
The Cognitive Dissonance Cluster Bomb - mgdo
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153080448451/the-cognitive-dissonance-cluster-bomb
======
cpncrunch
Well, both sides clearly can't be right.

If you look at Trump's actual policies, you'll see he wants to ban Muslim
immigration, based on the results of an opt-in internet poll:

[https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-
releases/donald-j.-trump-...](https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-
releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration)

So, his policies seem to be unconstitutional, racist, and based on dubious
science.

I think must people voted for Trump because he had a great campaign, and as
Scott Adams says he is a great persuader.

I infer from Adams' post that he thinks the anti-trump protesters are
protesting based on beliefs rather than facts. However that's simply not true.
The facts have been presented by Trump himself in the campaign promises on his
website. I'm thinking that Adams himself might be engaging in some cognitive
dissonance. What would be the reason for that? He's clearly highly
intelligent, and understands that Trump is a great persuader. Could he himself
have fallen for the persuasion? Or does he have some beef with Hillary which
allows him to ignore Trump's nasty policies? (Again, more cognitive
dissonance).

~~~
TrevorJ
Playing devils' advocate, should we not reserve the right to screen
immigration based on the ideology of those entering? Would it be ok to, say,
deny entry to a Neo-Nazi supremacist wanting to immigrate from Norway?

~~~
custos
Screening would be fine. Banning outright would not be.

And the screening must be universal. Not just based on whatever ideology used
by violent extremist currently is.

~~~
TrevorJ
I agree. The real question then is do we have enough information about
individuals in order to screen on a case by case basis, and what rubric should
we use to determine who should be screened out.

~~~
custos
I've heard good things about Israel's security in this aspect. Has to be
decent with all their enemies right next door instead of half a world away.

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with it or know if it would be viable.

Review publicly posted social media accounts for red flags, trained experts
interviewing and talking to people.

Or just admit casualties from foreign terrorists are such a low risk and stop
freaking out over it would be good too.

Cost spent on security should be proportional to lives saved in relation to
spending on prevention of other causes of death to be honest.

How much do we spend on national highway safety (locally + federal) / lives
lost in traffic fatalities * lives lost in terrorist attacks.

Don't spend more than that.

~~~
cpncrunch
Even Israel aren't banning Muslims outright, as Trump says he wants to do.

For sure, some of his policies on immigration make sense. The problem is that
he is at the extreme end of the scale, similar to UKIP, National Front,
Wilders, etc.

People have legitimate concerns about immigration. Whether those fears are
real or imagined, the government needs to do something to address them. When
they don't bother, that's when the people get fed up and then elect someone
who will shake things up. That seems to be what is happening in the UK and
Europe at the moment.

------
simonh
A well reasoned and cogent argument. Yes, there's a lot of cognitive
dissonance in the anti_trump world right now. But I think there's just as much
on the pro-Trump side. he's already started furiously backtracking on many of
his key policies which he swore he would implement, such as scrapping
Obamacare, building a wall (now fence!) across the Mexican Border, and I'm
sure many more to come. Who knows what his approach to Cuba will be, he's both
told opponents of rapprochement to get over it because it's been 50 years
after all, and also committed to burning down the agreement and pulling out US
staff. So part of the cognitive dissonance for anti-Trumpers is we don't
actually have any idea what the pro-Trumpers voted for, as against what they
think they voted for. Other than 'Not Hillary'.

~~~
kafkaesq
One working hypothesis is that he doesn't seem to really know what he believes
- he's just in it for the sheer ego rush (as were probably many who pulled the
lever for him), and will let his advisors and appointees take up the matter of
implementing actual working policy.

The scary part is that most of these people (Thiel, Pence, Gingrich, Bolton,
etc) know perfectly well what _they_ believe, and have been licking their
chops at an opportunity gram the reigns of power, and execute on these beliefs
at scale.

 _That 's_ where the damage is going to come from.

~~~
sharemywin
I'm sure he believes in giving himself and his kids 100s o f millions of
dollars in tax cuts.

~~~
kafkaesq
Right, there's always that part.

I just mean this, you know, abstract and political, "how to actually run the
country" business.

------
kafkaesq
_Those “facts” can’t be reconciled in the minds of the anti-Trumpers.
Mentally, something has to give. That’s where cognitive dissonance comes in._

His operating premise seems to be: "If a bare plurality† of voters threw their
lot for candidate/party/plebiscite X, then, _ipso facto_ , X cannot be
considered dangerous or extremist." History instructs that this is a very
dangerous axiom to hold.

† Leaving aside the popular vote / electoral college rift, for the purpose of
discussion.

