I just did some research into people that believe consistency is somehow an equivalent for accuracy and how a person with this mindset responds to any arguments, both congenial and uncongenial.
Your defense motivation is high because you’ve stated that your belief is most accurate because of repetition. In this case, consistency is most important in being perceived, by yourself, as accurate. You view this as your irreversible decision.
Example, How many times did you post your very hardened, very strident position on this specific issue?
This is also why you only repeat the same argument again and again, never exploring or challenging that argument in-depth, or broadening your appeal.
This leaves defense motivation as the only active motivation in your engagements with people.
The stronger the defense motivation, the more you seek out uncongenial arguments to promote self-validation of your position. That is likely why you chose to post your position so many times.
I also am reminded of your final two comments.
This subset is likely why it wouldn’t matter what arguments, congenial or uncongenial, would be presented to you. You would simply ignore any such arguments, especially if there was a subconscious or conscious awareness of any validity to those refuting arguments.
In fact, considering you are running for office, you know you need more information, knowledge, and experience, so the appearance of seeking it is important. Due to your defense motivation and need for self-validation of your position, you would most likely turn down any new information, often called intervention attrition.
I have a lot of compassion for where you’re at right now and what you’re striving to accomplish, Connor. I know you’re not going to accept any of this.
You’ll respond to this as you do anything similar . . . just letting it fall right through you and never to think of it again.
It is unfortunate that defense motivation is such an automatic process. Once you have settled on your position, you bend the rest of reality toward that decision.
Example, “The reality of the matter is, violence has NEVER solved our issues of inequality and it NEVER will!”
This is about as hyperbolic a statement as anyone could make.
My refutation was very quick and struck right at the heart of that argument. The Civil War. That was about as bloody as it gets with regard to violence, and the result, Reconstruction Amendments, were steps in a better direction in solving issues of inequality.
There was no way you could accept my argument. And, your extreme statement to buttress your original position on what is happening around you was mistaken to begin with.
That is why, instead of dealing with the violent facts about the Civil War and the equality gains that followed, which I pointed out with specificity, you instead ignored those facts and, in your mind, severed the ties that connected my refutation to what you claimed today.
Any argument made by nearly anyone you would treat similarly. It’s a closed mind system that you’re working with currently.
That’s where you are. That’s okay.
These are tough times. Good luck.
If you happen to be curious about any of this, I’d be very open to discussing it. I really had a massive blind spot in the 2020 campaign when it came to recognizing the cognitive dissonance in the electorate.
I mistakenly believed that being honest, sincere and forthright, as well as knowing the issues and having policies to address every single one of our long unaddressed list of priorities, emergencies, and developing crises, was going to translate to success at the ballot box.
I certainly was wrong then. I learn from my mistakes.
You’re making a differnet one entirely. I wouldn’t have bothered to have researched and written this analysis if I didn’t care about you, but more importantly if I wasn’t invested in Vermilion County.
I hope we can share a dialogue on this. If not, it won’t matter to me. It may matter to the residents there that you hope to represent.