Elmer,<<<If you have the time, go over and read the terror stricken posts on the AMD thread.>>>
This is rather new for the AMD thread, but they have been doing this for several years on the Michael Burke thread. It's called cognitive dissonnance.
FYI:
<<< Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance." Dissonance is defined here as an "unpleasant state
of tension." Individuals will try to relieve this dissonance in one of two ways:
1.Increase the number of consistent cognitions - In order to assimilate inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals experiencing dissonance will increase the number of consistent cognitions, thereby abating the dissonance. This often involves rationalizing...i.e. myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces an existing worldview. In most instances, the offending inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus on extant consistent cognitions. This is called "rationalizing" because the individual seeks out semi-logical conclusions using extant cognitions and newly created consistent cognitions in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent cognitions. The reader must understand that we are not talking about
2.Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions - Individuals change their attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions. Instead of rationalizing, the individual excises the inconsistent cognitions from their worldview. This is more consistent with mode 1 thinking. When presented with logic or facts inconsistent with their worldview, >>>
Mary |
