You're viewing part of a thread.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance /ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/ noun PSYCHOLOGY the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change
Nothing to do with a feeling of discomfort or reconciling the beliefs. Not sure where you got that idea from.
That's the colloquial usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
No, that is literally a dictionary definition, not a colloquialism. A colloquialism would necessarily be informal and descriptive, not prescriptive.
You think dictionary definitions can't be descriptive?
Where did I say that? Keep your straw men to yourself.
No, that is literally a dictionary definition, not a colloquialism. A colloquialism would necessarily be informal and descriptive, not prescriptive.
You said it right here.
Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension again, please. Just because I said that colloquialisms are descriptive, does not mean that I said that all dictionary definitions are prescriptive. Get your red herring straw man bullshit out of here. You clearly lost the argument if you are at this point.
What argument? I'm informing you that it refers to the feeling of discomfort from having contradictory beliefs and not the state of having two contradictory beliefs. Read this, doofus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
The argument against your claims? I'm informing you that cognitive dissonance refers to the simple state of holding incongruous beliefs. Read these, doofus:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cognitive dissonance
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cognitive-dissonance
I'm not saying those are wrong, I'm saying those are the colloquial usage.
And I'm saying YOUR usage is the colloquial usage. Just look at the very source of the term, Leon Festinger's "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" from 1957. here is a link
Chapter 1, page 3.
In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it's own right. By the term cognition, here and in the remainder of the book, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one's behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.
He makes it clear that cognitive dissonance is the status of holding incongruous beliefs, NOT the status of discomfort. He states that cognitive dissonance CAUSES discomfort, and that people tend to seek to resolve that discomfort, but cognitive dissonance is not the discomfort itself. It is "the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions".
wrong. lexicographers are not the authority on a word's meaning. the definitions they provide are necessarily descriptive of the way words are or have been used, and say nothing about the actual meaning of the word. jackbydev got it right.
Wrong. By your logic, no words can ever have a meaning, because as soon as you write it down it becomes a definition which you say has nothing to do with the meaning of a word. Your logic is also just objectively wrong. You really think there has never been a prescriptive definition for a word? You really think every single dictionary writer is going out and interviewing every single person to utter a word and making sure that they only define it in the way that they have heard it used? What an asinine line of thought.
You both got it wrong.
have you asked actual lexicographers?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
scroll to "The History and Dictionary Meanings of Racism and Racist: Usage Guide "