Cognitive dissonance, Mixed messaging, Double standards and Shrugging...and aliens

[nuclearfuels]

Merry Christmas, fam.

 

Curious - When you are at school, college, work, or other organizations what do you do when said organization demonstrates mixed messaging and double standards? Do you shrug? Do you pick one of the conflicting viewpoints/ opinions expressed? Do you make s'mores? Many companies and offices have conflicting and opposite, sometimes called dual role or dual mission - this way, regardless of the outcome, the org can claim victory. Example: A state or two, a few years ago, passed a law of charging 5 cents per plastic bag/rag (pls replace bag with rag if it helps you here) at grocery stores. Some people brought their own bags/rags from home. Some people chose to pay the 5 cents. Regardless of how many people took either path, the politicians call it a success, and bless them, and bless their hearts for it. I get it. No worries.

 

I'll need to change the following to remove any alleged political points of view. These are hypotheticals - which I hope you get a chuckle out of, before sharing your view with me:

 

 

1. An organization (Petsmart, Humane Society, etc.) encourages members/employees/volunteers, etc. to structure their homes so that the father cat/dog/turtle/fish/pet is the breadwinner, providing for his and his wife's offspring and the mother pet is the homemaker. At the same time, the same organization encourages directly or indirectly for the introduction of many more potential Daddy pets, making it more difficult for the original Daddy cat to obtain limited resources for his family. (1)

 

2. An organization encourages members/employees/volunteers, etc. that the Papa Vulture/Panda/Dog/Cat/Giraffe is the head of his pet house/barn/shed as long as he presides in righteousness. At the same time, the same organization accommodates every request of the modern Mama Cog/Cat/Giraffe/Kangaroo, thus encouraging, directly or indirectly, the Matriarch of the pet families to be "empowered." This empowerment leads to increased friction, arguments, etc. in the Kangaroos' homes which correlates with an increase in Cheetah/Giraffe/Elephant/Eagle/Lions families' divorce rates. Then the same organization asks, wonders why, and encourages members/employees/volunteers why there are fewer pet marriages. (1)

 

3. National governments are encouraging and mandating that all pets be abducted by aliens and then experimented on. The aliens are our allies and our pets' allies, we are told. If we don't contribute to the aliens' ongoing research and experimentation, our pets will die.  The aliens are also paid by the govt for every pet the aliens get to experiment on but that's not the point. Many in govt have a financial incentive via patent royalties on the alien tech - for pets to contribute to the research. An organization with significant resources and influence on national govts, encourages members/employees/volunteers, etc. to comply, for the greater good, to protect all pets and help the pets live longer. Mother Shibubu / Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo, (MSJJJS) a member of the most influential part/board/group of the organization - which org could have exercised its influence and used it resources to avoid, resist, etc. the alien pet experimentation - and which encouraged young children to send their pets to the alien research mothership (3) -  says:  

“This time of (alien research on pets) confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than (pet and animal rights),” said Mother Shibubu / Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo. “Protecting a (pet's) physical health from (premature death due to lack of alien experimentation) is, of course, important, but so is a (pet's) spiritual health...While (pet owners) and their (pet groups, petsmart, Humane Society, ASPCA, etc.) must be good citizens in a time of (contrived, false flag) crisis, never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of (Animal rights and pet freedom) as simply nonessential. Never again must the fundamental right to (nurture our pets aspirations) be trivialized below the ability to buy gasoline.” (2)

 

Sources:
1. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

2. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/bednar-covid-19-pandemic-religious-freedom

3. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2021/06/i-can-be-brave?lang=eng

[CV75]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Merry Christmas, fam.

 

Curious - When you are at school, college, work, or other organizations what do you do when said organization demonstrates mixed messaging and double standards? Do you shrug? Do you pick one of the conflicting viewpoints/ opinions expressed? Do you make s'mores? Many companies and offices have conflicting and opposite, sometimes called dual role or dual mission - this way, regardless of the outcome, the org can claim victory. Example: A state or two, a few years ago, passed a law of charging 5 cents per plastic bag/rag (pls replace bag with rag if it helps you here) at grocery stores. Some people brought their own bags/rags from home. Some people chose to pay the 5 cents. Regardless of how many people took either path, the politicians call it a success, and bless them, and bless their hearts for it. I get it. No worries.

 

I'll need to change the following to remove any alleged political points of view. These are hypotheticals - which I hope you get a chuckle out of, before sharing your view with me:

 

 

1. An organization (Petsmart, Humane Society, etc.) encourages members/employees/volunteers, etc. to structure their homes so that the father cat/dog/turtle/fish/pet is the breadwinner, providing for his and his wife's offspring and the mother pet is the homemaker. At the same time, the same organization encourages directly or indirectly for the introduction of many more potential Daddy pets, making it more difficult for the original Daddy cat to obtain limited resources for his family. (1)

 

2. An organization encourages members/employees/volunteers, etc. that the Papa Vulture/Panda/Dog/Cat/Giraffe is the head of his pet house/barn/shed as long as he presides in righteousness. At the same time, the same organization accommodates every request of the modern Mama Cog/Cat/Giraffe/Kangaroo, thus encouraging, directly or indirectly, the Matriarch of the pet families to be "empowered." This empowerment leads to increased friction, arguments, etc. in the Kangaroos' homes which correlates with an increase in Cheetah/Giraffe/Elephant/Eagle/Lions families' divorce rates. Then the same organization asks, wonders why, and encourages members/employees/volunteers why there are fewer pet marriages. (1)

 

3. National governments are encouraging and mandating that all pets be abducted by aliens and then experimented on. The aliens are our allies and our pets' allies, we are told. If we don't contribute to the aliens' ongoing research and experimentation, our pets will die.  The aliens are also paid by the govt for every pet the aliens get to experiment on but that's not the point. Many in govt have a financial incentive via patent royalties on the alien tech - for pets to contribute to the research. An organization with significant resources and influence on national govts, encourages members/employees/volunteers, etc. to comply, for the greater good, to protect all pets and help the pets live longer. Mother Shibubu / Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo, (MSJJJS) a member of the most influential part/board/group of the organization - which org could have exercised its influence and used it resources to avoid, resist, etc. the alien pet experimentation - and which encouraged young children to send their pets to the alien research mothership (3) -  says:  

“This time of (alien research on pets) confirmed for me that no freedom is more important than (pet and animal rights),” said Mother Shibubu / Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabbadoo. “Protecting a (pet's) physical health from (premature death due to lack of alien experimentation) is, of course, important, but so is a (pet's) spiritual health...While (pet owners) and their (pet groups, petsmart, Humane Society, ASPCA, etc.) must be good citizens in a time of (contrived, false flag) crisis, never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of (Animal rights and pet freedom) as simply nonessential. Never again must the fundamental right to (nurture our pets aspirations) be trivialized below the ability to buy gasoline.” (2)

 

Sources:
1. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

2. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/bednar-covid-19-pandemic-religious-freedom

3. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/2021/06/i-can-be-brave?lang=eng

 

Much food, me like, no grooming

[rpn]

Family planning is allowed.   And if we do the providential living stuff we've been counseled to for years, it is still possible to raise multiple children on less that most families waste in a year.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

How is any of this relevant to the notion of cognitive dissonance in the thread's title?

1 hour ago, rpn said:

And if we do the providential living stuff we've been counseled to for years, it is still possible to raise multiple children on less that most families waste in a year.  

And this is nonsense ...

[nuclearfuels]

27 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

relevant

The Church issues mixed messages. As a member of the Church I find this to be non-resonant, some might say dissonant 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

And if we do the providential living stuff we've been counseled to for years, it is still possible to raise multiple children on less that most families waste in a year.  

At any income level?  Let’s see some documentation for that please.

I will even assume two healthy parents being able to work if necessary, which is often not true,

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rpn said:

And if we do the providential living stuff we've been counseled to for years, it is still possible to raise multiple children on less that most families waste in a year.  

No. Just no.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

The Church issues mixed messages. As a member of the Church I find this to be non-resonant, some might say dissonant 

Then you are using the term incorrectly.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of mind - it is the the sense of discomfort that comes when people try to hold two (or more) dissonant or non-resonant things to be equally true at the same time. It is something that people tend resolve as quickly as possible (it's the way our brains are wired). But, the discomfort has to exist for there to be any cognitive dissonance. In other words, if someone can simply shrug it off, then there isn't any cognitive dissonance (even if there are competing beliefs). We generally recognize cognitive dissonance by how people change when it occurs. We don't identify it through the lens of those competing beliefs - because it is much harder to determine if they are actually considered to be equally valid. The reason for this is because in general, we don't hold all beliefs to be equal. We even tend to favor our own behaviors (even when they conflict with what we believe to be true). Only when those competing beliefs and behaviors have similar weights do they create cognitive dissonance - and then we usually (and relatively quickly) respond in a few basic ways to alleviate that discomfort. We can change our behavior so that it aligns with our beliefs. We can change the way that we weight one set of the beliefs/behaviors so that they no longer cause that cognitive dissonance. We can add an add an additional belief or new behavior that changes the equation. When we do any of these things, the cognitive dissonance goes away.

