Our contradictory beliefs lead to irrational views, foolish decisions

By David McElroy · October 2, 2011

Ingrained and unquestioned beliefs lead us to do stupid and self-destructive things all the time, but our minds are frequently so strongly on auto-pilot that we don’t even realize the contradictions. That’s what I’m seeing from many people in their reactions to the assassination of Anwar al-Aulaqi.

Are you familiar with the concept of cognitive dissonance? It’s an idea in psychology that says when we’re confronted with two contradictory pieces of information or beliefs, our minds experience some discomfort, so the mind is forced to ignore one or the other of the contradictory pieces — in order to make the psychological pain go away. (That’s an oversimplification, but it’s good enough for our purposes.)

After I wrote Saturday about the case of al-Aulaqi, I experienced some of that cognitive dissonance from one of my Facebook friends. Or, rather, someone who was a Facebook friend until she got so angry about my view that she defriended me, but not before demonstrating the bizarre nature of contradictory thinking about al-Aulaqi and blind support of government on certain subjects. Her initial exposition of her position started with simply, “Whatever….He was a traitor!!”

I pointed out to her that the man was accused of crimes by the U.S. government, but were those accusations adequate grounds for the government to become prosecutor, judge and jury in passing down a sentence of death? I asked her whether the government should use the same standard for others accused of crimes. She refused to answer the question — which was the only question on the table — and she continued to make an issue of what the guy had said. She quoted al-Aulaqi’s words which she indicated showed that he deserved to be killed:

“To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim.”

To which I asked, “And your point is that because he believes that, he should be killed? Which other beliefs do you also believe qualify for the death penalty with no trial?” Again, she wouldn’t answer the question, instead choosing to say, “HOW CAN YOU DEFEND HIM…” She honestly seemed confused about the difference between defending a man’s actions and defending the rule of law.

I asked her why she trusted government to make these sorts of life and death decisions with no checks. She claimed that she doesn’t trust the government:

“I dont’ trust ANYONE in the government. and I bet I am on their s***list with all my posts…I wouldn’t put it past them to take me out and half of my friends..BUT in context of the POS the fact is and not alledged is this man is a traitor…it is on tape for the world to view…”

So she doesn’t trust the government, but she does trust government to kill people without trials. Does this make sense? My question to her: “So you don’t trust the government, but you believe the people you don’t trust when they tell you what they ACCUSE him of doing — because of the particular charge. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?”

And that’s what made me start thinking about the contradictions in people’s thinking on this subject. The conservatives (and even a few libertarians) who are willing to support this assassination almost universally say they don’t trust government in general (and don’t trust the Obama administration in particular), but they do trust this government to kill a U.S. citizen without trial or oversight. That’s a clear contradiction, but the people taking this position just can’t see it.

When the brain is given two contradictory things, it has to believe one or the other — and discard the one that’s not convenient to accept. In this case, the people taking this position feel the need to believe that it’s OK to kill this particular bad guy. In order to believe that, they have to ignore what they also believe about not trusting government. They have to ignore what their position means about the government being able to do the same thing to them. And they have to angrily dismiss anyone who points out the contradictions of their position.

I don’t defend al-Aulaqi. He clearly wanted to recruit other Americans to oppose the U.S. government, and he clearly believed that it was moral and acceptable to encourage others to use violence to do that. But there are many of us who oppose what the U.S. government is doing. At what point does the U.S. government start lumping everybody together who opposes it? At what point does it start jailing people as traitors for opposing the immoral things it’s doing?

If you actively oppose the things the U.S. government is doing around the world, but you support the assassination of al-Aulaqi, you’re suggesting that it might be acceptable for government to punish you for your beliefs and your words — without a trial. Even if you think al-Aulaqi was a bad guy — as I do — it’s shortsighted to support giving sanction to government to kill him without charges and without trial.

I don’t support or defend al-Aulaqi, but I do support and defend the rule of law. The U.S. government made it clear that it has no respect for the rule of law. The people supporting this assassination are doing the same thing.

Note: If you’d like to know more about why the human mind fools itself in this way — disregarding contradictions that are painful to see — I strongly recommend that you read, “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.” It might change the way you look at things you’ve done and things that people you love (or hate) have done.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts