Originally Posted By SuperDry Kar2oonMan's other thread titled "Questions of Life And Death" started me thinking, and I wanted to have a related discussion. In that thread, he asks how people are able to have seemingly conflicting views, such as being against abortion but for the death penalty. Like in that thread, I don't mean to say one point of view is correct or incorrect, or that one is better than another. My question relates to how the stated and actual reasons for believing something, believing IN something, or having a particular opinion are often different. And, how this can occur either at the conscious or subconscious level. My opinion is that this is at the root of a great deal of what Kar2oonMan was talking about. Let me give an example. Let's take the death penalty. One of the reasons that some people say they support the death penalty is because they think it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to keep a person incarcerated for life, especially when their crime is so heinous that they got a life without parole sentence. That is, in that case, there's no notion of reform or returning that particular person to society eventually, even if that's the overall goal with most prisoners. I suspect that when people claim that this is one of the main reasons they support the death penalty, that they're being truthful, even to the extent that if you hooked them up to a polygraph machine, it would show that they are being honest. However, when presented with the reality that it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life, when you taken into account the amount of appeals and additional looks at the situation required so that we can be as sure as possible about the situation, I have yet to see a single person change their mind on the death penalty. This is very odd. If someone's reason for supporting the death penalty was saving taxpayer money, you'd think that when presented with evidence to the contrary, they would have an about-face, or at the very least have the stance of "Oh really? I didn't know that. I might have to reconsider my position." But I have yet to see a situation, either in person or online, where that happened. Not once. In fact, in person, I've heard people dismissively say "Well that really doesn't matter" when just five seconds earlier, they claimed it was their primary reason for supporting it! What that tells me is that supporting the death penalty because of money saving was not the actual reason for supporting it. It does make a good talking point. But notice that since I suspect that most people would have passed a hypothetical polygraph test regarding their rationale, in this case it's probably going on subconsciously (and note that I'm not referring to support of the death penalty as a whole. There are lots of reasons why people support the death penalty, and I'm talking here about only the situations where saving taxpayer dollars is the primary reason). At other times, this phenomenon is very much conscious. Over the years on WE, I've been able to identify several situations where someone has been posting stuff that just didn't make much sense to me (and I mean separately from whether or not I agreed with it), and have eventually been able to uncover that there was an underlying reason or motivation behind the posts that purposely wasn't revealed, yet once identified, made the whole thing make sense (again, without respect to whether or not I agreed with it). I think that this notion of "the stated reason isn't the real reason" explains quite a bit, if not most, of the situations where someone's stated beliefs are in conflict with each other. And to the extent that the stated beliefs are the actual beliefs, this subterfuge is probably subconscious. I know that I've certainly identified both situations in my positions on things when I look hard enough at them. P.S. - This thread isn't about the death penalty or any other controversial issue that gets brought up. As was the case in the other thread, it's probably beyond hope to think that we can discuss this without it turning into a discussion on the opinions used as examples. But I hope that I'm pleasantly surprised.
Originally Posted By Mr X Very interesting. My take on paragraph four (in particular) is that we generally tend to form our opinions based on either emotion or by being directed by someone we look up to (or both), and generally at an early age to boot. From there, I think we THEN look for reasons to justify our outlook, when vice-versa would seem to be much more logical. Thus, not to say that someone saying "taxpayer dollars" is just using an excuse per se, they are using such an argument to justify their way of thinking and thus the argument is not as important as "the cause" if that makes sense. We definitely see that a lot with the anti-gay folks too...they come up with "logical reasons" for their viewpoint, but when challenged they don't really seem to care that the logic sometimes falls through. That's the way I see it, anyway. This is not necessarily an "always" thing, but I think it occurs in general. And I also feel that when people DO make a gigantic shift in opinion it's not always or even usually based on the arguments themselves, but rather a significant emotional shift, OR perhaps being influenced by a new person or persons who present the argument in a new light.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan When World Events first started (I don't mean before dinosaurs, but it feels like that sometimes), I was rather conservative on a lot of issues. Several posters, through reason and logic, eventually made me look at some of the issues (the war, death penalty, abortion, religion) in new ways. I've changed my mind on several issues when presented with enough logic that on many of the issues of the day, I'm probably rather liberal. Yet, on other issues, I remain more on the conservative side. I've been trying, more and more, to compartmentalize each issue, weigh the evidence. I'm trying not to let myself be for or against something merely because it is the "liberal" or "conservative" position. And since I find that both sides of the aisle have various stances that contradict other stances when taken to their logical conclusion (a typical liberal stance of being pro choice but anti war vs. a typical conservative stance of being anti-abortion but supporting the war), it's getting easier to detach from either of the two major political parties. A few years ago, there was a study that showed that people will cling to certain beliefs, in spite of factual evidence making the belief untrue, due to their own political biases. People actually tune out information that conflicts with previously held views. I'm trying not to do that, but i know I have a long way to go. That's why I am a confused moderate. "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened." -- Winston Churchill
Originally Posted By SuperDry Re #2, I think that emotional decision-making has a great deal to do with it. I think the conflicts come when someone attempts to come up with "logical" or fact-based reasons for how they believe, but these all too often are just reinforcements to the already-made decision. This explains that even when they are knocked down, the underlying position rarely changes. It's just political posturing when done on purpose, but fascinating to think about what it means for it to happen so often subconsciously.
