What argument? I'm informing you that it refers to the feeling of discomfort from having contradictory beliefs and not the state of having two contradictory beliefs. Read this, doofus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The argument against your claims? I'm informing you that cognitive dissonance refers to the simple state of holding incongruous beliefs. Read these, doofus:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive%20dissonance

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cognitive-dissonance

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199976720.001.0001/acref-9780199976720-e-318

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not saying those are wrong, I'm saying those are the colloquial usage.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And I'm saying YOUR usage is the colloquial usage. Just look at the very source of the term, Leon Festinger's "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" from 1957. here is a link

Chapter 1, page 3.

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right. By the term cognition, here and in the remainder of the book, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one's behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.

He makes it clear that cognitive dissonance is the status of holding incongruous beliefs, NOT the status of discomfort. He states that cognitive dissonance CAUSES discomfort, and that people tend to seek to resolve that discomfort, but cognitive dissonance is not the discomfort itself. It is "the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions".

[–] trailing9@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I cannot upvote your comments with insults but thank you (both) for this thread, especially for adding links and the meta layer that comes with the emotions.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The comparison to hunger makes it clear to me. It isn't being compared to the state of having an empty stomach.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, I see, you're fucking brain dead. Now this whole conversation makes sense. You literally cannot admit you are clearly wrong. Please go touch grass, you are pathetic.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'll do it after I eat lunch because of the feeling of hunger, not the state of having an empty stomach.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right.

Need that one more time? Here ya go

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right.

Maybe if you read it ONE MORE TIME it will click for you

In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right.

Cognitive dissonance is the existence of nonfitting relations among cognition, not the feeling of discomfort arising from that. It is what you are suffering from right now. You have the evidence laid clearly in front of you, but you cherry pick one TINY tidbit and interpret it incorrectly so as to suit your needs. You KNOW you are wrong, and you are arguing in bad faith.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm arguing in bad faith? You told me to go back to grade school.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, because you clearly need it. You dont even know what bad faith is. Bad faith arguing is when you aren't actually working towards the resolution of the argument, but instead just making frivolous contradictions that you yourself probably dont even believe in, just to try and keep the other side from making a point. Insulting you is not bad faith. So, yeah, go back to school and actually pay attention this time.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Insulting you is not bad faith.

[–] CheezyWeezle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it literally isn't. An insult is not mutually exclusive to a good faith argument, but you wouldn't know that because you clearly dont understand the concept. Go look up what bad faith argumentation is.