« Pelosi for Minority Leader | Main | What we think about when we think about Islam »

Monday, November 08, 2010


Stan Gibilisco

Fascinating post! The opposite of "cognitive dissonance" would be -- what? -- "cognitive resonance"? I've seen evident "cognitive resonance" in certain people's eyes, and it makes me want to run from them. I revel in my own "cognitive dissonance," for it assures me that every person, no matter how radical, can teach me something.



WE see cognitive dissonance, but what do the TRUE BELIEVERS see?

TRUE BELIEVERS pilot planes into targets (Kamikaze, Jihad) TRUE BELIEVERS don't HAVE cognitive dissonance. They believe in THE CAUSE and any disbelief is simply heretical.

I agree with Stan, the really scary people are the ones with COGNITIVE RESONANCE!


A true believer...
Liberal columnist and cartoonist Ted Rall, author of the "Anti-American Manifesto," urges violence in some cases to save the country.

Rall says the left has been "very peaceful" but questions "where has that gotten us?"

Rall argues that ”no meaningful political change has ever taken place without violence or the credible threat of violence.”



Interesting turn of the phrase, Stan! My weddedness to the liberal agenda does not mean I feel wedded to either Nancy Pelosi or Ted Rall. Dr. Blanchard's comparison to coaching resonates with me: you lose that big, you step aside and let someone else direct the team. But I wonder: how was Pelosi to coach differently? Was she to govern the way John Boehner wanted? Or did she need to do more to inspire the Democratic base? Did she need to crack down on those Blue Dogs thinking they were Randy Moss and trying to drag the party away from their game plan?

George Mason

Cory; What Pelosi needed to do, if she wanted to save her position of power, was tell the President that he needed to take a more moderate approach to achieving his aims. Instead we got the Chicago approach. "We have the power so we can bulldoze anyone in our way." It is quite laughable to listen to Obama whine about not receiving cooperation from the Republicans when he neither sought it nor needed it. His problems then, now and in the future will be the democrats.


Stan: the opposite of dissonance is consonance, not resonance.


You like to call the President a liar KB and I for one am getting more than a little tired of it. He is offering an analysis of why Democrats fared badly. Was he so wrong or deliberately lying? This from Bloomberg:

"Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration cut taxes for middle-class Americans, expects to make a profit on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent to rescue Wall Street banks and has overseen an economy that has grown for the past five quarters.

Most voters don’t believe it.

A Bloomberg National Poll conducted Oct. 24-26 finds that by a two-to-one margin, likely voters in the Nov. 2 midterm elections think taxes have gone up, the economy has shrunk, and the billions lent to banks as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program won’t be recovered.

“The public view of the economy is at odds with the facts, and the blame has to go to the Democrats,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that conducted the nationwide survey. “It does not matter much if you make change, if you do not communicate change.”"

The rest is here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-29/poll-shows-voters-don-t-know-gdp-grew-with-tax-cuts.html

So yes KB, "Democrats spent too much time getting things done and not enough time playing the political game." And that leaves me disappointed with Obama's approach to governing. He is a gifted communicator and he had a personal opportunity to force change by rallying the American people much as Ronald Reagan did. Meanwhile, folks like Rahm Emanuel could have been left to work the levers of power behind the scenes. But instead of staying out front, Obama went behind the scenes too. That left Republicans and the Tea Party (not necessarily separate entities) to bolster the misperceptions (the real lies of the 2010 election cycle) noted in the Bloomberg poll.

That said, I'm sure there is more than a little truth to another administration assertion: the claim that trying to keep the economy from going over a cliff was all consuming and there was little time for oratory. Now that the economy is at least somewhat stable, I hope there will be time. If not, the misperceptions will continue and we'll elect even more of the folks whose policies created the very mess we're (Democrats) are trying to clean up.

Bill Fleming

First and foremost, Pelosi represented her constituency. (California/San Francisco)
It's an attribute all in congress should subscribe to. Second, as to whether or not
she should continue to lead the Democrats in the House, that is something for the
Democrats to decide, KB's and other Tea Party and GOP wags notwithstanding.

Repubs will do best to tend to the weeding and watering of their own garden, and
not to be overly concerned with that of their neighbors.

This will be difficult for them, of course, because one thing we know for certain,
they are nothing of not obnoxiously nosey. The Gladys Kravitzes of politics.

Donald Pay

In order to have cognitive dissonance, you first have to have cognition. That's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They both have dissonance; only the Democrats cognate.

There's a real difference in how Democrats and Republicans govern. Democrats tell you what they are for and what they are going to do, then do their best to follow through. That's something Republicans can't understand, because the way Republicans govern is to tell you what they are against, and then proceed to do the opposite.


Bill, I do not believe most Republicans and for that matter TEA Party members care who is the leader of the Democrats. I believe they like to see the Pelosi/Reid/Obama face on the Democrat brand. They are licking their lips at the thought of 2012. This could also explain why a bunch of defeated Democrats are sending a letter telling Pelosi she is a bad face to have on the Democrat brand. I believe when you see your enemy going over a cliff, do not stop him.

larry kurtz

To whom are you preaching, Doc? Your preoccupation with intellectual masturbation serves only to lubricate, not fertilize.

