Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)

Why is it— that the worst prudes have a secret contradictory sex life— that, as Henry Higgins said, would make a sailor blush?

Is it, as Doug Henwood posited in yesterday's comments, that you can't fill your shoes as a full-size prig, until you have the requisite naughty secret?

That's the question on every lover's lips this morning. We lie on our beds, reeling from the latest domino spill of gay Republicans who can't seem to get enough rough trade in-between roll call votes to crucify homosexuals.

These people defy rationality.

So what is their motive? Even after they're caught with their hard-on in the noose, they still rebuke the notion that they are anything but  a traditional, heterosexual, monogamous married man— you know, with a "wide stance."

Social psychologist Dr. Elliot Aronson, and his colleague Carol Tavris, have devoted their lives to such motives, which they call "cognitive dissonance."

Their new book, with the irresistible title: Mistakes Were Made But Not By Me: Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, is all about how everyone has moments when they rationalize behavior that conflicts with their beliefs about themselves.

It can be as humble as the reasons why people excuse their cigarette habit, or as jaw-dropping as when a president ignores the terrible truth of a war he never should have started. Cognitive dissonance is at its highest conceit when The Emperor Dons New Clothes.

We can't rid ourselves of cognitive dissonance— it's part of our humanity— but we can become aware of its nature, and learn how to bring it to the curb.

I asked Elliot if he'd talk with me about  Cognitive Dissonance Poster Child, Senator Larry Craig...

SB:  How does this guy manage to face the camera, not to mention his wife, and deny such egregious behavior?

EA: If there is one thing I have learned from doing experiments on cognitive dissonance it's that the human mind is infinitely flexible.  People can find a way to justify almost anything.

SB: Why do they so often get a free pass? Polls are showing that these sex scandals barely make a dent on electoral support.

There's plenty of voters who "hates gays," and  vote for this sort of bigot. Yet after their boy gets arrested for illicit gay sex, the same voter still hates gays, and still votes for the hypocrite. What is going on?

EA: Without the theory of cognitive dissonance, these behaviors would seem incomprehensible.  Even WITH the theory, they're not easy to explain— but the theory provides us with a few insights.

In our book, we make the statement that everyone can spot a hypocrite except the hypocrite himself.  We should expand that to include those who are deeply committed to the hypocrite.

SB:  Break it down for me; how do people's brains react when they get caught doing one thing they've forbidden to everyone else?

EA: Most of us are pretty good at compartmentalizing. So, for example, if a man grows up thinking that homosexuality is sinful and evil, and then begins to feel an attraction to men, he, at first, denies, it— even to himself. 

He gets married, has children, so as to convince himself that he can live a "normal" life. 

Then, if he has a few adventures (say, in a notorious airport men's room), he convinces himself that even though he did that, he is not REALLY a homosexual, he's just having a little adventure— in much the same way that an alcoholic convinces himself that he simply "likes to drink," and could give it up anytime if he wanted to.

SB: A lot of public health issues relate to this...

EA: Yes, a couple of decades ago, when the AIDS epidemic was just getting started, I was trying to find effective ways to get sexually active people to use condoms. 

In the early days, a great many people believed that AIDS was a disease confined to homosexuals.  The people who were most difficult to convince to use condoms were men who believed it was a homosexual disease AND who believed that they themselves were NOT homosexual, even though they occasionally engaged in sex with other men.

That dissonance-reducing belief was so powerful that guys were risking their lives to hold onto it! 

(If I hinted at the fact that engaging in occasional sex with other men put them at risk of getting AIDS, they got  angry and threatened to do me harm— because they felt that I was insulting them).

SB: But back to the politicians—

EA: They are examples of true compartmentalization: 

When YOU do it, it's homosexuality, but when I do it, it's just an adventure. 

This not only allows Craig, (and the others), to continue to engage in these behaviors from time to time, but it also allows him to continue to speak out against gays and against gay marriage, etc... with a clear conscience. 

He has effectively reduced dissonance— until he gets caught. 

But even when he gets apprehended, he can continue to hold the belief that he isn't really a homosexual. It is important to understand that, in most cases, the guy is not simply trying to pull the wool over OUR eyes; rather, he has succeeded in pulling the wool over his OWN eyes.

SB: Doesn't he ever have a Come-To-Jesus moment where he realizes what a fraud he is?

EA: If that self-deception begins to fray. and becomes untenable to himself— he can fall back on the position always available to religious fundamentalists— that he is a good person, but the devil made him do it.

If he prays hard enough, and seeks forgiveness, that the Lord will forgive him and cleanse him.  And, if the Lord can forgive him, he expects the rest of us to forgive him also.

SB: Yeah, and then they send out a fund-raising letter...

Comments

[Peter Throckmorton]

Another theory I've heard of calls such folks "stoppers". They've been stopped in some way of achieving something they want at some level, and they then make a career out of stopping other people from having the same thing.

"I want to suck a dick but can't without feeling guilty" becomes "You should feel guilty when you suck a dick" or more often "You may not suck a dick".

or

"I wasn't allowed to stay out late as a teen" becomes "You will be home by 9pm young lady!".

