Quick definition for those who don’t know: Cognitive dissonance occurs when a person’s behavior and beliefs do not complement each other or when they hold two contradictory beliefs.
Story time! Please read this in it’s entirety as there is important context as well as an actual point.
I have been spending some time with the in-laws over the past couple of weeks, because reasons. They are an immigrant family, but have been in the US since the tail end of the Vietnam war. All hold US citizenship and it’s a large family.
Politics has cone up occasionally, but for the most part, we tend to steer away from those discussions when we mistakenly bring them up in conversation. Strangely enough, some are actually Trump supporters but I wouldn’t go so far as to say anyone is full-blown “MAGA” or anything. I would describe the support as mild and truly ignorant of broader level politics.
So, there was some discussion about how immigrants needed to be kicked out of the US and there was support for mass deportations. Another conversation was about how "everyone"abused food stamps and welfare, but within about 10 mins, the discussion flipped to what products another person in the family could buy with their EBT card. Medicare and Medicaid is also a waste of the countries money, but then later there was a discussion about how to use those benefits for another family member.
Politics aside, cognitive dissonance is a bitch to deal with, especially when it’s coupled with anecdotal evidence that may not even be real. I suspect that any experience with other “immigrants” I heard over the last couple of weeks are likely the result of a single, heavily biased experience coupled with gossip. (The gossip may create false memories of a situation the person believes is true. I think there is a special name for that.)
Telling a person bluntly that they are wrong is usually counter productive. Calling out the contradictions in beliefs can also be strangely unproductive as well. When a valid argument is made and a person realizes they can’t resolve a conflicting belief, the tendency seems to be to fall back on a generic phrase like, “Well, I don’t fully understand it, but that person must know what they are doing.”, or something similar.
Provided that you actually give a shit, how do you go about cracking the shell of someone that has fallen victim to this kind of thing?
Yes, I understand that, but what I’m telling you that it’s a mistake to assume that everyone will process the information you find convincing in the same way that you did, and on top of that, it can come off as an imposition because you’re basically asking them to do all of the work you already did on yourself, without offering them much of a benefit in return other than your own satisfaction in being right. And I know this kinda sucks, but sometimes that isn’t enough.
Let’s take your veganism as an example: if you only present them with reasons for why eating meat is bad, all you’ll likely achieve is them feeling bad about their meat habit, but it’s likely not enough for them to consider ditching it. In some countries, they make cigarette manufacturers print gruesome pictures of cancerous lungs and stillborn babies over half the front of the package, yet some people still continue to smoke. Sure, I bet that at least some people are scared out of ever trying it, but those who’ve already acquired a comfortable habit aren’t likely to stop, they’ll simply avoid looking at the pictures.
If you want to convince someone to at least make an effort, you’ll have to give them a little more than that, something they can’t get if they continue in their old ways. Like, maybe cook them a killer vegan dish that has them drooling for a week, and offer to teach them how to make it if they’re interested. I dated a vegan/vegetarian girl before who knew her way around the kitchen, so I know these recipes exist.
Also, be prepared to compromise and meet them in the middle if necessary (i.e. reducing their meat intake to maybe a few days a week). Despite my outmost love and respect for my ex’s mad kitchen skills, I never really managed to ditch the meat habit entirely. No matter how much effort she put in, every now and then, l still found myself with a hole in my stomach only a juicy steak could fill. However, I DID end up eating far less meat than before, and when I did, I could afford to buy much higher quality (grass-fed, organic, free range, etc.), which I think is still a win overall, because it promotes animal welfare by taking the money that would have otherwise gone to gruesome factory farms to responsible, ethical, family farmers that treat their animals with love and respect.
In summary, don’t just present people with the negative aspects of their behavior, offer them some real, tangible benefits in return. You catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I don’t assume that. In fact, I assume that many people will not be convinced by the information.
That falls under my purview of “presenting information.” Those vegan dishes are part of my presentation of information. And of course I’m open to answering good faith questions.
It isn’t just the negatives of what they are doing. But also the positives of what I am doing.
To be more clear, where the line for me is that I’m not going to tell people what to do (e.g. “don’t eat meat”) and am not going to get into an argument with them about it. I don’t find these strategies effective for me, personally. Others may be able to debate the point more effectively, but I play to my strengths.
That still sounds like you’re making it more about you than about them. And if that’s the case, you’ll likely continue to get subpar results.
Also, this isn’t a debate, I’m just presenting you with the same information help me change my mind. And I’m not going to argue about it, you can take it or leave it.
See? Now you know how it feels to be on the other side of what you say you are doing.
Good. Sounds like we’re on the same page.
Well, I’m glad we had this conversation and wish you all the best for the future. Thank you for your time.