Confess your Hypocrisy

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Khethil
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 08:26 am
@Subjectivity9,
Subjectivity9;138940 wrote:
It isn't hypocritical to think one way and to act another way altogether.


Though the intent might not be there, this is exactly what we're talking about here. To value, extol or otherwise believe that "We should all do or be <X>" yet we (the individuals) don't.

Perhaps "behavioral conflict" might be a better way to phrase what this is about, rather than hypocrisy.
 
chad3006
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 09:19 am
@Khethil,


1) My philosophy could frequently be classified as pessimistic and nihilistic, but I usually have a positive outlook in my daily life. I really don't dwell on negativity much. That's an easy one, now for the harder ones.

2) I'm forever spouting the dangers of runaway capitalism, but I work at a bank!
3) I despise large corporate agribusinesses, but I do business with them frequently.

4) I'm addicted to Coca-Cola, the poster child for industrialized food.

5)
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 11:51 am
@Khethil,
Khethil,

I think that because we are pretty much divided within ourselves that we are pushed and pulled until the strongest urge, or need, or is it stimulation, wins out.

Is there an organizing principle within us? Or are we more like a leaf caught in a strong wind?

S9

---------- Post added 03-12-2010 at 12:59 PM ----------

Chad,

Just kidding, or I’m just playing, would certainly lighten up how hard we are on ourselves.

This is rather important, because we can’t continue to be constantly hard on ourselves without after a while starting to spread it around, and being hard on others too, esp. mates who are too close to escape our sting. : ^ (


S9
 
chad3006
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 02:28 pm
@Khethil,
Subjectivity9, I see what you're saying and I agree, but in my earlier post, I was poking fun at the apparent semantics conflict people were having within this thread-good naturedly of course!
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 02:42 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil,

What you're seeking are those things with which we have cognitive dissonance over, right? That is, two contradictory beliefs. Well, yes, we all do have these inconsistences, and we try to reconcile them with rationalization. It's human. Very interesting, though, you're right. Here's one of my more pronounced ones:

I love to eat meat and eat meat daily, but, on some level, I think it's (normally) wrong to kill animals.

But do not confuse this with hypocrisy, which is pretending to hold beliefs which one does not actually hold. There is a difference, and many of your examples are examples of cognitive dissonance, not hypocrisy.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 02:57 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;52322 wrote:
Good Morning,

Subject: Inconsistencies between Philosophical Principles and Actions

Intro: No matter what you think, to some greater or lesser extent, you're a hypocrite; we all are. The realm of the philosophical and the realm of the real don't always mesh as they should. What's more, the more you've thought these issues through, the more you're likely in conflict. Think about it; no matter how much you try, it's likely you're not quite as 'authentic' as you'd like.

Questions:

  1. What are your inconsistencies between your philosophical principles and what you actually do?
  2. How do you resolve such inconsistencies?

Examples: To give an idea where I'm coming from. Here are some of mine:
  • I'm glad that more people are able to live longer lives but I also think we have too many people on the earth.


  • I love my house, but no one needs this much room. I wouldn't give it up, but the materials and resources involved in it's building and upkeep doesn't justify two people.


  • I have a car and enjoy the independence of being able to go where I want - when I want. I also think that automobiles (manufacture, disposal and emissions) are one of the largest sources of environmental destruction there is.


  • I value life. I believe that no form of life should unnecessarily be pained or destroyed. Last night our neighbor's dog wouldn't shut up; I don't think it would have taken much encouragement to actually choke it to death.


  • Material "things" in my life - from the vacuum cleaner to our crock pot - has made living easier, giving me time to pursue what's more important. It's also undeniable that what's "easier" isn't better; that some physical labor or 'want' is a good thing.


  • I've toured factories where the jibbering guide boasted at length on his factory's level of automation; football-field sized buildings where now only 2 or 3 people can be seen. I think about the jobs lost but also realize that this level of automation keeps that place in business; and in so doing, produces much of what I want and need.


  • I love vegetables; I also know what types of labor practices are used to bring these to my local store. I'm not inclined to grow them myself, but I buy them nonetheless.