...and so forth.

[Jerry]

I think that this kind of compartmentalization is, on some level, indicative of mild psychosis. That's just my view of things, I guess.

[Harel B]

The hypocrisy, don't get me wrong, is unbelievable, insane...but at the same time to put someone on probation and threaten
jail for what, for having or not even having, but signaling
he wants to maybe have sex with someone he me...how can
that possibly be a crime in the 21st century? Why is THAT
a crime, while saying "hey sweetie, want to come up to my place"
to someone you meet on the street NOT a crime? there's
no difference at all, except the toilet stall case it's
much more toned down and subtle..so what gives? I can't believe even the BBC can say with a straight face that

"According to the policeman, he tapped one foot several times and then moved it into the neighbouring cubicle to brush against the officer's foot. The police officer recognised that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct", the official complaint said. Mr Craig then gestured with his hand under the cubicle divider, AP quotes the document as saying, at which point the police officer identified himself."

"Court papers show Mr Craig paid $575 in fines and fees and was put on unsupervised probation for a year, while a 10-day jail sentence was stayed, AP says."

What next, public flogging for kissing someone else or hinting
you want to??

But the other thing --the same cognitive dissonance lets the Founding Fathers not only
exclude women by the phrase "all men are created equal" but also
to SAY out loud and in most cases to sincerely BELIEVE
that "all men are created equal" while owning slaves, while
preventing poor whites from voting, native americans, etc.....

And same same cognitive dissonance that you both discussed
in the interview about homosexual behavior applies to
"If China were to invade and occupy Saudi Arabia and
have an on-going occupation, after killing hundreds
of thousands of people, with the excuse
that the Saudi rulers support terrorrism (true)
and are dictators (true) who have a terrible
human rights record (true) that's NOT OK, but
if Washington does the same to Iraq (with
the extra chutzpah that they had supported,
funded, sold arms to and diplomatically shielded
him for years supporting his oppression of Iraqi)
then that's NOT ok" why do so many Americans
carry this continive diss i their heads?

I'm delighted that you do include anti-war posts here,
but I'd love a cognitive dissonance analysis on
the war issue, like the one on homosexual behavior...not
about Bush though (he's probably hopeless)
but an analysis of how so many Americans carry
this kind of dissonance in their heads about
"we're doing it, so it's ok" versus "if others
did it, it's wrong" about invasion, occupation,
bombing, etc..and (rightly) would reject that
if some victim of US policies said it's ok to
invade and occupy us in response to that...

[Ed]

On reading this, I immediately thought of that "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" article that made the rounds a while back.

*clickety-click*

Ah, Here it is.

Seems to be the same phenomenon.

[Steve]

His stance is wide alright - wide enough to take it up the ass without bending over (except for that bit about the initial signalling.) How pathetic.

Cognitive dissonance has become a way of life in this country. That's what you get when you operate from your beliefs instead of from truth, when you value opinions more than facts, when the blaze of glamour overpowers bitter realities. We just don't have it any more, folks. Meat comes from the grocery store, food comes in microwaveable packages, and auto ownership is a right. It's our way or the highway, god damn it, because we're rich, we're white, and by god we're right. And if you aren't American, then get the hell out of the way because our bombs are bigger, our planes are faster, and our shit is tougher.

We're doomed.

[Frank Richards]

I'm getting to think that "cognitive dissonance" lies at the very heart of the class system. Part of the very definition of being a member of the ruling elite is being able to do what ordinary folk are forbidden to do. We usually think of this just in terms of money and material luxury or the exercise of violence which is one of the core principles of holding state power. But why shouldn't it extend to sex as well- which is, now that i think of it a telling point that Susie made in a blog entry not long ago. Is there any greater hypocrisy than sanctioning state violence while all the hand wringing goes on over shooting sprees by the poor/working class?
Of course all these sex scandals used to be kept hush-hush- and i'm sure they've been going on forever. Maybe Americas puritanism was just too strong to even entertain and analyze such acts in terms of modern psychological terminology such as Cog. Diss. But that stranglehold on our desires and our ability to talk about them has been loosened by the sexual revolution and its rebellions large and small as exemplified by sites like this.

Which leaves me torn, because i like Doug Henwood's notion of the right in crises- which in many ways it is and would be even more so if there was some critical mass social/political movement that could truly push it over the edge. But is all the scandal part of state power's dying embers or is it the mark of a ruling class so drunk with power that it can in effect say: Not only can we disappear and torture people with open impunity but we can even give and get head in the men's room while imposing our Puritan values on American society by punishing those average Joes and Janes who dare engage in sex we, the ruling class, deem unfit to be practiced by just anybody- and therefore "immoral".

[Bill Brent]

I'm loving this discussion.

We all suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance called confirmation bias (the tendency to seek evidence that confirms our own beliefs and suspicions). The true compulsive liar (like the one I grew up with) truly believes the lie. (I think the ESTians used to call this something like "believing your own hype.")

And, yeah, at this juncture in our cultural history, it is institutionalized (heh) insanity. We're living in market-based reality, peoples.

