Another example of the difficulty experienced in resolving cognitive dissonance from today’s Wall Street Journal:
What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can’t trace the line from “this moment’s difficulties” to “my triumphant end.” But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don’t lose. She can’t figure out how to win, and she can’t accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn’t know how he did it!)
She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she’s doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She’s been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she’d watched the movie “Wag the Dog,” with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.
Quote from article:
“That’s what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac — and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren’t, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought — either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).”
Anyone who has seriously paid attention to her and her husband’s antics over the years shouldn’t be surprised at all that she made up the story. It is just her real character coming out. She wants to win at all costs. The truth be damned!
She’s insane because she eats too many carbohydrates, and does not recognize the hyperinsulinemia as the cause of her depression, but rather locates the problem in external threats.
Sorry to go off topic: I’m working through the back postings (from the very oldest) and finding them extremely thought provoking. Do you allow questions on old posts? If so, would you prefer them all in one lump, or one at a time?
I just today had my webguy block comments on posts that are over two months old other than a few popular posts. I spend a large part of my blogging day dealing with comments that no one will ever see other than the person who made the comment. I’ll be going through the comments and come across one that makes no sense in view of whatever the current post (or last couple of posts) is, and when I track it back I discover that it was from a post that’s two years old. I then have to go back and at least skim the post to see what the commenter is talking about. It takes far too much time, which is why I had the commenting blocked.
Hillary fatigue
So what Hilary lied about bosnia
barack Obama lied some many time ans worst on several occasion and lied about Jeremiah Wright, lied about his slum lord involvement ,,, Not only that has no agenda, but Obama Voter dis-regards his mistake why shouldn’t Hilary Supporters,,,,,, Do the same,,,, Very dumb observation,,
But I will let you know some simple fact,,,
Obama Can not win a big state everyone hung up he won more states,, if you can not win a big state you can not win,,
Second,, if Hilary loses the primary Obama will only get 25% to 1/3 third of Hilary Votes not enough to win against the republicans,, the other 2/’3 third of Hilary votes will either Not vote or Vote for McCain,, why do you think the Party trying to push a party but its TOO late,
The lines in the sand have been made, Obama Voter refuse to Vote for Hilary and Hilary Voter will not even vote for Obama for the same reasons,, This Party is Divided and it not going to change, Here is another fact, just in case your that completely clueless,,
This Race and Party is split down the middle weather you like it or not, Obama only a head by a little over 150 delegates that is nothing,,, Even if Obama win and he come clean,,, and at least 2/3 of Hilary voter do vote for him,,and loses 1/3 of Hilary Vote will not even be enough to win,,, Obama going to need at least 90% of the Democratic Vote to be the republicans,, I voted For Hilary I will not vote for no one else,, but Hey Keep the Faith he going to win,,, LOL
You’ve obviously mistaken me for an Obama fan or an anti-Hillary voter. I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago on cognitive dissonance and how people try to resolve it. I read this article and thought it was interesting in view of that post. I didn’t take a stand on it – I simply reported it as it was.
“She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics.”
Hi Mike,
I’m not much of a fan of Hillary, but that is a pretty big call. It would be hard to think of any politician who doesn’t come to believe in their own spin, regardless of how long everyone else has moved on. This is why so few retire gracefully … before being thrown out!
One thing about Hillary does intrigue me – in almost every picture (the one above being a notable exception) she is captured with some sort of wide eyed/open mouthed/manic/deranged expression on her face – something her male opponents seem to (mostly) escape. It seems to me that either she really is the victim of some sort of anti Clinton press conspiracy (which I doubt) or that many people in the media feel threatened with the mere idea of a female candidate (and apparently more so than a black one).
Cheers,
Malcolm
Hey Malcolm–
At the start of the Democratic primaries there were a boatload of Democrats contending for the nomination. The slate of candidates stretched across the stage during the many debates. All of them abandoned the field ‘gracefully’ long, long ago despite having spent a lot of time, money and emotional energy, so it is done. Not all have to be thrown out.
When I did a Google image search on Hillary to find a photo I could grab, there were a few that showed her at her worst – wide eyed and deranged looking – but most were of her looking underanged. I wonder what kind of publications you’ve been reading. 🙂
Cheers–
MRE
Jim, kudos for the funniest comment ever on Dr. Mike’s blog.
When I want to read or discuss politics I will go to resources I trust and respect. Not a diet doctor who has (like all of us) opinions.
When I want diet advice, I will go to resources experienced in diet and medicine. Not to a political insider (even if s/he is fit and healthy).
I don’t want a diet blog to force-feed me politics. And I feel a bit queasy about Eades judgment altogether as a result.
First, I didn’t present an opinion – I simply reported someone else’s opinion. I did so because I thought it was interesting in view of the recent post I did on cognitive dissonance. I hardly think this qualifies as “force feeding [you] politics.”
Second, if you choose your professionals based on their politics, you’re in trouble. People of all degrees of competence in all fields – people who disagree on pretty much everything within the bounds of a profession can have diametrically opposing political views. Using their political views as a benchmark as to whether or not they are professionally competent is probably a mistake. Unless, of course, you have been driven to far to one side of the pyramid (about which I wrote earlier) by your confirmation bias that you become uneasy at the thought of dealing with anyone who doesn’t think in lock step with you politically.
Third, it’s my blog that I spend hours on each week and that you read for free. I’ll write whatever I want to write on it. You are more than welcome to cancel your subscription at any time. I certainly wouldn’t want you to feel “queasy.”
Cheers–
MRE
I’m not sure why, but when I read the words Hillary Clinton and cognitive dissonance my first thought was about her….. hm-mm, how can I say this without coming out (ahem) and just saying it? Maybe this works — my first thought was about her support and admiration for Lani Guinier. Or is that some other kind of dissonance?
Lani Guinier? There’s a name I haven’t thought about in years.
Oh, come on, Anna. Why does it take any special credentials to recognize and point out a liar when one sees one? Children do it all the time, very directly, because they haven’t yet learned all the euphemisms for plain old bold-faced lying. She’s an automatic liar, always has been. The fact that there are plenty of others doesn’t absolve Mrs. Clinton, it simply exposes her as among the worst.
Hi Dr. Mike,
Thanks for sharing another example of cognitive dissonance with us. I “got it” for what it was, another example of the subject just as your post on David Mamet was, so I was startled to read the posts above that took it for you dissing Hillary or force-feeding us politics!
I appreciate the hours each week that you devote to this blog. Anyone who reads it regularly knows that you are so much more than a “diet doctor!” I appreciate all the areas that you explore and explain for us. I consider you one of my more enlightened and oh-so-wise teachers!
Thanks again.
Thank you. It’s nice to feel appreciated.
What a funny thing to see you diet-doctors or “-researchers” expanding your blogs after a while to politics, curious medications and conservatives who “resolved their dissonance” or — just the 9/11 conspiracy thing… You and Anthony Colpo seem to have much more in common than you might like… 😉
Regards, guzolany
from “Old Europe”
Yes, “Anthony and I are practically blood brothers.
Cheers–
MRE
The Wall Street Journal isn’t being fair. Who among us hasn’t missed a night’s sleep and then imagined spiders were shooting at us? Walk by any college dorm during finals week, and you’ll hear shouts of “Duck! Duck!”
And just last week, I had to work until 3 a.m. to meet a deadline, and when my wife woke me up a few hours later, I told her I’d opposed NAFTA. Imagine my embarrassment when, after a big cup of coffee, I remembered I’m actually in favor of free trade.
Indeed.
Uh, oh; not so fast.
Turns out the guy Peggy Noonan quoted at the end of her piece was onto something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
Oops … I mean to write “snipers,” not “spiders.” Even when sleep-deprived, I’ve never imagined eight-legged beasts shouldering firearms.
You actually wrote ‘spiners.’ I couldn’t figure out what you were trying to say, then I thought you were talking about some kind of fantasy dream so I changed it to ‘spiders.’ My mistake.
Cheers–
Mike
Hillary is a case in point of a general rule. Politicians are not in it for the betterment of the country. They are in it for themselves. I have little use for Barack Hussein Obama, but ya lost Hillary. Hit the road. Oh, by the way the corollary to the general rule is that every politician you can think us has already sold the nation out to foreign interests. Just looks at what is going on in the country and ask yourself why not rational action is being taken. Energy policy is one of the most glaring examples. Why are we paying oil money to terrorists, dictators and people who hate us? We have all the domestic coal, oil, natural gas, and if we would just build them, nuclear reactors we need to become energy independent. So why don’t the politicians clear the legal hurdles toward energy independence? They don’t because big oil, big corporations and foreign interests have paid them to sit back and watch our economy and our country unravel. Your congress and senators don’t work for you. If they did, they would not give your job to 20 million people who just invaded the country or lower your wages by letting 20 million people invade the country.
I’m a different Anna from the Anna B who commented previously. I “got” the cognitive dissonance point of the post, btw.
I just wanted to say once again, thanks for your book reviews, especially the latest, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me). I remember learning about cognitive dissonance in college (communications major) in the early 80s, but I think with time the my understanding of the concept had faded into a more superficial idea.
Perhaps now that I am older and wiser by 20+ years, the significance is much clearer. I haven’t quite finished the book yet, but already it is making several local and personal situations much more understandable to me. It has also been very useful for self-reflection. It seems like everywhere I look now I can’t help but see people smoothing over (often not well) the dissonance in their lives.
Hey Anna–
I knew you weren’t the other Anna.
Reading the book has cleared a lot of stuff up for me as well. And been useful for my own self-reflection.
I’m glad you’re enjoying it.
Best–
MRE
Peggy Noonan is not the “Wall Street Journal.” She’s a Republican operative (she worked for Reagan, Bush Sr, Dole, and Bush JR) whom they pay to write stuff for them. It ain’t the same thing. Of course, considering the kind of stuff the actual editorial board of the WSJ writes themselves, Noonan is on the sane side. Although the gross hyperbole here is pretty far out: “the worst case of cognitive dissonance in modern politics”? Really? I guess no one heard of the Iraq War, just to mention a rather obvious example, although there are thousands of others. If you wanted to discuss cognitive dissonance, that sentence of Ms. Noonan’s right there, along with many, many others I could toss out from her oeuvre is a pretty fine starting point.
It’s disingenuous, by the way, to post this, including an unflattering picture of Hillary, and then claim you weren’t doing it to slam her. Slamming her, or any politician, is fair game; denying you were slamming her when you obviously are makes you look bad. As a last word, I’ll point out that the topic of politics, particularly political journalism, is a nightmare world as fully complex as the one (nutritional science) you usually hold forth on so well. There are nuances (knowing who and what Noonan and the WSJ are would be an example), that you really need to be a master of if you’re going to venture into this territory with your usual sure-footedness.
Hmmm. I’m not slamming her. I put the article up because it is the truth. Hilary is dead in the water. Everyone knows it. If she kicks tail from here on in to the convention, she still won’t get enough delegates to win. She is counting on the super delegates who have all but told her (they even have told her) that they are going to vote the way their constituency voted. I can’t imagine a scenario in which she could triumph here other than if something happened to Obama, in which case Obama’s wife would probably pick up the mantel and probably win. So why does she continue on, knowing that her party wants her to graciously pull out and help rally support around the party’s candidate for what will be a rough election in November? Cognitive dissonance. In her mind the Clintons always win – it’s always been that way. She’s won every election handily as has Bill. Why should this be any different? She just can’t grasp the fact that she’s finished so she soldiers on. Which is all Peggy Noonan said. And just because she’s worked for Republicans in the past doesn’t mean that everything she says is a lie. Frank Rich’s column in todays NY Times is much more damning of Hilary that Noonan’s was, and Frank Rich ain’t no Republican operative.
It’s easy to see which side of the pyramid you’re on. Since I read Mistakes Were Made, I’ve begun reading columnists with whom I’ve always disagreed and whom I always figured were fools, and it turns out that they actually make decent arguments. I sometimes find myself agreeing with them. You should try it.
And, BTW, I didn’t think the photo of Hillary was objectionable or unflattering. Another reader wrote to say how surprised he was that I put up an attractive picture of Hillary because all the ones he had seen had a “wide eyed/open mouthed/manic/deranged expression on her face.” I purposefully put up what I thought was a decent photo of her.
Cheers–
MRE
Hi Mike,
I have found this a particularly interesting post, both as someone who is very interested in this election and a mental health professional who recently discussed cognitive dissonance with a friend. My friend and I were discussing the plight of someone I know who was very much a pro-Iraq war religious right Republican, until her son returned from the war with severe PTSD. Were it not so tragic, it would have been interesting not just heartbreaking to watch her struggle with the two perspectives. I think that there are many times when big parts of ourselves are caught in a struggle because they go in different directions.
I was fascinated, though, in terms of the point of view presented about Hillary’s inability to throw in the towel, which up to now has just been confusing to me. Thanks for that!
And by the way, as a steady reader of your always interesting posts, thank you! for all the hard work you put into educating us on a daily basis.
Felicia
Thanks, Felicia, I appreciate it.
I apologize for the condescending tone, but it’s frustrating to discuss this with someone who is smart, but simply doesn’t know what’s going on. Frank Rich is a liberal who attacks other liberals; he’s been particularly savage towards Hillary, Gore before her, and Hillary’s husband. I’ll put up a link to a site at the end of this you can peruse at your leisure; the guy who writes it is a lot like you — someone who puts in a lot of effort to look behind the conventional wisdom, and isn’t afraid to go against the grain when that’s where the evidence takes him. Suffice to say, an analogy for the way you are arguing would be a low fatter talking about the evils of a low carb diet, spouting out the usual stuff about killer cholesterol, and needing fiber and grains, and so on — a low fatter who isn’t even familiar with the basic science behind it all; they’re just reciting talking points learned from the Today show or Women’s World magazine or whatever. Again, I don’t mean to be condescending, but that’s where we are.
Incidentally, re: “Hillary is dead in the water”: If someone calls me “fat” it’s a slam. The truth of the matter is besides the point. The bottom line is, choosing to link to that article, with the tone it employs, and without subjecting it to any of the criticism it deserves, is a slam, and it’s quite disappointing to have you pretend otherwise.
What an odd comment. I read, every day, at least half a dozen columns written by all sorts of writers — including Ms. Noonan (surely you ought to have realized by reading my previous post that I’m thoroughly familiar with her work and career, as well as the editorial pages of the WSJ, which I read every day?). On my bookshelf are works by George Will, Noonan herself, William Safire, William F. Buckley — the list is almost endless. I even read the true lunatics, Jonah Golberg, Glenn Reynolds, Fred Kagan, and so on (since you presumed to lecture me, I’m sure you know who those people are. Right?). I’m going to take a wild-assed stab — it’s only a stab mind you — and say that you’re, well, completely ignorant about what I read and how I go about informing my opinions and worldview. Again, it’s only a stab, and if it turns out you really do know what I read, please accept my apologies for assuming you were ignorant on this topic.
Promised link:
On Frank Rich
Main Site
Thanks,
MG
You wrote:
What makes you think you know anymore about what’s going on than I do? Are you a Hillary confidant? Have you even met her or talked to her? – I have several times. Is it just that you read and believe different columnists than I? If you have the inside skinny on Hillary’s thoughts and plans, then I’ll defer to your expertise, but if you don’t have any info other than what you read, I wouldn’t be so quick to criticize others.
It would be an educated guess on my part, but I suspect that I read more than 99.9% of the people in this country (and I have a library of between 8,000-10,000 books and at least 20 magazine subscriptions (including The Economist, Foreign Affairs, Reason and the Spectator (not The American Spectator, the real Spectator, which I have mailed from London weekly)) to prove it. Plus I read (or at least look over) 15-20 blogs per day (few political ones, though, because I can’t stand all the sniping in the comments by people who are angry but clueless) and read the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal cover to cover. I try to read the Times of London and the Independent online when I have the time, and I read the Guardian every now and then. Now there’s a chance that you could be in the 0.1 percent of people who read more than I do, but the odds are against it. So tell me again why I’m someone “so smart, but simply doesn’t know what’s going on.” It certainly isn’t because I don’t do my homework. Is it simply because I don’t agree with you? What is your expertise?
Thanks for the links.
Cheers–
MRE
Martin Gale writes:
:” She’s a Republican operative (she worked for Reagan, Bush Sr, Dole, and Bush JR) whom they pay to write stuff for them. It ain’t the same thing.”
So, uh, that means that when she speaks of a lie, it’s not really a lie because it was told by someone of a different tribe?
I know we all try to think a little evolutionarily, at least in our diet choices, but tribalism for truth is taking it a bit far, I think. And that’s really what you’re espousing. We all out to take upon ourselves the responsibility to weigh arguments on their own merits rather than engaging in the convenience of dismissing them because they were spoken by the other tribe.
“Although the gross hyperbole here is pretty far out: ‘the worst case of cognitive dissonance in modern politics’? Really? I guess no one heard of the Iraq War…”
So the Iraq war is to be distinguished from modern politics. It seems to me that one may support it or not (I did; I don’t now) based upon whatever value premises one holds, but either way, at the top end, it’s surely modern and political, both at the same time.
