Doublethink and cognitive dissonance or On the architecture of public thought
Man acts partially informed and must weight his stakes for the different ways that things may turn out.
How often does generosity turn out to be waste and vice versa, the coward prudent and the prudent a coward, the cruel stern and the stern cruel.
So man makes a choice and keeps its opposite at hand.
And not always are his motives pure, does he only try to stay up to date, when he switches from one state of affairs to the other, often enough he chooses that state of affairs, that is most popular with his audience, including himself.
No-one needs to teach him this, it's his nature and has been, since he began to talk. Orwell coined doublethink for it and sort of suggested that man would be trained in it.
He never is. But he is being manipulated by putting problems before him, which make him choose one alternative or the other, and this is done repeatedly with the intent to channel his thinking into the answering of the questions of the resulting complex, which leads him not to insight, but makes him predictable as he takes the stance that the evidence, that is presented to him, supports.
Looking at the business of the manipulators, there are obviously two possible problems.
I'm writing this blog entry in English, because native English speakers neither write nor think like this. They never say what a thing is, they always use it.
I've written already about the topic at hand in two posts, namely in Zum Sinn des Sprechens and in Diskurskontrolle durch Wahlgestaltung, the reason why I'm picking it up again is precisely this nonsensical approach to public discourse, where trivial notions like doublethink and cognitive dissonance are thrown in not to point out the trivial reality that underlies them, namely that you have to consider that you might be wrong or that one version of reality is convenient in one set of circumstances and another in another, respectively that nobody likes to see the horse lose, on which he has put his stakes, but are given a mystical flair so as to have people helping with the problems that the manipulators have whenever they get lucky and find one of those unicorns.
An army of self perceived intellectuals that do nothing more than to parse public statements and enforce the rules of the game.
I never had any sympathy for people who wanted to push their questions on me, you offer them or you live in a society of cynical prodders. Offering business opportunities is their excuse, sure, but that doesn't make their society one bit better.
How often does generosity turn out to be waste and vice versa, the coward prudent and the prudent a coward, the cruel stern and the stern cruel.
So man makes a choice and keeps its opposite at hand.
And not always are his motives pure, does he only try to stay up to date, when he switches from one state of affairs to the other, often enough he chooses that state of affairs, that is most popular with his audience, including himself.
No-one needs to teach him this, it's his nature and has been, since he began to talk. Orwell coined doublethink for it and sort of suggested that man would be trained in it.
He never is. But he is being manipulated by putting problems before him, which make him choose one alternative or the other, and this is done repeatedly with the intent to channel his thinking into the answering of the questions of the resulting complex, which leads him not to insight, but makes him predictable as he takes the stance that the evidence, that is presented to him, supports.
Looking at the business of the manipulators, there are obviously two possible problems.
- People stick with the wrong alternative in the face of evidence that should persuade them of the other.
- People under the influence of conflicting propaganda refuse to make up their mind.
I'm writing this blog entry in English, because native English speakers neither write nor think like this. They never say what a thing is, they always use it.
I've written already about the topic at hand in two posts, namely in Zum Sinn des Sprechens and in Diskurskontrolle durch Wahlgestaltung, the reason why I'm picking it up again is precisely this nonsensical approach to public discourse, where trivial notions like doublethink and cognitive dissonance are thrown in not to point out the trivial reality that underlies them, namely that you have to consider that you might be wrong or that one version of reality is convenient in one set of circumstances and another in another, respectively that nobody likes to see the horse lose, on which he has put his stakes, but are given a mystical flair so as to have people helping with the problems that the manipulators have whenever they get lucky and find one of those unicorns.
An army of self perceived intellectuals that do nothing more than to parse public statements and enforce the rules of the game.
I never had any sympathy for people who wanted to push their questions on me, you offer them or you live in a society of cynical prodders. Offering business opportunities is their excuse, sure, but that doesn't make their society one bit better.
Labels: 07, gesellschaftskritik, gesetze, identitäten, ἰδέα, φιλοσοφία
Eingetragen Am/um
21:55
