Concept: Cognitive Dissonance

In 1957, Leon Festinger published a theory of cognitive dissonance,  which has changed the way psychologists look at decision-making and  behavior.[1] At its heart, cognitive dissonance theory is rather simple.  It begins with the idea of cognitions. Cognitions are simply bits of  knowledge. They can pertain to any variety of thoughts, values, facts,  or emotions. For instance, the fact that I like ice cream is a  cognition. So is the fact that I am a man. People have countless  cognitions in their heads.

Most cognitions have nothing to do with each other. For instance, the  two cognitions mentioned before (that I am a man and that I like ice  cream) are unrelated. Some cognitions, however, are related. For  instance, perhaps I have a sweet tooth and I like ice cream. These  cognitions are "consonant," meaning that they are related and that one  follows from the other. They go together, so to speak.

The basic idea behind cognitive dissonance theory is that people do not  like to have dissonant cognitions. In fact, many people argue that the  desire to have consonant cognitions is as strong as our basic desires  for food and shelter. As a result, when someone does experience two or  more dissonant cognitions (or conflicting thoughts), they will attempt  to do away with the dissonance.

****

The masses are indeed asses.

This week has yielded a bushel (or two) of research on the political ecology of the Tea Party, Republicans. Not surprisingly, they have minimal knowledge of actual government policies, are ill informed on the issues which they ostensibly care about, are immersed in the Fox News, Right-wing echo chamber, and simultaneously want "the government out of their lives" while also wanting the government to improve their lives.

Question: Are the Tea Party members A) Dumb or B) Stupid

UNAWARE OF THE CONTRADICTION.... There's an old joke that goes  something like this: my neighbor went to public schools before joining  the military. He went to college on the G.I. Bill, bought his first home  through the FHA, and received his health care through the V.A. and  Medicare. He now receives Social Security. 

He's a conservative because he wants to get the government off his  back. 

I mention the joke because a surprising number of right-wing  activists don't seem to appreciate the humor. We talked  the other day, for example, about a radical libertarian activist  who encourages his allies to throw bricks through the windows of  Democratic offices to protest the Affordable Care Act. He hates  government involvement in the lives of citizens -- but his main income  is taxpayer-financed disability checks sent to him every month by the  federal government. 

This is not uncommon. The NYT  reports today on some of the well-intention folks who've been  caught up in the Tea Party nonsense. Take Tom Grimes, for example. 

In the last year, he has organized a local group and a  statewide coalition, and even started a "bus czar" Web site to marshal  protesters to Washington on short notice. This month, he mobilized 200  other Tea Party activists to go to the local office of the same  congressman to protest what he sees as the government's takeover of  health care. [...] 

"If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how  to do it on their own," Mr. Grimes said. 

When Grimes lost his job 15 months ago, one of his first steps was  contacting his congressman about available programs that might give him  access to government health care. He receives Social Security, and is  considering a job opening at the Census Bureau. But in the meantime,  Grimes has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with  literature decrying government aid to struggling Americans. 

The same article noted the efforts of Diana Reimer, considered a  "star" right-wing activist in her efforts against government programs, a  campaign she describes as her "mission." Reimer, of course, currently  enjoys Social Security and the socialized medicine that comes with  Medicare. 

The cognitive dissonance is rather remarkable. They perceive the  government as the source of their economic distress -- which itself  doesn't make sense -- and then rely on the government to give them a  hand, all the while demanding that the government do less to give people  a hand. Their reflexive hatred for public programs is so irrational,  they don't even see the contradiction. 

"After a year of angry debate," the Times article noted,  "emotion outweighs fact." 

That's no doubt true. But that doesn't change the fact that we're  talking about a reasonably large group of people who are deeply,  tragically misguided. 

This is important to the extent that there are still some who believe  the political mainstream should do more to listen to the Tea Party  crowd and take its hysterical cries seriously. But how can credible  people take nonsense seriously and hope to come up with a meaningful  result? How can policymakers actually address substantive challenges  while following the advice of angry mobs who reject reason and evidence? 

The bottom line seem inescapable: too many Tea Party activists have  no idea what they're talking about. Their sincerity notwithstanding,  this is a confused group of misled people.