  • I count the invasion of Iraq as one of the most unjustified, immoral things my country has ever done. But through it all, I've dutifully paid my taxes, obeyed the law and didn't quite make that move across the border.

I believe we ALL are riddled with inconsistencies between our philosophical positions and actions we take every day. I also believe it's important to somehow recognize and resolve such inconsistencies; even the acknowledgment can have some benefit. Some of this has been covered in this thread.

Anyone up to a confession?



I think you should prove your accusation to be true, or you should retract it. What makes you believe that everyone is a hypocrite? And what makes you believe that everyone engages in hypocrisy on a daily basis?

I also happen to agree with someone who posted earlier that your list is not all a list of hypocrisies. But I don't feel like going through the list to analyze each one for someone who has insulted me and everyone I care about, without providing any evidence.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 03:00 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;139118 wrote:
I think you should prove your accusation to be true, or you should retract it. What makes you believe that everyone is a hypocrite? And what makes you believe that everyone engages in hypocrisy on a daily basis?

I also happen to agree with someone who posted earlier that your list is not all a list of hypocrisies. But I don't feel like going through the list to analyze each one for someone who has insulted me and everyone I care about, without providing any evidence.


I think all he means is that, at some point in our lives, we go through coginitive dissonance (read my post #45). We hold two contradictory beliefs. It is natural, and is not an insult to you or your family. I think you're being a little sensitive.

But Khethil is wrong in saying that this is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to holds beliefs for things which one does not hold beliefs for. With cognitive dissonance, the person genuinely holds the two contradictory beliefs (which is why it gives you that awful feeling, and then you attempt to rationalize).
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 03:27 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;139112 wrote:
Khethil,

What you're seeking are those things with which we have cognitive dissonance over, right? That is, two contradictory beliefs. Well, yes, we all do have these inconsistences, and we try to reconcile them with rationalization. It's human. Very interesting, though, you're right. Here's one of my more pronounced ones:

I love to eat meat and eat meat daily, but, on some level, I think it's (normally) wrong to kill animals.

But do not confuse this with hypocrisy, which is pretending to hold beliefs which one does not actually hold. There is a difference, and many of your examples are examples of cognitive dissonance, not hypocrisy.




Zetherin;139119 wrote:
I think all he means is that, at some point in our lives, we go through coginitive dissonance (read my post #45). We hold two contradictory beliefs. It is natural, and is not an insult to you or your family. I think you're being a little sensitive.

But Khethil is wrong in saying that this is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to holds beliefs for things which one does not hold beliefs for. With cognitive dissonance, the person genuinely holds the two contradictory beliefs (which is why it gives you that awful feeling, and then you attempt to rationalize).



Accusing everyone of being inconsistent is no better. Prove it, or kindly retract it. Many times people make broad claims like this, with no evidence to back it up. Where is your evidence?

If you were to change it to, "most people", instead of "everyone", I would not object to it. But I think it is doubtful if you or anyone else has the necessary evidence to make the jump to "everyone". In point of fact, I am inclined to believe I know more than one person who is neither, but, of course, I cannot prove what every belief is that other people have. But I have no evidence whatsoever that they are hypocrites or inconsistent in their beliefs. Since you probably do not know them, it is exceedingly unlikely that you have evidence for it either.

If you say that everyone you know is a hypocrite and/or inconsistent, I would suggest that you try a new method for befriending people, because you are not selecting the best sorts of people. Either that, or you are misusing the terms "hypocrite" and "inconsistent".

Edited to add:

I can think of a couple of motives for insulting everyone in such a manner. One is religiously motivated, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23). I hope I need not now say that quoting a Bible verse does not make a statement true, and that what we are now dealing with is a prejudice in favor of believing it which has infected Christian societies. And another motive is for people who are hypocrites and inconsistent; if they can persuade themselves that everyone else is just as bad as they are, then they will not feel inferior to other people. I have heard men describe all men as inherently unfaithful, in an effort to justify their own philandering. The thing is, the claim is false that all men are inherently unfaithful.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:22 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;139126 wrote:

If you were to change it to, "most people", instead of "everyone", I would not object to it. But I think it is doubtful if you or anyone else has the necessary evidence to make the jump to "everyone".