The only really effective response, I've decided, is to work on my own tendency to seek information that merely confirms my prejudices. Easier said than done. Largely, though, this entails not rushing into things, nor settling for dichotomized thinking in the decisionmaking process (which has to do with being open-minded and seeing life in shades of gray rather than b/w terms). This also means being willing to admit when I don't know something, and when I'm wrong.

The next step, for me anyhow, is to ask for help from someone I can trust. It's amazing how much energy this can free up.

--Bill
www.LitBoy.com

[Laurie D. T. Mann]

I hate, hate HATE the line "mistakes were made." When was the first time we tended to hear this - during Watergate? Earlier? It used to just be said by politicians, but now we've heard it said by almost EVERYONE!

People have to have the guts to get up and say, "I screwed up." It's so rare that we hear this in public and we're also not hearing it much in private anymore either.

I believe to date, Richard Clark was the only person to ever say "We made mistakes" during all the Iraq hearings. Do you believe he was the only person to fuck up over Iraq? I sure don't.

[S.P.]

It seems silly to post a comment that says "I'm speechless"... but... "I'm speechless"...

Perhaps he shoulda called Ted Haggard!!!

[Steve]

I like this post lifted from KeithBoykin.com, posted at 10:02 on August 29 at the following link: http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/2007/08/28/the_slow_collap#comments

Comment reprinted here:

Anonymous says:

"I'm no gay either.
I'm just a perpetual bottom.

I lie there limp, face down, bitin' hard into the pillow and I take it like concrete takes jackhammers.

Hell, even a kick up my damn ass feels good.

Maybe Senator Craig is just like me.

Maybe he secretly likes the danger of a toilet tryst.

Maybe he wants to be debased.

Maybe he's a closet, hungry-as-hell bottom like me.

Maybe he secretly likes getting his ass kicked by the world right now-- an entire leg up to the hip up in his damn butt.

Maybe he really, really, really likes being flushed down the toilet of media and political opinion.

Maybe he's a bottom.

A fuckin' power bottom like me.

That's my sexual orientation.

Craig and I...we're motherfuckin', pillow eatin', ass hiked up in the air, not-even-getting-the-dick hard, total, grade-A, power bottoms who get off on public humilation.

Jeez.

We're sick.

And that's so fuckin' hot, man.

Oh God.

I'm gonna cum."

[C.S. Lewiston]

"These people defy rationality."

No they don't. Most of the clergy and lawmakers who want to hurt people for liking sex, especially sex of which they ostensibly disapprove, are almost always sexually maladjusted. It ain't no new thing.

"People can find a way to justify almost anything."

As in: 'We were just following orders'.

"... he can fall back on the position always available to religious fundamentalists— that he is a good person, but the devil made him do it."

So much for moral absolutism. (And where is Flip Wilson now that we need him?)

[Mia]

"... he can fall back on the position always available to religious fundamentalists— that he is a good person, but the devil made him do it."

There's a related point. I didn't figure this out myself, but it strikes me as likely to be valid for a great many people who condemn gay sex (or various other "sins") for religious or moral reasons, when they themselves indulge in those very same activities.

That is, they find gay sex (or whatever) enormously tempting. It is a dreadful sin in their minds, but oh, do they want to do it. But they also want to be prevented from doing it by an irresistable force so they won't be guilty of that horrible sin. If they can outlaw the evil act, then the law, and also societal condemnation, will prevent them from doing it. Or at least it will up the ante, making the penalty so severe that they are likely to sin less often, they think.

Of course, then you get into the temptation of the forbidden fruit....

Wow. That pun was totally unintentional, but I think I'll leave it be.

[ed]

Actually it makes perfect sense when viewed from the proper perspective. Let me explain.

Lets suppose you're gay ( bare with me it's just a thought experiment ).
And you know through your upbringing that this is viewed by your environment as too deviant for your own good.

You basically have 2 options
Either you fess up, "out" yourself, suffer the consequences and learn to live with those

or

You keep this a guarded secret and live your life denying your sexual orientation toward your surroundings by deploying what psychologists call a "defense mechanism".

Which aim is to prevent other people from even suspecting that you could possibly be gay. Ranting and raving that "homosexuality is the most vile thing under the sun", will convince most people that you are vehemently heterosexual !
Unexpected bonus could be that your surrounding will sometimes actually help you by pointing out certain individuals that behave in a suspicious "gay" manner. This of course to have a "straight" talk with them.

The drawback of this "defense mechanism" is however that as soon as there is an interaction with an already "out" homosexual, this interaction can not be kept secret through mutual blackmail. (as Ted Haggert can confirm).
This will unfortunately only increase the efforts of the so called "closet" homosexuals to oustercise their "out" brethren even more.
A truly self perpetuating mechanism.

Defense mechanisms are off course not exclusively reserved to the homosexual experience, you will find them wherever people have a personal secret to hide. Or as Confucius once explained, when I see people pointing fingers I observe them pointing 2 fingers towards someone else but at the same time 3 fingers towards them self. (wisdom from 5000 years ago)
That is why I always ask myself, when I hear somebody ranting beyond reason on any subject, Why such rant ?

Greets, Ed.