Cognitive dissonance on guns

[gejohnston]

In political debates, it seems fair to say most of us think we operate as follows: First, we study the issues. Second, we reach conclusions based on the best arguments and evidence. Then we seek out those who share our conclusions and the reasons for them. Finally, we make common cause with the like-minded.

Unfortunately, research suggests people often do precisely the opposite. To a much greater degree than we would like to think, we choose up sides first. Then we align our conclusions with what our side thinks about a particular issue. Then we adopt the arguments that best support the conclusions our side favors — even if we dispute those same arguments in other cases.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/our-opinion/hinkle-cognitive-dissonance-on-guns/article_96d4210e-43e0-53cc-8a1b-2a1efe545723.html

[kudzu22]

1. Good article

I think it's easier to recognize that tendency in other people, especially those with opposing viewpoints. I do recognize it in myself, and I try to reexamine my positions and ask myself, "am I wrong?" It's the only way to be intellectually honest with yourself, and sometimes it leads to divergence with one's own party on certain issues, such as this one.

[rdharma]

2. Cognitive dissonance, eh?

Like the NRA's claim that "more guns make society safer" and then coming up with bizarre arguments to try to back that up?

Yup! That's cognitive dissonance alright!

[gejohnston]

3. not quite.

since those are not contradictory beliefs. Although that might be an NRA claim (not being on their mailing list, so I wouldn't know), I don't remember seeing them say any such thing, although Piers Morgan et al have put those words in their mouth.
IOW, I think your post is a better example of strawman fallacy than cognitive dissonance.

[rdharma]

4. Another case of cognitive dissonance........

The massive amount of money that gun manufacturers poor into the NRA proves that NRA pulls the strings, right?

[gejohnston]

5. The NRA pulls the strings by organizing consumer boycotts

see Smith and Wesson.

It is clear that you are trolling and contributing nothing.

[rdharma]

6. The Smith & Wesson example is more accurately termed "strong arming".

The NRA was simply "the enforcer" used by the other gun manufacturers to keep S&W "in line"..... mafia style.

And labeling those who disagree with you and have better arguments as "trolls" ..... is more accurately termed "name calling".

[gejohnston]

7. can you provide evidence

that the NRA is the "enforcer" for other manufactures? Does that include non US manufactures as well?

You don't have better arguments. You regurgitate talking points without evidence.

[rdharma]

8. Evidence? Follow the money! nt

[gejohnston]

9. Deep Throat, you are not.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/why-gun-makers-fear-the-nra

Do you have something to say about the OP, or is posting inane banalities your favorite past time?

[rdharma]

10. Cognitive dissonance and the gun manufacturers/NRA symbiotic relationship.

Explained here: (watch the video)

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/16/behind_the_nras_money_gun_lobby

[gejohnston]

11. which has what to do with cognitive dissonance?

anecdotal, but there’s obviously evidence

and?

And according to a report in 2011 from the Violence Policy Center, between $14 million and $39 million came into NRA coffers in that period.

a hopelessly dishonest DC FFL holder.

Flimsy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Well...

[rdharma]

12. Cognitive dissonance? Watch this!

BIZARRE!

Nobody is talking about gun confiscation! Period!

[gejohnston]

13. that's fear mongering

not cognitive dissonance

[rdharma]

14. Keep trying to split hairs!

It's just a form of cognitive dissonance!