Sure. But people don't object to statements like "people enjoy sex" or even "men like women". If it's a basic part of human nature it's not objectionable to say "everyone".

Moral Hypocrisy ? Psychological Science

Quote:

As shown in Figure 1, hypocrisy appears to be a fundamental bias in moral reasoning: Individuals perceived their own transgressions to be less objectionable than the same transgression enacted by another person.

Evidence of hypocrisy at both the individual and group levels adds to the growing view of the context-dependent nature of moral reasoning (cf. Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006). At a basic level, preservation of a positive self-image appears to trump the use of more objective moral principles.
Best I can find on short notice.

Quote:
I can think of a couple of motives for insulting everyone in such a manner. One is religiously motivated, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23). I hope I need not now say that quoting a Bible verse does not make a statement true, and that what we are now dealing with is a prejudice in favor of believing it which has infected Christian societies. And another motive is for people who are hypocrites and inconsistent; if they can persuade themselves that everyone else is just as bad as they are, then they will not feel inferior to other people. I have heard men describe all men as inherently unfaithful, in an effort to justify their own philandering. The thing is, the claim is false that all men are inherently unfaithful.
I think this is insightful and explains a lot of things people say. But it seems true that humans are hypocritical on a basic level, and I don't think khethil was suggesting it in an "excuse my behavior" or "we are short of the glory of god" way. More like we should acknowledge our flaws, in the same way that we might acknowledge our innate cognitive biases.

Zetherin's point that hypocrisy has a pretty strong definition is good too.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:30 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;138742 wrote:

For me, philosophy has a lot to do with trying to overcome this disjunction.


That's unfortunate.
 
Night Ripper
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:46 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;52322 wrote:
What are your inconsistencies between your philosophical principles and what you actually do?


I feel left out. I have none.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 04:58 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;139148 wrote:
Sure. But people don't object to statements like "people enjoy sex" or even "men like women".



Both of those are importantly different in that no quantifier is specified (i.e., "everyone" is not specified). However, if the quantifier were added, both would be false. And people do object to such things. Go to a gay pride meeting and say the second one, and see if there are any objections to the claim.


Jebediah;139148 wrote:
If it's a basic part of human nature it's not objectionable to say "everyone".



If that were true I would not now be objecting to what has been stated in this thread.


Jebediah;139148 wrote:
Moral Hypocrisy ? Psychological Science

Best I can find on short notice.
...


I want to thank you for actually producing evidence of something. However, it is not even close to showing that everyone is hypocritical. First, it uses only 26 subjects, and then:

"Two subjects in Condition 1 were removed from analysis for acting altruistically or using the randomizer..."

In other words, according to the study, not everyone was hypocritical, even among their small sample of 26 people. And that is my point; although it may be that most people are hypocritical or inconsistent, that does not justify the claim that everyone is. I have no objections to someone claiming that most people are hypocritical or inconsistent, as that conforms to my experience. But I do object to the claim that everyone is, which does not seem to conform to my experience. (I write "seem to conform" for the obvious reason that I do not know all the thoughts of those people with whom I am acquainted.)
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 05:23 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;139160 wrote:
Both of those are importantly different in that no quantifier is specified (i.e., "everyone" is not specified). However, if the quantifier were added, both would be false. And people do object to such things. Go to a gay pride meeting and say the second one, and see if there are any objections to the claim.


False yes, insulting no. If I said no man could run a 4:00 mile I don't see why someone who could would object. That's why I say it doesn't seem objectionable.

Quote:
I want to thank you for actually producing evidence of something. However, it is not even close to showing that everyone is hypocritical. First, it uses only 26 subjects, and then:
It is showing (or attempting to) an innate, biological hypocrisy of some form.

Quote:
"Two subjects in Condition 1 were removed from analysis for acting altruistically or using the randomizer..."
Not everyone needs to have acted hypocritical in every situation for that to exist.