Stan Gibilisco


"Cognitive consonance"! Sounds better than "cognitive dissonance" when it rolls off the tongue. My mind exhibits neither property, anyhow.

Stan Gibilisco

Edit above passage to read:

"Cognitive consonance"! Sounds better than "cognitive resonance" when it rolls off the tongue. My mind exhibits neither property, anyhow.


As you can see, none of the three definitions applies to me before the caffeine kicks in after my nap -- I have inadequate cognition to dissonate, resonate, or consonate. But then, I'm a Republican, so who should be surprised?

Bill Fleming

Good insight, Stan.

KB clearly keeps his politics and his musical tastes in different bags. This is not
uncommon for Republicans. While many of them are great art appreciators, very
few get how art anticipates life. Most insist instead that it comes "after" and thus
(sadly) frequently miss the whole point.

Where would jazz/art/life be without dissonance? The answer: it wouldn't "be."

The only thing that really matters is the progression, rhythm and resolution.
The rest is all about how you run the changes.

And harmony is always, ALWAYS optional.

For more on this see Leonard Shlain's "Art and Physics."


Stan Gibilisco

Maybe a general level of congnitive dissonance, along with a drastic increase in collective civility, would go a long way toward healing the present wounds in our republic.

Let the Pelosis and Kucinichs and Boehners and Noems and Obamas and Thunes and Clintons ... let them all come together and forge a solid web of freedom that no corrupt cognitive consonance can ever break!

Bill Fleming

Yes, a tolerance is prerequisite. Extreme tolerence, actually. In fact, it's key to the whole gig.

larry kurtz

Bill, does that mean We the People must tolerate fiction, malfeasance, then obfuscation to justify the invasion of sovereign nations preemptively?

Bill Fleming

As in Iraq, ip? Or as in the Black Hills of South Dakota? Good question in either case.
And the answer appears to be "yes."

I guess that's why they call it the blues.

Remember, like I said, in jazz/art/politics it's all about the progression.

When you finally get there, there's only one long drone note.

Meanwhile, enjoy the tunes, ip.

Om. Namaste.

Donald Pay

Just a little civics lesson for KB. We don't govern ourselves here in the USA through the parliamentary system. Pelosi won reelction in her district. In our system, her constituents are the people who hire and fire her.

I know you Republicans desperately want to install a plutocracy (thus your use of the firing of a coach by an owner), but there is no corporate owner to fire Pelosi. I know you Republicans like to clear your leaders through the corporate bosses, but we Democrats prefer elections. Pelosi apparently has the support of a large number of her caucus, which will decide whether she becomes majority leader, not some corporate owner.

If you look at Pelosi's record of legislative accomplishments, she places among the best of Speakers. I see no reason as an American who believes in democracy, why she shouldn't be speaker.


Larry: There's a lot to be said for lubrication.

Stan: you seem consonant enough to me.

A.I.: I did not call the President a liar, at least not here. I only said that I hoped he was lying. Your argument in favor of the President fails. Just because the public doesn't have the view of his policies that he wants them to have, even if his view is right, doesn't mean he didn't spend plenty of time trying to convince them. He manifestly did.

The fact that the revenues in the healthcare bill were front loaded and the benefits delayed had no other reason than to enable Congress to say that the bill cost less than a trillion over the first ten years. That is pure politics, designed to persuade the voters that the bill. The President himself gave scores of speeches about the healthcare bill while it was winding its way through the lower intestines of Congress. Perhaps he didn't understand the one and forgot the other. Given a choice between a President who is honest but clueless and a President who is dishonest but at least has some idea what he and his administration and party were doing over the last two years, I prefer the latter.


Donald: a little lesson in logic is in order. Pelosi's constituents have every right to return her to Congress. They have nothing to say about the house minority leadership.

It is not just in Parliamentary Democracies that firing bad coaches is in order. I mentioned football. I repeat: changing leadership after a disastrous showing is the most essential step in coming to terms with that disaster. Newt Gingrich resigned after the Republicans took a shellacking. As far as I know, he wasn't a member of parliament.

Donald Pay

Wrong about Newt. First, Newt was a serial philanderer, and acting all digusted by the Lewinski matter when he was himself bonking someone not his wife was about to come out. Second, Newt had been challenged repeatedly within his caucus prior to the election losses. There was actually a coup attempt that failed. There was widespread disatisfication in the Republican caucus with Newt's leadership. Third, Newt's strategy of government shutdown led to election losses. Something to consider in today's climate.

Bill Fleming

Don, exactly how I remember it.
There was nothing noble or selfless about Gingrich's resignation.

Truth Teller

Republicans live in cognitive dissonance too. Red states receive FAR more federal funding than they put in.


Kristi Noem's farm got over $3Million in subsides, and she's going to DC to stop those liberals from wasting our tax dollars to finance THEIR lifestyles? HA! New York contributes much more to the tax base than it draws, while SD, ND, and AK leech off as much as they can.

The comments to this entry are closed.