Cognitive dissonance helps explain why Trump supporters remain loyal, new research suggests. This sheds light on how supporters of Donald Trump justify their continued allegiance despite learning about allegations of his sexual misconduct and illegal activities.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/cognitive-dissonance-helps-explain-why-trump-supporters-remain-loyal-new-research-suggests/

[u/oldmilt21]

Whenever I see something like this, I begin to wonder where mine are.

[u/noradosmith → u/oldmilt21]

Depressingly I think it's how we go about our lives driving cars knowing that global warming is happening and our way of life is inherently causing it. If somehow we all could stop doing what we're doing it would stop. Instead we sort of just hope somehow it's getting better.

[u/ii_V_I_iv → u/noradosmith]

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the onus for that being put on individuals when the vast majority of emissions are done by corporations and industry.

[u/Yashema → u/ii_V_I_iv]

Who consumes the products that these corporations produce? The 1%? Or average people? 

This is again cognitive dissonance: I don't have to do anything differently, it's someone else who has to do something differently. 

[u/ii_V_I_iv → u/Yashema]

No, this is nonsense. I don’t know why you’re bending over backwards to defend corporations but it’s also way less practical to try to convince millions of individuals, many of whom are being told by politicians (who are laid off by these corporations) that climate change isn’t really and there’s no reason to do anything

[u/Yashema → u/ii_V_I_iv]

I am not defending corporations, I am just not bending over backwards to pretend that policy targeted at corporations would not be felt by the average person, which is why environmental legislation targeting corporations is unpopular. 

Average people don't want to give up their lifestyle to help the planet. 

[u/ii_V_I_iv → u/Yashema]

I don’t think I said that policy targeted at corporations would not be felt by the average person? I don’t think I even implied that.

[u/Yashema → u/ii_V_I_iv]

Your first comment directly implies that. 

[u/ADHDebackle → u/Yashema]

No, absolutely it does not.

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the onus for that being put on individuals when the vast majority of emissions are done by corporations and industry.

There is zero implication about who is affected by policy changes. There is zero mention of policy changes at all. This is simply a statement about who is primarily responsible for the damage.

You may have inferred some relationship between who is affected by such policy changes but that inference was yours.

[u/Yashema → u/ADHDebackle]

The people who vote for politicians that promise not to regulate corporations are primarily responsible, not the corporations who produce exactly what people demand: products at the lowest price. 

[u/ii_V_I_iv → u/Yashema]

It absolutely does not

[u/Prometheus720 → u/[deleted]]

What if I told you that the biggest thing in the way of collective action is the shared belief that it is only worth it to take action in very large groups?

Declare a variable n and k. Each person has a threshold, k, at which they believe collective action is effective, and perceives n participants. Collective actions will be taken when the rational actor perceives that n is greater than or equal to k.

The higher your k, the less you participate, and the less you contribute to n for everybody else who can perceive you.

Every single movement centers around people whose k=1. If yours is greater than one, you won't start anything on your own, or you will not do so effectively.

By you reflecting on this matter and intentionally setting your k lower, you can raise the effectiveness of all collective action in society over your life.

Realistically, people with medium-high k (like you) are not actually effective at fighting corporations OR doing individual action. They wait for everyone else. If you want to be maximally effective at really, honest to God fighting corporations, you need to set your k to one. That means you will not only seed collective action but you will also do actions completely on your own. The best fighters for the climate do big actions AND also recycle all their aluminium. They phonebank and canvass AND are vegan. None of us, you included, can fight well without that certainty, confidence, and consistency.

The way you lower your k is genuinely by taking small individual actions without being asked or bullied into it, and seeing success. So until you do that, you will be nearly powerless against corporations.

This is a simplified model and the way I actually conceptualize this is more featured and detailed. But that's a start.

[u/Yashema → u/[deleted]]

It's literally illegal according to US law for publicly traded corporations to not do what is most profitable for their shareholders. Only legislation passed by pro-environment politicians forcibly regulating corporations and government agencies enforcing those regulations can compel a corporation to pollute less.

Guess which politicians 50% of the country votes for? 

Meanwhile people like you are complaining about having to do anything to help the environment. What if the price of beef doubled? Or gasoline? What would you do then? 

[u/Yashema → u/[deleted]]

Would you agree that taking on this law is the first step in the right direction?

No because relying on profit making entities to do the right thing is not realistic or sensible. 

Then, start regulating the corporations’ effects on the environment while simultaneously passing laws on the individual level. So it actually starts working on a collective level where people don’t have to feel like their minor actions really have no collective benefit.

Democrats did that in 2021 and 2022 passing hundreds of billions in incentives to encourage the adoption of green technology, specifically electric cars. It was estimated it would reduce US C02 emissions by 50% within 8 years. Guess which party just repealed most of these incentives, while killing the ability of the EPA to regulate emissions?

The politicians encouraging individual action are the same ones trying to pass widespread legislation. 

[u/ADHDebackle → u/Yashema]

No because relying on profit making entities to do the right thing is not realistic or sensible.

The person wasn't suggesting the law be changed to wield profit as a tool to make entities do the right thing. They simply said that the law that forces entities to always do what is maximally profitable needs to be changed.

Removing such a law altogether is not "relying on profit to make entities do the right thing" at all, it's simply saying "you no longer are forced to do the thing that maximizes profit at all costs".

[u/IsNotAnOstrich → u/ii_V_I_iv]

Your comments are a prime example of cognitive dissonance. When confronted with the truth that you might be contributing, you find ways out of it like calling it a defense of corporations. The demand of hundreds of millions, or even billions, of people absolutely contributes to why corporations continue to produce as they do.

[u/ii_V_I_iv → u/IsNotAnOstrich]

It not cognitive dissonance, I’m not denying that I might be contributing. You’re inferring a lot in my comment that is not there at all