This kind of discussion really doesn't engage the concept of cognitive dissonance - at least not in any way that we would normally recognize. Why? Because there is almost always a gap between the practice of religion and the way that it informs our public and private lives and decisions and the doctrine/theology behind those beliefs and behaviors - especially when that doctrine and theology isn't particularly recent or new. The proclamation on the family, for example, is a new packaging of old material. Even the stuff that we aren't really familiar with from other places isn't particularly new there. The discussion about eternal gender, for example, is lifted from a statement made by Elder James Talmage in 1922. There can be a lot of room for people to provide different sets weights or values to all of these kinds of statements. And, of course, in practice, people do give them different weights - which is why many can simply shrug them off - even there are disagreements, they don't rise to the level of cognitive dissonance (they don't require a change in behavior or in belief to alleviate that psychological discomfort they could create).

These questions you ask are far different from the responses made to the predictions by Harold Camping (which becomes a useful study for cognitive dissonance within religion). Camping predicted, over the course of his ministry, the second coming and end of the world multiple times. When these dates came and went, some of his followers abandoned him - others became even more certain that his ideas were right - they just needed to be put together properly to understand when it all would happen. You can see cognitive dissonance at work here in the changes in behavior and belief sets.

In non-religious contexts, we can find lots of examples where there can be barriers that prevent the easy resolution of cognitive dissonance. Addiction is one of these factors. A person can understand that their smoking habit is bad for them - but may be unable to easily change their behavior because of the addiction.

The idea that not all beliefs are equal - that we put beliefs into a hierarchy (even if that hierarchy is unique to each of us) isn't simply useful for understanding why we sometimes do and believe the things we do - it is also important for us to evaluate the new information that comes to us so that we aren't constantly finding ourselves at loggerheads with every new piece of information that comes our way. Which brings us back to the sorts of common uses we see for those who are trying to get after belief more broadly. It is easy to take two things that (at least on the surface) are dissonant, and then to suggest that we should have cognitive dissonance because of them. But this flattens the notion of cognitive dissonance into something that is useful only for polemical purposes - it doesn't generally describe our own experiences and reality.

And, as you might have guessed, this sort of bad application of the term cognitive dissonance is a pet peeve ...

[nuclearfuels]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

...

Thank you, Ben.

When your schedule allows, can you weigh in on my non-cognitive dissonance questions?

[Benjamin McGuire]

22 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Curious - When you are at school, college, work, or other organizations what do you do when said organization demonstrates mixed messaging and double standards? Do you shrug? Do you pick one of the conflicting viewpoints/ opinions expressed? Do you make s'mores? Many companies and offices have conflicting and opposite, sometimes called dual role or dual mission - this way, regardless of the outcome, the org can claim victory. Example: A state or two, a few years ago, passed a law of charging 5 cents per plastic bag/rag (pls replace bag with rag if it helps you here) at grocery stores. Some people brought their own bags/rags from home. Some people chose to pay the 5 cents. Regardless of how many people took either path, the politicians call it a success, and bless them, and bless their hearts for it. I get it. No worries.

I think that these are questions that are generally impossible to answer with hypotheticals. Messages tend to have contexts that provide nuances to the meaning. I don't generally pick between the messages unless I have some sort of vested interest in the dialogue between the two messages or perhaps one of those messages in particular. So, most of the time, I simply shrug, and deal with what is practical at the moment. Working in a highly regulated field (health care), I am familiar with a wide range of conflicting messages at my organization - the conflicts are at times required, which makes the regulatory process difficult and confusing. Clinical regulators often are at loggerheads with Life-Safety enforcement - and it is the regulatory agency you are dealing with at the time that is always right. Even in your OP there is a lot of context that simply isn't there. The proclamation on the family came about as part of a process through which the LDS Church was looking to create standing for participating in Baehr v. Miike. This isn't said to challenge the importance of its role as a theological text but to recognize that it has a purpose and a context which aren't as accessible as its content.

I also think that you may have some misconceptions about the notion of dual-roles (at least as you use the term here). Having a dual-role refers to the idea that an organization may have multiple purposes or objectives which aren't always in line with each other - and so sometimes creating conflicts for those in the organization who are attempting to meet both sets of purposes. Working in healthcare, there is a balance that has to be found between providing the best healthcare possible and the organization being profitable. Politicians have the problem of representing their constituency and meeting their party obligations.