Quote:
In other words, according to the study, not everyone was hypocritical, even among their small sample of 26 people.
When they use smaller samples, they adjust the amount required for statistical significant. For example, using a Two-Tail t-test, with 1001 subjects the .05 value is 1.962, for 26 subjects it is 2.060. I just grabbed that out of the back of my book because it was handy, I don't know what test they used. Something more complicated than they teach us in intro stats anyway, lol.

Quote:
And that is my point; although it may be that most people are hypocritical or inconsistent, that does not justify the claim that everyone is. I have no objections to someone claiming that most people are hypocritical or inconsistent, as that conforms to my experience. But I do object to the claim that everyone is, which does not seem to conform to my experience. (I write "seem to conform" for the obvious reason that I do not know all the thoughts of those people with whom I am acquainted.)
But let's say it can be biologically shown. Do you object to general claims of that nature? "Everyone has elbows" for example. Or, "everyone has the tendency to assume an argument is valid if they agree with the conclusion". Or "everyone is prone to confirmation bias".

We are describing hypocrisy as a psychological tendency here. Thinking about it, I feel like you are making the point that not everyone is knowingly hypocritical or inconsistent; that some people when they notice it in their thoughts correct themselves.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Fri 12 Mar, 2010 06:43 pm
@Khethil,
Jebediah,

Don’t you think, “Individuals perceived their own transgressions to be less objectionable than the same transgression enacted by another person,” because when you are seeing it within yourself, intimately, you also have far more information about why it took place. You are privy to multitude circumstances that brought a particular action about.

On the other hand, we, human are quick to judge very complex happening as being rather simple. Even though the human animal is quite complex.

On top of that many of our motives remain unknown to even us. Whereas our judgments of others are often overly simplified, based on very little, or no information, confused conceptions about how truly free we are to act differently, and because of this are often rather black and white. : ^ (

S9
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 01:52 pm
@Khethil,
Pyrrho,

There is a massive amount of evidence that cognitive dissonance exists, and that most people do share at least one set of contradictory beliefs, no matter the topic. It is not an insult, and, once again, it is different from hypocrisy. I think you're misunderstanding and taking offense to something that you shouldn't be taking offense to. This doesn't tarnsih your character; we're only human, buddy.

Within the link I gave you are 23 sources. I have gone through a few of them and have found a great number of studies performed. I am confident you can do the same.

This sort of thing is so common, it is no different than saying, "Everyone has been heartbroken at least once in their lives". Of course, maybe not every single person has been heartbroken, but this is such a universal experience, the generalization is warranted.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 02:59 pm
@Khethil,
Zetherin,

Generalizations are efficient when they are left in the general. But, somehow when we go on to applying them to each and every person we meet, even if it is ALL humans, they turn into an injustice, because then we are prejudging an individual.

Isn’t that a form of prejudice, albeit against a particular species?

S9
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 03:43 pm
@Khethil,
Subjectivity9 wrote:
Generalizations are efficient when they are left in the general. But, somehow when we go on to applying them to each and every person we meet, even if it is ALL humans, they turn into an injustice, because then we are prejudging an individual.


Well, there is such a thing as a hasty generalization, you are right. And you are also right that generalizations can be prejudicial. But it does not then follow that we cannot have evidence for some generalizations, or that no generalizations are true (they sometimes are). There is often nothing wrong with considering evidence and then inducing things from the general populace. In fact, medical doctors are often required to do this. For instance, they must generalize, based on gender, disease susceptibility.
 
Subjectivity9
 
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2010 05:11 pm
@Khethil,
Zetherin,

Don’t you think that something like hypocrisy gets a bit vague in this way? It implies intension? How can we measure intension without first considering if there is free will in the first place, or even how much of what we do is ruled over completely by our conscious mind or obvious circumstances?

I don’t believe that statistics are so very pure as we might wish, or that their findings could ever be totally conclusive. They are far too random when you consider how very complex and intertwined everything actually is.

It is almost like by considering and choosing what is important to include in the study that, we also end up choosing the outcome also, even if the outcome is a total surprise to everyone.

S9
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/13/2021 at 11:43:36