Originally Posted By ecdc It's fascinating stuff, to be sure. This has a lot to do with cognitive dissonance. When presented with a conflicting notion, people will immediately de-value that information. Studies have shown that even chimpanzees engage in cognitive dissonance. People by and large are not rational or logical. They're emotional. We try and tell ourselves that we're logical, so we cook up any number of reasons to justify our beliefs. I know I'm a one note symphony on this topic, but nowhere is this more clear than in religion. Time and time again we watch people try and explain how rational and how logical their beliefs are. In my church, there was even a sunday school manual published in 1915 called "Rational Theology." How often, for example, on these boards have we seen people attack gay marriage for secular reasons? It happens all the time. Most people won't just up and say "The bible says it's wrong." Instead, we hear tedious, tortuous logic trying to explain why gay marriage really is bad for society. You cannot divorce someone from their beliefs. So when challenged on something they believe, it's almost like a personal attack. It shouldn't be, but it seems like that. It takes time and patience to get someone to change their mind. Just like Kar2oonMan, over the years on these boards I've become pretty liberal because of a variety of reasons. But it didn't happen overnight. It took hearing the same argument multiple times before I could accept it. It's just human nature, I think.
Originally Posted By jdub >>...the reality that it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life, when you taken into account the amount of appeals and additional looks at the situation required so that we can be as sure as possible about the situation, I have yet to see a single person change their mind on the death penalty<< I did. That's what originally made me reconsider, and change, the pro-death penalty stance I held as a young adult.
Originally Posted By mele Me too, jdub. For that exact same reason. Also, my friend witnessed a state execution in Oregon and I started having nightmares about it. I realized that I might not actually be able to give someone the death penalty and I couldn't do it myself, I shouldn't support other people doing it.
Originally Posted By jdub I've got a radio program on that is proving the thread's premise... a couple of callers have insisted they were considering Obama, but are now going McCain. Why, asks the host? One caller says because McCain supports nuclear and offshore drilling. The host points out that Obama does, too. Now who ya gonna vote for? "Uh..." You were gonna vote for McCain anyway right? Yep.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< This has a lot to do with cognitive dissonance. >>> I think that's quite true, but only for the subconscious form. <<< When presented with a conflicting notion, people will immediately de-value that information. Studies have shown that even chimpanzees engage in cognitive dissonance. >>> Chimpanzees are not on trial here! But I know what you mean. I'm much more aware of this now than I ever was before. It's now so plainly obvious when others are doing it, and now I catch myself doing it from time to time. It's human nature. I'd like to think that over time, we're advancing as a species even if at a very slow pace, but sometimes I wonder.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>However, when presented with the reality that it actually costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life, when you taken into account the amount of appeals and additional looks at the situation required so that we can be as sure as possible about the situation, I have yet to see a single person change their mind on the death penalty.<< I feel somewhat akin to a silly person, but I was not aware of that. If that is, in fact, the case (and it certainly makes sense), then I have just changed my mind on the death penalty.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yay, mawnck. Logic rocks! Seriously, SuperDry, great topic. I know I find myself doing it too sometimes. It IS human nature. The trick is to be aware of it, and honest enough with oneself to cop to it when it happens.
Originally Posted By Mr X Bump. (hate to see this most excellent topic sink to the depths without some more commentary)
