NFL Off Topic

[Jr.]

Re: NFL Off Topic

At least you're honest about your cognitive dissonance.

I'm not sure this is the right use of cognitive dissonance.

[Beantown]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'm not sure this is the right use of cognitive dissonance.

But it sounded cool.

[jWILL253]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'm not sure this is the right use of cognitive dissonance.

But it sounded cool.

Nah, it's used correctly. I know what it means.

Nice try, tho.

[ImTellinTim]

Re: NFL Off Topic

So please explain to us how Chip is having a crisis over something challenging his beliefs. He isn't even a Pats fan and actually has a pretty solid posting history that doesn't include "ZOMG A CHEATER BAN HIM" posts.

[Jr.]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Nah, it's used correctly. I know what it means.

Nice try, tho.

Cognitive dissonance is a result of when a person's beliefs or behaviors are inconsistent with another... i.e. you think that cheating is wrong, but you lie on your taxes. You would experience cognitive dissonance (anxiety, etc), and you would undergo a few different methods to relieve that (justification, for example; "everyone cheats on their taxes, so it's not really a big deal")

Chip's comment says nothing about him going against his beliefs. If anything, he is being completely honest about his feelings on the situation, which would cause 0 cognitive dissonance.

Unless you have more information on Chip's beliefs about this topic, again, I'm not sure that's the proper use of cognitive dissonance.

[jWILL253]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Cognitive dissonance is a result of when a person's beliefs or behaviors are inconsistent with another... i.e. you think that cheating is wrong, but you lie on your taxes. You would experience cognitive dissonance (anxiety, etc), and you would undergo a few different methods to relieve that (justification, for example; "everyone cheats on their taxes, so it's not really a big deal")

This is correct. And, assuming that Chip doesn't think Tom Brady is a cheater, his post would fall under the "justification" category under the scenario that he posted. IE, if Tom Brady literally got caught red-handed cheating, it wouldn't matter to him because he doesn't see Tom Brady as a cheater.

[Jr.]

Re: NFL Off Topic

This is correct. And, assuming that Chip doesn't think Tom Brady is a cheater, his post would fall under the "justification" category under the scenario that he posted. IE, if Tom Brady literally got caught red-handed cheating, it wouldn't matter to him because he doesn't see Tom Brady as a cheater.

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.

[jb12780]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I just want the ******* games to start.

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

[thaima1shu]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I just want the ******* games to start.

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk

But I'm learning so much about cognitive dissonance.

[Jr.]

Re: NFL Off Topic

But I'm learning so much about cognitive dissonance.

School starts next week. Gotta get my lessons in shape.

[Speedy]

Re: NFL Off Topic

But I'm learning so much about cognitive dissonance.

So much for me thinking it just meant ignorance.

...sometimes context clues don't always work.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Rex Ryan eats dog biscuits... Rex being Rex.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: NFL Off Topic

This is correct. And, assuming that Chip doesn't think Tom Brady is a cheater, his post would fall under the "justification" category under the scenario that he posted. IE, if Tom Brady literally got caught red-handed cheating, it wouldn't matter to him because he doesn't see Tom Brady as a cheater.

...except where did I say this?

He technically broke the rules and apparently destroyed his phone or whatever (I've barely followed the story, so I don't know all the details). So yeah, he's a cheater in the dictionary definition sense.

The larger point is, "Do I care enough about a minor equipment violation that I think Brady's phone records should be pulled and this farce ends up going to court? Do I care enough about the story to follow it that closely? Do I think it deserves this amount of public scrutiny?" The answer is, "No, not really."

EDIT: the only other time I addressed this subject was on January 21st when I said:

"Honestly a non-story, non-issue for me. People will find all kinds of ways to complain about the Patriots though."

So it's closer to a "man reconfirms previously stated beliefs" thing than a "cognitive dissonance" thing.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: NFL Off Topic

You seem to have a good understanding of a dictionary definition of a concept, but not a very good understanding of how to apply it.

[Boltman]

Re: NFL Off Topic

The cognitive ****ing dissonance thread smh.