Originally posted by RobtardHitler didn't look outside the vehicle he was in because he didn't want to see the bodies.
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.
Jeffrey Dahmer had to get himself drunk to kill those people and he cried afterward and constantly tried to stop what he did.
Though I see what you were saying, those were just different examples.
Originally posted by inimalist
trust me on this, no we wouldn't
I think you missed his point: Everyone's moral compass would eventually result in the possessors of extreme moral compasses being snuffed out. 313 Humans have ways of taking care of bidness...
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Jeffry Dahmer or Adolf Hitler found anything(murders, hatred etc) they did immoral, see.
I could argue, with little effort, that the moral compass of others saw to the mitigation of those two individual's borken moral compass. Know what I mean?
In the case of Hitler, there really was no enforceable international law he was breaking. Then came along the outside world, abiding by their moral compass.
See what I mean?
Here's a nother way of looking at things: laws are morals made official.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Hitler didn't look outside the vehicle he was in because he didn't want to see the bodies.Jeffrey Dahmer had to get himself drunk to kill those people and he cried afterward and constantly tried to stop what he did.
Though I see what you were saying, those were just different examples.
Because he was a squeamish vegetarian and didn't like to see icky blood and death.
Only at first was alcohol needed, as the kills went on, he became more accustomed to it. He cried because he was gay. Probably just said that after he was caught.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you missed his point: Everyone's moral compass would eventually result in the possessors of extreme moral compasses being snuffed out. 313 Humans have ways of taking care of bidness...
Originally posted by inimalist
Studies find pretty constantly that it is people who consider themselves most moral or honest that are also among the most willing to act in socially destructive ways.It is because our actions are goverened, to a large part, by processes that inform our consciousness, not the other way around. Since we believe we are moral, we are willing to do these actions, processed unconsciously, and then immedietly see why they fall in line with our own ideas of morality.
Its like, you can lie 50 times a day, and still feel like you are honest, largely because you will "excuse away" your behaviour under different contexts, each single example of a lie (exemplar) thus being explained to support your idea of being honest (schema).
We aren't as forgiving to others though, as we rarely take social circumstance into the equation when determining why people act the way they do. "That politician lied to us" is never really followed by an indepth anaylsys of the political system, economics, etc, and even if they are, these considerations rarely overcome our desire to assume static personality qualities of people, as opposed to situational qualities... god, if that makes sense...
it is not the people with extreme moral compases that would be the problem
its like a good monster movie, the monster is terrifying, but its the people you are trapped with that are going to kill you
Originally posted by RobtardLolz... and he drilled holes and dismembered his victims? He did it, but it was more like an addict going back to something than a "I just don't give a damn".
Because he was a squeamish vegetarian and didn't like to see icky blood and death.Only at first was alcohol needed, as the kills went on, he became more accustomed to it. He cried because he was gay. Probably just said that after he was caught.
Ted Bundy may be close to what you're looking for.
Originally posted by the ninjak
Vlad Tepes is the baddest dude in all history.....by a longshot!
Also, here's a dude more bad than Vlad (I rhymed, b*tches):
Mao Tse-Tung
And I would argue that Stalin is the worst in History, more so than Hitler.
Originally posted by inimalist
it is not the people with extreme moral compases that would be the problemits like a good monster movie, the monster is terrifying, but its the people you are trapped with that are going to kill you
I don't see how that post of yours, quoted, abides with cognitive dissonance. The person tries to rationalize it away because of cognitive dissonance, meaning, they know what they did was bad to begin with.
Someone that is in a constant state of rationalization, like that, is definitely not normal: they are in the extreme, and, therefore, fit outside what I referred to as normal.
If left to their own moral compass, and assuming there would never arise a large governing body, I think humans could take care of themselves because the average moral compass would be fine. However, that's not possible and where there are humans (as we currently know them) there will always exist a hierarchy which includes a governing body.
This is due to human intelligence and extreme social trait: we tend to categorize everything and represent it, symbolically. Our thoughts are so symbolic that we start thinking, symbolically, as infants. We will, inevitably, end up with social hierarchies, due to this symbolic thought (weird, but it's not that far of a stretch).
But let me be clear that I am very near to speaking completely out of my ass. I am delving into the realm of your studies and probably look like a fool to you.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see how that post of yours, quoted, abides with cognitive dissonance. The person tries to rationalize it away because of cognitive dissonance, meaning, they know what they did was bad to begin with.
actually, they don't enter a phase of cognitive dissonance, the justification for action comes as part of the narrative we tell ourselves. The act is right because they are, in the way they narrate existance to themselves, a good person.
and science would tell you this is true for ~50% of people who consider themselves to be absolutly moral, which is a significant portion of the population.
This is almost identical to the concept of "depressive realism", where depressed people are more aware of how they apear to others than are non-depressed people. The fact is, people have hugely inflated ideas of their own ability and how impressive they are to others, and losing the ability to tell these lies to ourselves is related to being clinically depressed. People are unable to see themselves as anything but what their personal narritives tell them that they are. I know at least 70-80% of the people reading this think that I am talking about "other" people, but this is one of the most fundamental parts of our cognition, everyone does this. You build ideas about the way things are, and then interpret all further events in that light, not as neutral things.
EDIT: you are absolutly right though, someone who was in a constant dissonate state would be outside of the realm of "normal", and because of this, our brain creates a story and sticks to it, no matter what, thus, we never have dissonance.
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, they don't enter a phase of cognitive dissonance, the justification for action comes as part of the narrative we tell ourselves. The act is right because they are, in the way they narrate existance to themselves, a good person.and science would tell you this is true for ~50% of people who consider themselves to be absolutly moral, which is a significant portion of the population.
