| Jazmee27
|
======
- Psychology.about.com defines cognitive dissonance as “the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs… the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs.
- “In order to reduce this dissonance between belief and behavior, she can either leave the relationship or reduce her emphasis on financial security. In the
case of the second option, dissonance could be further minimized by emphasizing the positive qualities of her significant other rather than focusing on
his perceived flaws.
- “A more common example of cognitive dissonance occurs in the purchasing decisions we make on a regular basis. Most people want to hold the belief that they
make good choices. When a product or item we purchase turns out badly, it conflicts with our previously existing belief about our decision-making abilities.”
|
Reply #621. Jun 10 12, 3:31 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:
List of 3 items
• Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
• Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
• Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.
list end” You make that sound so simple!
- “Cognitive dissonance plays a role in many value judgments, decisions and evaluations. Becoming aware of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making
process is a great way to improve your ability to make faster and more accurate choices.” It’s all about insight.
|
Reply #622. Jun 10 12, 3:32 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something
bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.” |
Reply #624. Jun 10 12, 3:34 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead us to change one or other of the conflicting belief or action. The discomfort often
feels like a tension between the two opposing thoughts. To release the tension we can take one of three actions:
List of 3 items
• Change our behavior.
• Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.
• Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.
list end” Is that anything like a smoker or addict explaining why he or she is the way he or she is? Or maybe it’s like a woman explaining away why the man she loves abuses her. Or it could be like someone insisting another person is his or her friend when that person’s actions clearly indicate the reverse is true.
|
Reply #625. Jun 10 12, 3:37 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “Feelings of foolishness, immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making)
are dissonance in action.” How about the kid who wants to be popular, but at the same time wishes to do well in school to please his or her parents and thus gain their gratitude? Or the person who stands up to injustice because it’s “the right thing to do”. Or the person who takes an animal home with him or her so it can heal from its injuries.
|
Reply #626. Jun 10 12, 3:37 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the
dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing us to take actions we would not have taken before.” Like how some of us feel the need to stick up for another person who’s being bullied/threatened/etc.
- “Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world.
When we see other people behave differently to our images of them, when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we experience dissonance.” As in when we lose respect for someone we think we’ve known, whether our interactions occurred for a few months or a few years. It’s that whole “things will never be the same between us” or “I can never trust that person again.” It’s the kind of thing that necessitates growth.
|
Reply #627. Jun 10 12, 3:38 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
"Don't get mme started" could apply to a lot of stuff
======
This title was prompted by two things: first, the news that Robbie is mad at his dad yet again for not giving him money to pay his fine, and a news report about a bill protecting “traditional marriage”?. “Don’t get me started!”
|
Reply #628. Jun 10 12, 3:41 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
WHO'S BENEFITING FROM YOU BOTTLING IT UP?
======
Then again, let’s! Why don’t we head back to the Internet, that is after I get the following off my chest: I had hoped that being in jail had jolted some sense into my eighteen-year-old brat of a cousin. It seems to me, though, that whatever lesson it taught him was short-lived. All I can really hope here is that he’s at least given up drugs.
|
Reply #629. Jun 10 12, 3:42 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
SO FAR AS ROBBIE GOES, THE ONLY "HABIT" I KNOW HE'S GOT IS SMOKING CIGARETTES (GIVEN THAT HALF THE FAMLY DOES, I STAND DOWN - BESIDES, WHO AM I TO JUDGE?)
======
And now, to that other matter, which I refuse to debate unless I see another viewpoint like my own… First,  http://www.letusreason.org/current8.htm.
|
Reply #630. Jun 10 12, 3:44 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
Whether or not I want to argue this, I’m already “in” as they say. So, to start with, are we sure we want that second question in there? What exactly is “morality”? Whose definition do we use? And who are we to attempt to legislate it? Just because we feel we have a fundamental right to something, does that give us the right to infringe on the beliefs of others?
|
Reply #631. Jun 10 12, 3:47 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “Imagine a future with few families as we know it today. What would you think if you had no grandchildren to look forward to and the family name would no
longer be passed on.” That really doesn’t bother me. I do plan to get married someday, but unless something unforeseen happens to change my mind have no intention to have children. Even if I do, my family name still dies out, at least my branch of it: I’m an only child, and have Mom’s maiden name only because my biological dad… I don’t know, and I don’t want to; Michael isn’t interested in his own child, either: “he loves children as long as they’re somebody else’s”. So, I rest my case.
|
Reply #632. Jun 10 12, 3:48 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “But through most of human history and in most cultures the most widely accepted tradition of marriage has been polygamy -- one man and multiple women. We're
not just talking about exotic island cultures or lost tribes in the African jungle. Polygamy is the family form most often mentioned in the first five
books of the Old Testament.” There goes your Biblical argument.
|
Reply #634. Jun 10 12, 3:51 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “In some societies, traditional marriage meant one woman wedded to several men. In others, a woman could take another woman as a "female husband." In China
and the Sudan, when two sets of parents wanted to forge closer family ties and no live spouse was available, one set sometimes married off a child to the
"ghost" of a dead son or daughter of the other family. Among the Bella Coola and Kwakiutl native societies of the Pacific Northwest, two families who wished
to become in-laws but didn't have two sets of marriageable children available for a match might even draw up a marriage contract between a son or daughter
and a dog belonging to the desired in-laws. Most traditional marriages were concerned with property and wealth, not love or sex.
|
Reply #635. Jun 10 12, 3:52 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “But what about the sanctity of marriage in the Christian tradition? It is true that Jesus, contradicting Moses, forbade his followers to divorce. But Jesus
was not very keen on having them marry in the first place, holding that it was better to abandon worldly ties and dedicate oneself to building the faith.
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be
my disciple" (Luke, 14). The Apostle Paul thought that getting married was better than burning in hell for unmarried fornication, but that the truly good
thing was to remain a virgin and devote oneself to spreading God's word.
|
Reply #636. Jun 10 12, 3:53 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “For the first 16 centuries of its existence, the Catholic Church held that marriage was inherently tainted by what Pope Gregory the Great deemed the degrading
"carnal pleasure" that took place under its auspices. In the church's hierarchy of worthy females, the virgin ranked highest, the widow second and the
wife a distant third.
- “Nor did the early church establish elaborate rules about what made a marriage legitimate. One pope proposed that a marriage ought to take place in church
to be valid. But his bishops pointed out that such a change would immediately render most of Europe's children illegitimate. So the church decided that
a man and woman were married if they had exchanged "words of consent," even if they had done so out by the haystack, without any witnesses or involvement
by a priest.
- “Not until 1215 did the Catholic Church make marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had
to be performed to make a marriage legitimate.
|
Reply #637. Jun 10 12, 3:54 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “Sixteenth-century Protestant reformers had a much more positive attitude toward the blessedness of marriage than Catholics. But Protestant clerics were
stricter than Catholics in enforcing the tradition that marriage should be governed by considerations of patriarchal authority and property rather than
free choice based on love. In many Protestant regions, authorities forbade impoverished individuals from marrying at all. And Protestant officials often
stepped in to dissolve marriages that had been made without parental consent, even if both parties were adult and children had already been born to their
union.” So much for the earlier argument about grandchildren!
|
Reply #638. Jun 10 12, 3:57 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “It is also not "traditional" to insist that the state should have the final say over what constitutes a valid marriage. In the Roman tradition, which served
as the basis for Western European law, the only difference between marriage and unmarried cohabitation was if the partners thought of themselves as married.
It wasn't until 1754 that the English state required a license for a marriage to be valid. And even after that, "self-marriage" and "self-divorce" remained
commonplace, especially in the early decades of the United States. In 1833, Pennsylvania's chief justice warned that a strict legal interpretation of rules
governing marriage validity would render "the vast majority" of births in that state illegitimate.” It would seem to me then that the so-called “traditional” marriage is actually a “nontraditional” one.
|
Reply #639. Jun 10 12, 3:58 PM
|
| Jazmee27
|
======
- “Most of the "traditions" we associate with marriage are in fact comparatively new. It was only two centuries ago that people began to marry for love rather
than for mercenary or practical considerations. Only 130 years ago did men start to lose their legal right to physically beat or imprison their wives.
And only in the past 40 years have we established the principle that within a marriage wives and husbands have equal rights in decision-making.” In certain cultures, wives are still second-class citizens.
|
Reply #640. Jun 10 12, 3:58 PM
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: