thought cog diss was what happened in the mind of a subordinate when commanded to perform two mutually contradicting orders by two valid authorities with equal authority.
>>e:
The libs will not be able to deny reality forever. <<
Well, I agree, but not in the way you think. The Germans were not able to deny reality forever either. It resulted in Russian tanks in the streets of Berlin.
IOW, They cannot deny it because the fallout is so unthinkably bad, which is where I VERY STRONGLY believe is where we are headed.
Pull the two words apart and take a look at them:
cognitive
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to cognition.
2.
of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.
dissonance
–noun
1.
inharmonious or harsh sound; discord; cacophony.
2.
Music.
a.
a simultaneous combination of tones conventionally accepted as being in a state of unrest and needing completion.
b.
an unresolved, discordant chord or interval. Compare consonance (def. 3).
3.
disagreement or incongruity.
Essentially, your example could be considered the same. Anything that is contradictory but mandated is going to cause CD.
Reminds me of one of my old bosses:
“I’ve already made my decision. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”
Thanks.
What you refer to is confusion based contradictory input. What Rahm refers to is refusal to accept reality when faced with unexpected or unacceptable outcomes.
But is the outcome unexpected outcome-driven cognitive dissonance or is it a planned Cloward and Piven strategy?
None of them NONE have ever done anything in their miserable lives.
The truth does not matter, that is not their goal, they will just spin it another way so they can blame the conservatives.
The US economy has always been ‘dynamic’. It has it’s business cycles which are ‘typical’.
But this time it really is different. This administration treats those that disagree with them (the producers) with contempt. I’ve never seen that before in my lifetime. Bill Clinton said, “The era of big government is over!” The was the clarian call of ‘all clear’. Even with GW, there was not such a loss of trust or confidence in their motivations towards commerce. We ‘felt’ the fundamentals were at least sound.
We know what Obama’s motivations are, we simply refuse to participate. We need to reestablish the rule of law and respect for private property.
Looks a lot like C&P from my foxhole.
One thing I am not sure of. I need an answer. Do we have any proof anywhere where the results of Cloward-Piven actually produce a good result?
It is one thing to overwhelm the existing system, quite another to replace it with something acceptable to the masses.
Haevard style eggheads are good at theory but stink at proving a good result.
How about they are refusing to accept that they are failing because, according to their own intentions, they are succeeding admirably? Which is similar to saying the outcome is Cloward-Piven driven.
Cognitive dissonance is one explanation, but there’s another. Maybe Obama and those in his administration are not being honest about their goals and plans for the country. Maybe they’re confident that ordinary people will not be able believe what their true aim is, even as it becomes obvious. Maybe they’re confident that the media won’t blow the whistle because it is owned and operated with people who are on board with these goals.
“Cognitive dissonance” is not needed for this explanation.
I remember very well, time after time, Speaker Tip O’Neill saying that President Reagan’s budget was “dead on arrival” to Congress. The Democrats NEVER gave Reagan the spending restraint he wanted, but the supply-side approach still worked in spite of the Rats best efforts.
The conflict comes with sticking to a bad policy in the face of bad results and trying to justify keeping the proven bad policies. If the desired outcome is negative and that’s the intent yet the appearance of “brilliance” is something you’re trying to preserve, that becomes quite problematic.
You’re either just plain stupid, or you have an evil intent and you’re just plain stupid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.