1 files changed, 104 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/stanzione/mm3.tex b/stanzione/mm3.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..733e178
--- /dev/null
+++ b/stanzione/mm3.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+% Mastery Mailing 1
+\documentclass[12pt]{apa7}
+\usepackage[style=apa,backend=biber]{biblatex}
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+\setlength{\headheight}{15pt}
+
+% According to several sources, the following commands should be active
+% for an APA paper, but I just hate them.
+% \raggedright
+% \language255 % no hyphenation
+\parindent=.5in
+\linespread{1.9}
+
+\shorttitle{Purity Attitudes}
+
+\addbibresource{sources.bib}
+
+\leftheader{Rohrer}
+
+\begin{document}
+\centerline{\textbf{Mastery Mailing 3: Cognitive Dissonance and Purity
+Attitudes}}
+
+Hi Uncle Dak,
+
+You've probably heard the term ``cognitive dissonance'' thrown around in
+a popular-psychology way, especially in political or debate areas.
+I've recently been studying this concept in psych class, and there are a
+lot of interesting results on how people quietly change their minds to
+keep themselves consistent.
+Cognitive dissonance is a really wide-reaching part of reasoning and
+tells us that we are very rarely as rational as we think.
+I used to misunderstand this concept as the ability to hold to mutually
+incompatible beliefs at the same time, but it's actually more like
+making consistent any beliefs or decisions you identify with, regardless
+of more ``rational'' chains of logic.
+
+My textbook explains it with the following counterintuitive example.
+Imagine you and a friend participate in an experiment where you're asked
+to eat fried grasshoppers (a typically ``undesirable'' food).
+You get an experimenter who is kind and polite, so you manage to eat
+three grasshoppers.
+Your friend gets a rude and distant experimenter, and they also eat
+three grasshoppers.
+A lot of people expect that after this experiment, you would like the
+grasshoppers more than your friend, but we actually see the opposite
+effect \autocite[433]{textbook}!
+You have the explanation ``I did it to please the nice experimenter''
+for why you ate the grasshoppers.
+But your friend has to rationalize why they ate the grasshoppers, so
+they are more likely to rationalize that they liked the taste.
+This affect is called an ``attitude,'' a composite of the actions,
+feelings, and ideas you have on a topic, and cognitive dissonance
+usually brings these components into line with each other
+\autocite[431]{textbook}.
+
+\begin{figure}[ht]
+    \begin{center}
+        \href{https://youtu.be/DF4gdOlP-fc}{%
+            \includegraphics[height=2in]{zimbardo}}
+        \par\emph{A PBS segment on Cognitive Dissonance with
+        Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo (Click to View)}
+    \end{center}
+\end{figure}
+
+I found a very high-quality study on moral beliefs about ``impure
+actions,'' and its central question was: do people rationalize that
+things are harmful because they are socially unacceptable/immoral or do
+people realize that things are immoral because they are harmful?
+It examines attitudes towards ``impure behaviors:'' unsanitary,
+improper, or sexually deviant acts.
+The study also analyzes socio-economic status and religiosity variables
+in two different cultures: the United Kingdom and Colombia.
+The study finds that people tend strongly towards rationalization (i.e.
+deciding an action is harmful because it is immoral rather than the
+other way around), especially low-SES theists
+\autocite{rationalization}.
+It also gives a potential treatment option, that reflecting on how
+harmful a behavior is can, in some cases, reduce perceived immorality of
+a behavior.
+The study authors argue that this is applicable to a secular-liberal vs
+religious-conservative political divide, and I know that you're
+eternally frustrated by religious-conservative moralizers, so I thought
+you'd enjoy hearing these results \autocite{rationalization}.
+
+While the study doesn't have a lot of insight into the inner workings of
+its subjects' minds, it posits theists may have a more intuitive
+thinking style than nontheists, and that that thinking style morally
+punishes impurity.
+The authors say this might be due to ``non-consequentialist'' moral
+evaluation, where things are forbidden independent of the harm they
+impose on others, which would track with existing research.
+Personally, this has made me reconsider how I approach this type of
+discussion.
+I think using a more open dialogue about harm-done can convince people
+to accept traditionally ``impure'' behaviors like homosexuality or
+abortion.
+But my biggest takeaway is that others' and my own beliefs are way less
+rational than we assume, so I will be more critical of my own beliefs
+and accepting of others'.
+
+\vfil\eject
+\printbibliography
+\end{document}