I overlooked, BTW, a rather obvious point. You say “I put the article up because it is the truth. Hilary is dead in the water…. So why does she continue on, knowing that her party wants her to graciously pull out and help rally support around the party’s candidate for what will be a rough election in November? Cognitive dissonance.” It may or not be true that Hillary is “dead in the water,” but it does not follow that she is suffering from “cognitive dissonance,” even if she is “dead in the water.” Noonan’s (and your) armchair psychological analysis is just mindreading someone neither of you knows, someone who is famously reticent about revealing her personality and motives to outsiders. Her own team says she has her own reasons for staying in, which they have outlined in several places (since you do a great deal of reading on these things I won’t bother linking to any of them, as I’m sure you’re already familiar with them, right?), none of them revolving around some sense of entitlement or expectation of perpetual victory.
You’re a medical doctor making an absurd psychological diagnosis of a complete stranger based on analysis coming from one of the most partisan political hacks of our era. Shall we, then, have a deeper discussion of “cognitive dissonance”? Or maybe this was your highly subtle way of making an ironic point about how insidious “cognitive dissonance” is?
Just for fun, if you decide to ignore this post and the one previous, sort of filing them away in that place we all do with stuff we don’t want to deal with, it’s a clear example of “cognitive dissonance.” Some games are so easy to play you really shouldn’t even start.
Ah, but I do know Hillary. Remember, I lived in Arkansas – a very small state, indeed – for the entire 12 years of the Clinton governorship. My wife grew up across the street from him, her family were all in important positions during his administration (my wife’s sister held a cabinet level position, and is heading to PA next week to work for Hillary), and I know most of the true blue, dyed-in-the-wool Clinton fundraisers who are now working for Hillary. Plus I did a fair amount of instruction in psychiatry during my medical training (for a while I thought I wanted to be a psychiatrist). And I read voraciously. Now what are your qualifications to comment so categorically on the Hillary political situation?
Cheers
You “know Hillary” well enough to make this psychological diagnosis because you lived in Arkansas when Bill was governor? You wife’s sister is going to work for her and yet you somehow know her well enough to make this psychological diagnosis? Either you know her better than your wife’s sister, or your wife’s sister is making a strange decision, no? To put it another way, does your wife’s sister know about this “cognitive dissonance,” and just not care? Maybe your wife’s sister is suffering from “cognitive dissonance” herself out of her sense of loyalty? All this stuff gets confusing, once you start playing armchair psychologist.
Re your other post: I never claimed to know Hillary, and never made any psychological diagnosis of her. You did. So you made this diagnosis based on “meeting her several times”, plus you “did some instruction in psychiatry”? Now it’s getting interesting. At what point in these (doubtlessly extensive meetings) did you come to these conclusions about how she “always expects to win”, and therefore feel confident in saying she is now suffering from “cognitive dissonance”? You do realize if, as a doctor, you made some remote diagnosis based on flimsy stuff like this you’d be subject to disciplinary action for malpractice? It’s absurd, and you ought to know it by now, but that cognitive dissonance stuff keeps kicking in preventing you from seeing reality. You must be trying to make a point by serving as an example.
###
You obviously didn’t read my entire comment on your comment or you wouldn’t have made this bizarre comment. I told you my qualifications for my opinions on the Hillary cognitive dissonance situation. Then I asked you for yours. Instead of providing us with your qualifications, you attack mine. I want to read your qualifications so we can compare.
And you resort to sleazy tricks to confuse the issue. Let me make it clear. I’ll connect the dots. My wife’s sister held a cabinet level position in the Clinton administration in Arkansas. This would imply that she is a Clinton insider. She has been working for Hillary’s campaign since Iowa, and she is now heading to PA to work there as well. This fact coupled with the fact that she held a cabinet level position would imply that she is a Hillary insider as well. My wife’s sister talks on the phone and emails my wife frequently. I have a good relationship with my wife’s sister and she and I talk. Are you starting to see the point?
Again, I ask you what your qualifications are? Is it your voluminous reading of all the columnists who are congruent with your confirmation bias? Or what? I’d love to hear.
But what I don’t want to do is waste any more time on this nonsense. As the bloviating Bill O’Reilly says: I’ll give you the last word. I’d love it to be a listing of your qualifications, but I’ll put up whatever you send.
Cheers
You have, in this thread, managed the rather weighty accomplishment of making me pity and understand Colpo. Take a well earned bow.
I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this. I did not make any diagnosis of Hillary. You did. That puts the onus on you, and your (so thin in this area as to be nonexistent) credentials. Mine aren’t relevant, until I start making diagnoses, which I have no intention of doing. Sorry, I’m just not that dumb, arrogant, or presumptuous.