This doesn't really fit well with the sort of discussion you are having here - because the Church's objectives are not nearly so divided. And the questions created by the issues you raise really don't occur within the circle of their influence. The LDS Church has no control at all over the (non)existence of the family wage, which began disappearing in the decades following WW2 and now is virtually non-existent (this is what happens when free-market capitalism commoditizes its work force).

There could be many different ways in which we might come to view a dual role for the LDS Church. We might consider that it has an obligation to its members (and to the world) to provide a theology and doctrine. And at the same time, it has to provide the practical advice for living in a world constrained by governments and economics. There may be some search for balance between theological demands and practical lived necessities. The dual role helps us understand the conflicting ideas - and to deal with them appropriately. Of course, if we were cynical non-believers, we could suggest that the LDS Church has a dual role of providing the popular religious content for its membership while maximizing its financial return for that work (it's all about the tithing). And so on. But I don't see a dual role in the suggestions that you make. And so I see these sorts of conflicts as contrived rather than as something that deserves more attention and thoughtful consideration.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

The Church issues mixed messages. ........................................

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may appear to issue mixed messages, but it is actually members of the Church's leadership which issue what are perceived to be mixed messages, or they have an expert write an essay or a book which contains Gospel lessons.  Hugh Nibley, for example, wrote the official 1957 Priesthood Lesson Manual.  That does in no sense represent the official Church theology.  Plenty of room in this Church to express individual points of view.  The mixed messages themselves prove that.

[nuclearfuels]

13 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

contrived

Yeah...um if I'm understanding you:
1. - economics is contrived because free market ruined everything. The increased labor force didn't lower wages nor make jobs harder to get.
2. Family Proc - which is doctrine - also has a purpose and a context which aren't as accessible as its content - implying the doctrine should be diluted or applied only as practical, which to me is not really how doctrine works
3. Experimental mRNA gene therapy injections - which your healthcare field were paid to "administer" - are good/acceptable/etc. because: we need to agree w/ the regulator we're working with at the time. Hmmm....

[nuclearfuels]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Plenty of room in this Church to express individual points of view.  The mixed messages themselves prove that.

A house divided against itself can not stand. 

If there is as much room as you're suggesting, everything everyone says can be claimed to reside in yet another part of the wide tent, no?

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Yeah...um if I'm understanding you:
1. - economics is contrived because free market ruined everything. The increased labor force didn't lower wages nor make jobs harder to get.
2. Family Proc - which is doctrine - also has a purpose and a context which aren't as accessible as its content - implying the doctrine should be diluted or applied only as practical, which to me is not really how doctrine works
3. Experimental mRNA gene therapy injections - which your healthcare field were paid to "administer" - are good/acceptable/etc. because: we need to agree w/ the regulator we're working with at the time. Hmmm....

Now you are putting words into my mouth. The conflicts that I am suggesting are contrived are the ones you are introducing.

But, as I see the far right conservative perspective coming through in your comments, I come to realize that there is no having a reasonable discussion with you on any of these topics. So I will bow out.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

A house divided against itself can not stand. 

If there is as much room as you're suggesting, everything everyone says can be claimed to reside in yet another part of the wide tent, no?

Nope.  The shoe is on the other foot.  Karl Marx and Satan have always hated diversity of opinion.  Both loved dictatorship, in order to achieve their utopia or erewon.  The true irony is that it is precisely an open society which is truly free, and it is the Holy Spirit which brings unity.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a parade example.

[2BizE]

I think what the Op is saying is it is ironic that the church has taught a woman’s place is in the home rearing children and putting aside a career, yet the female leaders of the church are women who have defied this prophetic mantra and had successful careers as attorneys, etc.

[nuclearfuels]

On 12/21/2024 at 7:55 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

the Holy Spirit which brings unity

Unity is something I'm not seeing in present mixed messages though if I'm misunderstanding them (context, like General Conference vs The Friend or a BYU talk) happy to check again

[Dario_M]

I believe in Aliens. I've seen quite some strange things throughout my life. 

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Unity is something I'm not seeing in present mixed messages though if I'm misunderstanding them (context, like General Conference vs The Friend or a BYU talk) happy to check again

If we are talking about the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then we are talking about a strongly unified group of people worldwide who are not spinning off into new denominations or splinter-groups, but rather a very unified group.  This despite being part of a Church which preaches and practices free agency and is a horizontal organization rather than vertical.  This despite your notion of mixed messaging being a major problem.  I just don't see that, and I don't know what sort of objective mensuration you are applying to the Church and its members.

I suggest that the Holy Spirit is a powerful unifying force.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

then we are talking about a strongly unified group of people worldwide who are not spinning off into new denominations or splinter-groups, but rather a very unified group. 

Percentage wise I would agree with you, the vast majority of members stay associated with the Church, but we are seeing a few splinter groups that reject the authority of the prophets and then reject the authority of the Church, the last notable one would be Snuffer’s group iirc.  There have been excommunications of others (Doctrine of Christ associated with Phil Davis with some settling as a group in Manti according to one thing I read, for example) since then, but I don’t believe there have been significant group departures, attempts to organize after leaving that were as successful.

Here is a good description of the Davis group up to 2020.  Since then there was some scandal, so I don’t know the current state of the group.

https://religiondispatches.org/a-new-mormon-religion-has-taken-qanon-conspiracies-and-canonized-them-as-doctrine/

also a discussion on the board awhile back 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74114-new-schisms-denver-snuffer-and-phil-davis/

Google is showing me no activity recently in the Davis group except from one devoted follower and a few reddits asking about it.  

Edited December 24, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This despite being part of a Church which... is a horizontal organization rather than vertical. 

Can you explain what you mean by the Church being "a horizontal organization rather than vertical"? 

[sunstoned]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If we are talking about the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then we are talking about a strongly unified group of people worldwide who are not spinning off into new denominations or splinter-groups, but rather a very unified group.  This despite being part of a Church which preaches and practices free agency and is a horizontal organization rather than vertical.  This despite your notion of mixed messaging being a major problem.  I just don't see that, and I don't know what sort of objective mensuration you are applying to the Church and its members.

I suggest that the Holy Spirit is a powerful unifying force.

The church is "strongly unified" because it is organized in a top-down authoritarian structure.  Talks, teachings, and instruction are checked and regulated. All the lesson material is strongly correlated, and any deviation is frowned upon.   Even this type of structure has not prevented a list of splinter groups as long as my arm.  Here is a partial list of break-offs just in the last twenty years: Chad Daybell, Julie Rowe, Sufferites, The Church of the Firstborn and the General Assembly of Heaven, The Church of Jesus Christ in Zion.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Here is a partial list of break-offs just in the last twenty years: Chad Daybell,

I am not sure Daybell can be called a break off as he wanted his cake (automatic respect and trust from members because of membership) and to eat it too (his obsession to be viewed as a prophet and leader himself didn’t get much fulfillment I am guessing from being an executive secretary….I wonder if they called him to that to prevent him from having the chance to pontificate in class as that calling keeps you busy).  I haven’t searched much for a couple of years, but I believe almost all of his followers were still active church members (with the notable exception of Alex Cox who was excommunicated years/decades? ago for morality).

Would not include in unity in the Church though.  There are some groups within the Church that set themselves apart from others in the Church (the more extreme Heartlanders that see BYU, FAIR, etc as apostate)

However, I would say overall the Church is very unified. I was able to always feel at home in any ward or branch because there was the familiar behavior of welcoming and fellowship we all exchanged (I know not every ward is like that, I have been very lucky).

Edited December 24, 2024 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Percentage wise I would agree with you, the vast majority of members stay associated with the Church, but we are seeing a few splinter groups that reject the authority of the prophets and then reject the authority of the Church, the last notable one would be Snuffer’s group iirc.  There have been excommunications of others (Doctrine of Christ associated with Phil Davis with some settling as a group in Manti according to one thing I read, for example) since then, but I don’t believe there have been significant group departures, attempts to organize after leaving that were as successful.

Here is a good description of the Davis group up to 2020.  Since then there was some scandal, so I don’t know the current state of the group.

https://religiondispatches.org/a-new-mormon-religion-has-taken-qanon-conspiracies-and-canonized-them-as-doctrine/

also a discussion on the board awhile back 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74114-new-schisms-denver-snuffer-and-phil-davis/

Google is showing me no activity recently in the David group except from one devoted follower and a few reddits asking about it.  

Back in the 1970s, while living in Independence, Missouri, I spent a great deal of time interviewing prophets and members of restorationist splinter groups.  I catalogued them and their beliefs, always being respectful and professional.  I even made a long list of them and gave a copy to the RLDS Archives before I left Independence.  Since then several books have been written about such groups.  However, you are correct:  They are rarely able to grow and prosper.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Can you explain what you mean by the Church being "a horizontal organization rather than vertical"? 

Branches, wards, and stakes operate without close supervision from SLC.  Except in new mission fields, local members are called to all positions, and already have the ability and knowledge to perform their functions.  Moreover, there is no professional clergy, and so no top down governance.  Joseph Smith used to say:  "I teach [my people] correct principles and they govern themselves."