Tumgik
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Text
Welcome to Doomsday Preppers
This is a guide focusing on the relationship between cognitive dissonance and the apocalypse. Some of the focus is on preparation, and some of the focus is on what happens when SHTF. Most of it relates to cognitive dissonance and rationally examining your preparation. You have to be able to detach yourself from your particular involvement and think like the enemy, or an outsider. Those whom can think critically and care enough to execute a plan survive.
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Text
Theoretical Rundown
This paragraph is a quick guide to the terms and concepts surrounding cognitive dissonance. It is through this framework that the two scenarios will be analyzed. At the most basic level, cognitive dissonance is an inconsistency or difference between your beliefs and your actions, or what you know to be true and what you want to be true (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks 200)
There are three hypothesis of the theory (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks 202-204):
1.     The first is that we expose ourselves to things we agree with intentionally so that we don’t have to face the conflict that comes with dissonance.
2.    The second is that after we make a decision, we want to reassure ourselves that we did the right thing. The more important, irreversible, and close a decision was – the more we seek this reassurance.
3.    The third hypothesis is that we change our attitudes with minimal gains, not maximal gains. If a man is totally bought off, he will not truly believe it. Give him a pittance of a buyout, and he will sing your praises until the cows come home.
There are three further ‘modern revisions’, or possible explainations for how dissonance works as a whole, revolving around our concept of self (Griffin, Ledbetter, Sparks 206-209). One theory is that our image of ourselves and our actions being out of alignment causes cognitive dissonance. The second is that we have dissonance when we feel we unnecessarily hurt others and could have stopped it beforehand. The final one is the classic defense of the totally depraved man – an attempt to ‘balance out the scales’, to outweigh our evil with our good. This false thinking is deadly on both a spiritual level and a practical level – The naive are the first to die in the apocalypse.
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Text
Four Types of People
This applies mainly to the preparation stage – before the cataclysmic event. There are several broad categories we can lump people into, all with their own dangers with regards to thinking.
1.    The Masses
Whatever term you want to call this group of people, use it: zombie hordes, sheeple, masses, proletariat, plebeians, you name it. They may think that something is going to happen in the world, but instead of preparing they simply stick their head in the ground. Their fatal flaw is that they are unaware of the dangers ahead.
2.    Mildly Prepared
These people are relatively aware of world events, and have some reserves for essentials and skills to survive. They are aware that they are not adequately prepared, and they are quite rational about their choices. They may not want to dedicate their life to preparing for the worst, but they want to be able to beat the guy next to them. When you think of people you know that might would prep, this is what they probably fall into. Their fatal flaw is that they believe that something bad could happen, but they won’t prepare for it seriously enough.
3.    Arrogantly Prepared
Insert your Dunning-Kruger Meme here. They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. They think they do, but they don’t. In some ways, its impossible to differentiate 3 and 4 until the actual apocalypse happens. Sometimes, they reveal themselves through their methods. This can range from people who think they are special forces caliber who can barely shoot a tight pattern to people whom think they can create a utopia in the apocalypse based off of goodwill. Their fatal flaw is that they think they are prepared until they aren’t – and its too late.
4.    The Real Deal
They know who they are, and they rarely reveal themselves. You hear whispers of their preparations, but nothing is known for certain. Your neighbor that might have built a bunker, the unassuming ones. Sometimes they make the mistake of coming on a show like Doomsday Preppers or you tubing, but usually they are discreet. These are the people that will likely survive the longest. Their fatal flaw is if they let complacency set in – they are dead. Usually these aren’t the people that settle into a comfortable routine, though.
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Text
Three Hypothesis of Theory
1. Selective Exposure Reduces Dissonance
2. Post Decision Dissonance Leads to Reassurance Cycle
3. Minimal Justification for Action - Attitude Change
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Video
Selective Exposure – Ostrich Effect
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Photo
Tumblr media
Buyer’s Confirmation
There comes a choice in every preppers life – should I stay or should I go? There is a sentimental attachment to home, but oftentimes home is a trap of emotions that is not defensible. If I stay home, I rationalize by saying that I would have died in transit and had no destination. If I leave, I rationalize by saying that I would have been destroyed at home because I am in a fixed position, and being mobile gives me a fighting chance. The best plan of action is to have a process where you methodically evaluate whether you should stay or go – but you should sort of pick one you favor and make that your Plan A, and the other your Plan B.
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Text
Minimal Justification Here
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Text
Three Alternative Theories for Why Dissonance Occurs
1. Who We Think We Are vs. What We Do
2. Do No (Unnecessary) Harm
3. Self-Affirmation
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Video
youtube
Who We Think We Are vs. What We Do
Don’t be this guy. Thats all...
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Video
youtube
Do No (Unnecessary) Harm and Self-Affirmation
Despite being told that they should improve their defenses in certain areas, the couple refuses to do so on ethical grounds. The threshold for harm will be severely lowered during the apocalypse. Things that you would have abhorred before you would do now, things you would have ignored before you would enact revenge for now. 
0 notes
wcorbinclemson-blog · 5 years
Text
Conclusion Here
1 note · View note