You studied some psychiatry, lived in Arkansas when Bill was governor, and some members of your wife’s family worked for Bill’s administration when he was governor, which ended, what, 16 years ago. Based on this, you feel qualified to make a diagnosis of Hillary now? As far as I can tell, you really did miss your calling. You’d have revolutionized the field of psychiatry with diagnosing skills like yours. “Bizarre” is an excellent word; it just seems wrong somehow that you used it first.
I’d still like to know what your wife’s sister thinks of your remote diagnosis of “cognitive dissonance.” Since you talk to her all the time, perhaps you could ask and let me know…?
And now, it’s late, so when you make another repetitive post replete with red herrings and implied ad hominems, you’ll understand why I don’t reply immediately.
I intended not to reply to your next post, but I just can’t let you slide. By attacking my diagnosis you are making your own diagnosis. All I’m asking is for you to defend it. It’s obvious that you can’t or won’t. So, I’ll still give you the last word, and we’ll let the readers decide.
And remember, you, just like Colpo, attacked first.
Cheers
“When I did a Google image search on Hillary to find a photo I could grab, there were a few that showed her at her worst – wide eyed and deranged looking – but most were of her looking underanged. I wonder what kind of publications you’ve been reading. :-)”
Hmmm, the same ones as you apparently!
http://www.mreades.wpengine.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/hillary.jpg
http://www.mreades.wpengine.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/scary-hillary-clinton-small.jpg
Here is today’s example for your file
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hillarys-a-big-fan-of-mick-jagger/2008/03/31/1206850764756.html
Our last very poor excuse for a prime minister who thankfully was thrown out in no uncertain terms at the end of last year (his party not only lost in a landslide, he lost his own seat) was known as a cricket “tragic” – no talent whatsoever to play the game, but used his position to harass poor unsuspecting players with his unwanted patronage. I guess Mick Jagger would know how they felt!
Cheers,
Malcolm
Hey Malcolm–
“Hmmm, the same ones as you apparently!”
Touché!
Cheers–
MRE
What the heck is that last paragraph of Malcolm’s about? Is it a metaphor?
To Martin Gale:
You are managing to come off as “dumb, arrogant, and presumptuous” in this argument with Dr. Eades…also somewhat of an ass. Why don’t you just give it up? Or are YOU actually Anthony Colpo in disguise??
Yesterday I heard Clinton say something to the effect that she was staying in the race for the sake of all the voters who haven’t had the opportunity to go the primaries yet. I thought that would have been a good point, except, of course, the race is all but decided by now. When are we going to realize that the current primary system disenfranchises people in states that vote late – and schedule all the primaries on the same day? Why should the people of New Hampshire and Iowa be the only people to get a wide choice of candidates? Isn’t calling this system a democracy in itself a kind of cognitive dissonance? We believe the system is democratic in spite of the many features (like staggered primaries) that are the opposite of democratic because it’s really uncomfortable for us to believe our nation isn’t the beacon of democracy we’ve always believed it is.
I sort of agree with you, but I kind of like the way Iowa is first because Iowa is the place where candidates can’t rely on slick advertising to win. They basically have to go door to door and meet people face to face. The Iowa race pretty much picks the candidate who is the most personable up close and personal, which is why Hillary lost on the Democratic side and Huckabee won on the Republican. It was interesting to me that Edwards, who spent months and months and spent God only knows how much money in an effort to win there and get traction against Hillary (who, at the time, was the presumptive nominee) came in third. I’ve never met Edwards, but I’ve seen him a fair amount on the talking head circuit. He seems pleasant and personable, so why didn’t the Iowa voters pick him? I think because of cognitive dissonance. It’s difficult to hear someone orate on the plight of the poor and how there are two Americas – one for the rich and the other for the rest of us – when the orator is rich as Croesus and lives in a 20,000 square foot mansion and is obviously a member of the first America. Folks in Iowa aren’t stupid (although one wonders with their vote for Huckabee).
Guys, Guys, Guys,,,, Lets have some order, please. Everyone seems a bit out of sorts towards others who believe differently so lets just leave it alone. I see nothing gained from us sniping at each other, somewhat without basis. This is, after all, a discourse on health, not politics, which is, by the way, one of those topics best left outside when visiting others.
I think it is fair to say that most candidates will push the conversation to the edge to gain position, and I believe most candidates have already done so. Personal opinion aside, if you really believe what they say and not what they do, you haven’t paid much attention to life in the past. It is not a new phenomenon for candidates for public office to promise what they cannot deliver, agree to the impossible, and try to expose the ‘corrupt’ opposition.
The political pundits only have a job because we read their columns. That, in no way, makes them better at determining future leanings of the candidates than I am.
As for Mike being only a ‘diet doctor’, that is like calling Ali only a ‘boxer’. Neither description allows for the success attained by either one.
From Martin:
“…someone who is famously reticent about revealing her personality and motives to outsiders…”
Oh, that’s for sure. Her “personality and motives,” as it would be for most politicians, are the one thing that must be hidden at all costs.
The problem is that they aren’t hidden from anyone unwilling to partake of the specific delusions surrounding Hillary!, even though they may still be susceptible to the general delusions surrounding practical politics, or those specific to other candidates.
C’mon, Martin. Are you telling us you have such a low opinion of your own perceptive abilities that you don’t know what Hillary! is all about?
“…none of them revolving around some sense of entitlement or expectation of perpetual victory…”
Now, see, you do have perceptive abilities. I think you’re dead right. Hillary! wants to change and save the world, believes herself entirely competent to do so, and laughs hilariously at anyone who dares to call or challenge her on anything.
Having gown up in a baptist evangelical setting and heading off to one of those crazy bible colleges in the south before eventually swearing off all religion forever (yea, the a-word), I know exactly what Hillary! is all about. She’s an evangelical and she intends to save your soul. This is the authoritarian mindset adopted by those who never want to be questioned, and indeed, beneath the mask feel utter contempt for anyone who dares.
Everybody knows Hillary! The only difference is between those who acknowledge it, those who are happy with the delusions, and those who actively promote them.
For the record: I loath all three of them. Though I don’t bother to vote and never will, I was rooting for Ron Paul for a while. Of course, someone who will actually say what he thinks every time, without constant euphemism and in spite of the political consequences, can never get ahead in truly national politics. We’re far too primitive and tribal, still. Maybe in another 2-3 million years.
First of all, I want to say that I am and always have been a liberal Democrat–that is, a Democrat more left than others, so I’ve always considered the Clintons to be Republicans Lite. I have never wanted Hillary as the presidential candidate and when I started to track her appearances starting in late 2006, she was saying nothing that would change my mind. I told everyone who would listen that she seemed stuck in the nineties, completely ignoring the most important event in the current political scene, the Iraq War. Having said that, if she ends up as the candidate(a miracle) I would hold my nose and vote for her–there is too much at stake not to–like the upcoming Supreme Court appointments.
I first wanted Edwards, and now I’m for Obama–as much for his freshness and candor as for the fact that he is not a Clinton. After years of having the chance to evaluate Bill’s legacy, I think his cynical pandering to the Republican party in his second term helped to diminish the Democratic party–Clintons first, party second, so to speak. So now after all that, I would like to say that I completely understand why she hasn’t “graciously conceded” yet. Whatever I think of her, she is in a no-win situation. There are still ten states whose voters should be given the chance to have their say and no one is really clairvoyant enough to know the outcomes. She has to see it out in order to say she did her best, whether the rest of the party wants her to or not. After the votes of the ten remaining states are in, then she can be “graciously urged” to “graciously concede.”
We can’t know if there is really any cognitive dissonance because none of us know what she really thinks privately. She may know she has lost, but feels must go on to see the bitter end.
Honestly, I’d have thought that McCain’s campaign was dead in the water after the horrendous Iraq visit last year, and most of his staff leaving. Yet he’s the de facto Republican nominee. Other occasions like “Dewey Defeats Truman” lead me to take more of a Yogi Berra, ‘It ain’t over ’till it’s over’ approach.
Dr. Mike,
Did Bill ever hit on Mary Dan? Probably not. She looks too classy. From what I’ve read, MD would have had to buy a trailer, have bigger hair, and wear much more mascara to be his type. They say when you have sex with someone, you’re sleeping with everyone else that person has ever slept with. Ergo, did you ever stop and think how close YOU were to sleeping with the President of the United States?
Thanks for the post. You and Peggy Noonan are two outstanding, independent thinkers and writers. People who want to understand the popularity of President Reagan should really read “What I saw at the Revoultion.” It is one of my all-time favorities. And politicians who want to know why they aren’t viewed as good communicators should read her book on public speaking: “On Speaking Well.” They’ll realize what so many (including Hillary) neglect — that it is about the intelligence of the MESSAGE that makes the difference, and not just the manner of delivery. Obama’s recent, well-praised speech proves this well. It was crafted quite intelligently. Reading it was a pleasure. The fact that he delivered it in mediocre fashion went largely unnoticed.