This is almost identical to the concept of "depressive realism", where depressed people are more aware of how they apear to others than are non-depressed people. The fact is, people have hugely inflated ideas of their own ability and how impressive they are to others, and losing the ability to tell these lies to ourselves is related to being clinically depressed. People are unable to see themselves as anything but what their personal narritives tell them that they are. I know at least 70-80% of the people reading this think that I am talking about "other" people, but this is one of the most fundamental parts of our cognition, everyone does this. You build ideas about the way things are, and then interpret all further events in that light, not as neutral things.
EDIT: you are absolutly right though, someone who was in a constant dissonate state would be outside of the realm of "normal", and because of this, our brain creates a story and sticks to it, no matter what, thus, we never have dissonance.
To the first part, I thought that's what was part of cognitive dissonance?: doing something that goes against our perceived morals and then immediately justifying it, afterwards, due to cognitive dissonance kicking in. How is what you're talking about, lying all the time, and justifying it immediately afterwards, any different? Deep down...you could get that person to admit that what they were doing is wrong. I think the "justification of righteousness" is superficial to deep-seeded...but, if pressed in the right way, you could get that person to admit that they were going against their own set of morals.
And, really? 50 ****ing percent? That's huge! I definitely do not consider myself to be absolutely moral...that would not only be extremely retarded of me but it would be very disrespectful to the person I call God. (No, I'm not confusing that for moral absolutism, I really meant what I said.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/vlad-the-impaler-no-worse-than-other-princes/story-e6frfku0-1225890085142
Also, here's a dude more bad than Vlad (I rhymed, b*tches):
Mao Tse-Tung
And I would argue that Stalin is the worst in History, more so than Hitler.
The guy is just looking for publicity for his show riding off the vampire phenomenom. I would like to see his proof.
Originally posted by dadudemon
To the first part, I thought that's what was part of cognitive dissonance?: doing something that goes against our perceived morals and then immediately justifying it, afterwards, due to cognitive dissonance kicking in. How is what you're talking about, lying all the time, and justifying it immediately afterwards, any different?
you are essentially right (as in, I'd be nit picking to correct your definition of dissonance), but, you are adding an extra step in the process of action and justification. It goes a little something like this:
-Preconscious motivation to act based on current goals and maintaining homeostasis
.
-Motor system prepares to act, before you become consciously aware of your desire to act
.
-you act
.
-based on the immediate contexts and your previous beliefs about yourself/everything, you come to a narrative conclusion about what happened
you are adding a stage between the 3rd and 4th stages that has people weight or evaluate themselves and the consequences of their actions, which does not exist (it is called an anxiety disorder if people are constantly going over what they have done in their heads). People go straight from acting to why their act was congruent with their beliefs, not to evaluating the content of what they have done versus some moral principle.
This isn't to be condescending, but a lot of people outside of psych seem to have this "rational actor" idea of human behaviour, where we think people are these thinking and reasoning beings. It just isn't true. I think you might be a bit caught up in that type of thought here.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Deep down...you could get that person to admit that what they were doing is wrong. I think the "justification of righteousness" is superficial to deep-seeded...but, if pressed in the right way, you could get that person to admit that they were going against their own set of morals.
theoretically, yes, but then you would be forcing them into the dissonant state.
However, anecdotally, the task you have described would be like convincing JIA that the bible contains contradictions or inaccuracies. This 50% of moral people just wont agree with you, and unless you have some awesome abilities in persuasion, they will easily dismiss your words in the exact same fashion that they dismiss their behaviour in the first place.
This is somewhat related to the fact that reading political statements that you don't agree with does not activate your logical brain, but causes dissonance. Indicating that you don't rationally think about stuff that disargees with your opinion, you just straight up do whatever you can to dismiss or ignore it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, really? 50 ****ing percent? That's huge! I definitely do not consider myself to be absolutely moral...that would not only be extremely retarded of me but it would be very disrespectful to the person I call God. (No, I'm not confusing that for moral absolutism, I really meant what I said.)
and for people who believe that they can do bad things, this phenomenon almost is non-existant. You are generally aware when you lie, but come up with more utilitarian or pragmatic reasons to justify it, rather than just saying you have the moral high ground.
I might say it is better for people to be aware that they can do bad things, because it does at least give them a better understanding of the way their actions impact people, it is important to note though, people who do or do not consider themselves moral lie at the same rate. Knowing you can do bad does not make you act better, just more aware of how society would judge your actions (with the obvious exploits that come with it)
Originally posted by inimalist
This isn't to be condescending, but a lot of people outside of psych seem to have this "rational actor" idea of human behaviour, where we think people are these thinking and reasoning beings. It just isn't true. I think you might be a bit caught up in that type of thought here.
Reminds me of an episode of Bones where a psychologist testifies that "doctor Brennan is hyperrational, she can rationalize absolutely anything."
Originally posted by inimalist
This is somewhat related to the fact that reading political statements that you don't agree with does not activate your logical brain, but causes dissonance. Indicating that you don't rationally think about stuff that disargees with your opinion, you just straight up do whatever you can to dismiss or ignore it.
I've always found this terrifying. Not because it means that the people around me will do stupid dangerous things but because it implies that even if I try really hard to make reasonable decisions about the world I can never really know. That's straight up Lovecraft style creepy to me.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Reminds me of an episode of Bones where a psychologist testifies that "doctor Brennan is hyperrational, she can rationalize absolutely anything."
I like that show, it's not particularly great written, and very predictable. And the dialogue and plots can be lame and shallow, but it's also not very offensive and it has its moments.