tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post6368466001447888245..comments2023-12-17T19:35:07.459-08:00Comments on Bouphonia: An Impressive Form of CreativityPhilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-77483946389548004232009-08-25T07:03:51.202-07:002009-08-25T07:03:51.202-07:00Excellent analysis. I am always amazed at how once...Excellent analysis. I am always amazed at how once something is fixed in the popular imagination, it can't be uprooted, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-88444057754308115622009-08-24T21:57:46.767-07:002009-08-24T21:57:46.767-07:00I'm with them on "elaborate rationalizati...<i>I'm with them on "elaborate rationalization," but with you on "an impressive form of creativity." Reflexive, fer sure.</i><br /><br />I don't think we really disagree that much. I think everything you're saying about rationalization and emotional commitment is exactly right. But how people come to believe things in the first place <i>is</i> an issue, because it affects the extent to which they feel driven to persist in those beliefs. Granted, no one wants to be wrong, but far fewer people want to be wrong about a life-or-death issue like war.<br /><br />So my point, as far as the initial formation of opinion goes, is basically that the Administration took the issues you're raising into account, and exploited them. And because this was such a monumental betrayal of trust, and implicated the believer in such a disastrous outcome, the need for rationalization was that much more intense. <br /><br />Which is why I feel like Hoffman's blaming the victim (or seems to be, in this article): He's harping on people's response after the fact, while downplaying the extent to which they'd been targeted at this elemental level by people they either believed they could trust, or believed that had no choice but to trust, and put in a position where admitting to being wrong would open an unusually large abyss at their feet.<br /><br />And I think this was part of the rationale for demonizing critics, too...not only do you lose, if you admit to being wrong, but <i>those people</i> win, which is intolerable. The propaganda was designed to put people in this position, I believe, so treating it as a secondary issue is incoherent, from my standpoint.Philahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15849261651028725772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8695598.post-44880956926017649612009-08-24T17:44:37.097-07:002009-08-24T17:44:37.097-07:00I'm going to quibble a little bit and say that...I'm going to quibble a little bit and say that it's only relative fucking nonsense.<br /><br />I'm with them on "elaborate rationalization," but with you on "an impressive form of creativity." Reflexive, fer sure.<br /><br />I think what's at issue here (without having read the damned link) isn't how people came to these erroneous beliefs in the first place, but why they do<i>persist in believing these things despite years of evidence to the contrary.</i><br /><br />Having arrived at a belief, irrespective of how much sense or nonsense it contains, one becomes emotionally committed to that belief, and deeply loathe to change it. Most especially in the face of a vocal opposition. Nobody ever wants to be wrong. Convince someone that they are wrong, and you have very likely made a life-long enemy. that is the power of emotional commitment to belief.<br /><br />Am I swaying you at all?<br /><br />Jzb the unpersuasive trombonistJazzbumpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07337490817307473659noreply@blogger.com