BG
Bill never hit on MD. He was more like a big brother. He is 7 or 8 years older so they weren’t dating age compatible. So I guess I haven’t come that close to sleeping with the President.
Cheers–
MRE
Considering that the original post was twelve innocuous words by Mike on the subject of cognitive dissonance, a publication title and a quote from someone else, the outpouring of invective and hatred is truly an object lesson in the divisive power of tribal politics.
And it’s not even a national election yet!
My impression of Hilliary is of an old school tough gal: never admits when she’s wrong, never admits defeat, and must prove herself over and over again to be in the right. Old school tough gals can’t be both sexy and tough, either; the paradigm doesn’t allow for it.
In these times, that attitude doesn’t play well. Younger voters have grown up in a world where tough and sexy go hand in hand, and a woman can be wrong on one thing and not lose more face than a man (at least that’s the ideal we’ve been increasingly spoonfed). Male voters of all ages resent her “battleaxe” exterior, as well.
So while personally I think she could do about as well of a job as anyone inheriting the current mess, she’s not very electable, but her personality is NOT going to let her admit defeat!
Here is Hitchens’ ( no conservative, he ) take on Hilary’s cognitive dissonance
http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/pagenum/all/#page_start
– John
Cognitive dissonance
It seems that all politicians have it.
There’s an appropriate saying, “He/she must be lying, he/she’s mouth is open.”
Frankly, anyone who wants to be a politician should be automatically barred
I totally get why you posted this. Thanks for the morning chuckle!
All jokes aside, the Democratic Party is fumbling their shot at capitalizing on the Bush mayhem. Go McCain, I guess. I have a hunch he’s independent enough to approach deconstructing the FDA.
Micheal Obama is a horrible woman, and Racist,
She said if Her husband does not win she will not back the democratic Party,,,
that is why so many Hilary Voter will not even back Obama if he wins the primary, There not going to vote or Vote for McCain,,, Just like the Obama supports say if Hilary wins the Primary,,Obama supporter will Vote for McCain,,, I do think America is Ready for a Black President, it would be good for the country,, Not Barack Obama,,He has No agenda, Anything he says He going to do came from Hilary,, Or the Media tell him what he should do..If Barack Obama Became president,,,Cancel Christmas, we don’t need a liar & closest Racist in the white house, Thanks to CNN & Msnbc or trying to Propaganda this race and make it one sided,,, Obama gets all positive press. Hilary gets all negative press,, but Hilary Voter will never back Obama
just read your reply where you catalogue your vast daily readings…since you know tim ferriss, was wondering if you’ve tried his L.I.D.( low information diet)? basically it is exactly as it sounds: no internet, tv, magazines, books – just the essentials such as email… anyway, i tried it for a week and was way more productive.
thanks for your great blog
I don’t know if it would be more productive for me or not. Whenever I have a forced news or information fast I go crazy. I can’t even leave the house to go pick someone up without making sure I have reading material just in case I have to wait.
as for politics, Cicero said it best: “politicians are not born, they’re excreted”.
I don’t know if it would be more productive for me or not. Whenever I have a forced news or information fast I go crazy. I can’t even leave the house to go pick someone up without making sure I have reading material just in case I have to wait.
Lol. That’s me too, to a tee. I take reading material in the car, to the dentist, to the barber, to presentations, etc. I’m usually the only one doing that, and I assume others think me strange, but that’s me. Can’t help it, and don’t want to.
-John
It’s a disease. Too bad we can’t get insurance reimbursement.🙂
Wow, Martin has done quite a job of displaying in excruciating fashion the whole concept of cognitive dissonance. Think he read the book or just missed the point?
Dr. Eades
I honestly believe Anthony Colpo is 100 % correct about ther Setember 11, 2001 attacks. The supposed terrorists were known party animals, booze drinkers, drug users, major spenders.
There’s WTC7 (which fell without being hit) , the fact Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot who got his license revoked many times over, Dick Cheney being at the head of NORAD (first time ever president or vice president was) No defense plane was in the air for 90 minutes , Dick Cheney’s stand down orders when the object was approaching the Pentagon . Marvin Bush being head of security at World Trade Center , many flight cancellations the day before, insider trading. It all points to a rogue element in the US Government .
What do you think?
To tell you the honest truth, Razwell, I haven’t really looked into it that closely. But I doubt that the bunch in control now are smart enough to pull such a thing off as well as it went. And I can’t really figure what would be in it for them enough to do so even if they could.
Cheers–
Democrats suck. Republicans suck a little less. Vote Republican.