Mean but True

I listen to a podcast called Princeton Review, LSAT Logic in Everyday Life. They break down issues in a logical way to hopefully make rational arguments for things. Andrew Brody, the podcast host, takes questions from listeners and got an interesting one via email.

This man wrote to say that a woman in their group of friends loved the sport of character assassination. She loved to comment on the worst traits and shortcomings of others. When someone in the group would respond that her comments were mean, she remarked that "It's not mean if it's true." The writer was bothered by this but did not know how to respond to her to shut her down.


Brody dissected the statement logically, "if true = not mean" and said to test it by making the inverse. Does that mean that all mean statements are false? Would you go to the hospital to visit someone that was dying and walk in and say "You look terrible, you look like you are going to die"? While true, it's a very mean thing to say. He further broke down the meaning of mean. Mean statements were more of an intent than a statement of truth. Why are you saying it.

In the end, my initial response was what I stuck with. It's true and mean. Saying it's not mean because it's true isn't a statement of a fundamental principle, but an excuse for bad behavior. She was justifying her desire to be catty, and trying to erase her conscious inhibitions against doing what she loved.

It makes me think further of when it is appropriate to point out sad, uncomfortable, or unkind truths. By ignoring the reality of the situation, sometimes this allows it to continue. We had this discussion at work over walking around with your zipper open. It's much better to be told, even though it's embarrassing, than to walk around with your pants unzipped. The same can be said for having food on your face. However, what about bad breath? That's a tougher one. I usually offer gum to the person if I'm trapped in close quarters (they don't always take it). The Savage Love podcast by Dan Savage often features Dan ranting about how you have an obligation to tell your friends when they are making big mistakes in their relationships. He concedes that sometimes you'll lose them as a friend, but it's better than letting them get married to the wrong person, for example. That's an extreme example, both where the desire to point out something is so clearly central to the well-being of a person, yet at the same time so huge and serious that it probably rarely gets done.

While in business and science, I believe that facing problems is the only way to solve them, I think the central issue here is just personal observations, matters of style for example. I don't know if I always want the truth myself. I guess you have to turn it around and try not to be hurt or offended if you're ever on the receiving end of a painful truth. Try to be thankful for the assistance and not embarrassed at the insult. And that's the cruel truth.

Reality Check

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.

That's straight from Wikipedia, but it is almost word for word the description given in last week's Science Friday episode where guest Elliot Aronson talked about his new book, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

The phenomenon of believing something so strongly that any proof to the contrary is simply ignored is easy to see in other people, hard to see in yourself.

He talked about people that had been convicted and sent to prison and then were later exonerated by DNA evidence and how prosecutors were reluctant to reopen these cases and sometimes insisted that they were still correct. This is an excellent example. Of course you aren't going to admit that you are putting innocent people in jail, that would make you a monster and everything you worked so hard for wrong and bad. No wonder people have elaborate mechanisms to support their denial.

Aronson used President Bush's going to war in Iraq as a huge public example of cognitive dissonance. And I have to agree, it fits perfectly. The original reasons have long since been abandoned, and a series of shifting reasons have cropped up as each reason falls apart by its own inherent weakness and incompatibility with reality. You see people on TV talking about what a great success this war is, and the banner moment of cognitive dissonance for this war when the President posed in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner 3 stories tall. The problem with this sense of Presidential disconnect is how many people still buy into it. They want to believe, despite all that has happened since.

The more I think about it, the more I think that conservatives and Republicans are the poster children for cognitive dissonance. And they have their chief Kool-Aid dispenser, Rupert Murdoch and his flagship propaganda platform, Fox News. I guess, "We Make Things Up, You Keep Believing!" doesn't have the ring of "We Report, You Decide." Although "We Distort, You Deride!" is pretty close.

Look at Nixon. He never admitted that he did anything wrong and history judges him as the most corrupt President we've ever had. Clinton eventually admitted his wrongdoing and is now looked back on fondly as a very popular President.

Republicans respect Bush for his "Stay the Course" strength and steadfastness, and they hate Clinton for his wishy washiness. Yet, if you're making a mistake, isn't it better to figure that out and stop it? Who on Earth is not going to make mistakes sometimes? I'd rather have a leader that recognized that his approach wasn't working and corrected himself. That's not indecision, that's a firm grasp of reality.

I found a truly baffling blog called Willisms when I was casting about for some additional material for this posting. It's strange, because it points to the overwhelming success of the Iraq invasion and how Democracy is spreading like wildfire across the Middle East. It says that everyone that supported Bush was right and the rest of the world is suffering from Cognitive Dissonance. Like Jon Stewart said on Bill Moyer's show "we can't even agree on what reality is".

One part of the Science Friday discussion that I thought was very interesting was about Abraham Lincoln. There's a book called Team of Rivals, a recent biography of Lincoln (that I bought and have not yet read) that talks about the fact that many of his cabinet were bitter political rivals that disagreed with him violently. There was a caller to the show that talked about contrition, and how it is the opposite of cognitive dissonance, and how powerful contrition can be at healing the problems caused by stubborn denial. I think Lincoln's power was constantly being in the presence of those that disagreed with him so he was constantly forced to reevaluate his positions. Lincoln struggled with some of the worst conditions a person could ever be expected to see, and yet persisted and triumphed in the end. He changed his mind about things, for instance Slavery. Initially, he was not going to free the slaves, but he eventually came around. He changed positions on many things, yet one thing he never did was give up on the Union. Despite 4 years of horrendous bloody conflict, military failures, and growing dissatisfaction with the war, he persisted and won. He changed his tactics many times over the course of that war, yet we remember him today as someone that stayed the course and finished what he started.

Does anyone believe our President and this situation is analogous to those times?

Truth vs. Opinion

2400 years ago, Plato contemplated in The Republic who is best to govern society. He talked about truth versus opinion and concluded that opinion was something less than truth. He talked about the type of person that loves opinion and concluded that they understand little about any of the things they hold opinions about. He remarked that they should not be annoyed at him for pointing this out, because they have no right to be annoyed at the truth. In a recent NPR interview, Rush Limbaugh stated that he was not interested in anything other than stating opinions that would maximize his advertising revenue. He was not much concerned if his opinions acted to divide the country; he just wanted to sway elections toward his way of thinking. It seems that our society has fallen victim in recent years to the siren song of firebrands that are just saying whatever they want, not what is really true. The sad thing is when such a large portion of the population is susceptible to these persuasions. Human nature hasn't changed much over the centuries. There will always be those who stir up trouble over half-baked opinions. The thing you have to be worried about is when those people are the ones governing your society.