SixofNine
cognitive dissonance. Read up on it
I did just that – fascinating
http://www.propaganda101.com/cognitiv.htm
In one of the earliest experimental test of the theory of cognitive dissonance, Festinger and J. Meririll Carlsmith (1959) had subjects perform a very dull and boring task: the subjects had to place a large number of spools on pegs on a board, turn each spool a quarter turn, take the spool off the pegs and then put them back on. As you can imagine, subject's attitudes toward this task were highly negative. The subjects were then induced to tell a female "subject," who was actually an accomplice of the experimenter, that this boring task he would be performing was really interesting and enjoyable. Some of the subjects were offered $20 to tell this falsehood; others were offered only $1. Almost all of the subjects agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the subject accomplice that the boring experiment would be fun.
Obviously , there is a discrepancy here between attitudes and behavior. Although the task was boring,subjects tried to convince another person it was fun. Why? To the subjects who received $20, the reason was clear; the wanted the money. The larger payment provided an important external justification consistent with the conterattitudinal behavior. There was no dissonance, and the subjects experienced no need to change their attitudes. But for the subjects who received only $1, there was much less external justification and more dissonance. How could subjects reduce the dissonance? They could do so by changing their attitude toward the task. This is exactly what happened. When the subjects were asked to evaluate the experiment, the subjects who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than did either the subjects who were paid $20 to lie or the subjects in a control group who were not required to lie about the task. Since the external justification --the $1 payment--was too low to justify the counter attitudinal behavior, the subjects simply changed their attitudes to make them consistent with behavior.
The mode 2 thinker refutes emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts with mode 2 thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply don't hear you.
How can one counter emotional arguments? Answer: It is not possible. Mode 2 thinkers cannot be persuaded rationally...i.e. with facts and logic that contradict their worldview. Only rational individuals can be persuaded with contradictory facts and logic.
.
Really, this is a psychological and not ideological phenomenon. It is a mass neurosis of sorts. When millions of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80 years, something is wrong.
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/19990505.htm
If, for instance, we share the same attitudes with people we trust and respect, all is well and balanced. If we disagree with people we trust and respect we become concerned because the disagreement leaves us in a state of “nonbalance.”
Conversely, if we disagree with the position of somebody that we do not like, we are able to maintain balance and we may feel nonbalanced if we agree with the position of a person whom we do not like.
People who intend to control our behavior understand that we strive to be balanced.
, if you present people with a concept that contains properties that are in conflict with one another, in order to restore balance, people have a tendency ignore the discrepency--sweep it under the rug.