Maybe something to add/clarify further is that, while vegans lament the cognitive dissonance, it's not the CD in itself that's the problem, but the chosen CD-reducing strategy is (mostly rationalizing/willful ignorance).
(I think this also starts with people realizing what the CD actually is, namely an internal friction. It's not synonymous with hypocrisy or anything. I constantly see it used the wrong way. )
I think something you brush over here, which is "changing the ask," is probably the most important thing. There was probably very little change in history, where the whole society went, e.g., from racist to antiracist... they went from racists supporting slavery, to racists supporting segregation, to secret racists, to tolerant, to neutral, to accepting, to supporting equality (with only a little fraction becoming antiracist activists). From the right to vote, to equal pay, to protection from any kind of harassment (with a small fraction becoming feminist advocates). Wouldn't it be easier if all we talked about for now was ending factory farming practices - convincing people to "would you pay a bit more, and eat meat a bit less frequently, if the animal is kept in much better conditions?" This is a foot in the door. We have years of books on how to influence people, and what we do is knock on the door and try to sell them an impractical thing they absolutely don't want. Matthew Glover seems to have learned that on Veganuary and now launched the Slingshot project (it has its flaws, but it probably assumes a more accessible funnel for the general audience). I feel like we could do much more to avoid causing so much dissonance and to unite with the rest of society on key progress points, while later leading by example to take further steps that would be beneficial.
Hey Bjorn, I can't reply in DM, because Substack for some reason asks me to verify my age, because of some UK Online Safety Act, so I need to dig into why this is required here. Replying here, this is not a negative comment, this is just to point out that I understood the main change the article is proposing is in regards to how you convey the same vegan message, while I was saying the most important lesson is possibly no how but what the message is in this particular case. So when you write you agree with me, I corrected that with a joke, because I think we disagree with where the emphasis should be in the problem. And given your comment is later than mine, this would mean, you agree with me. Haha didn't mean anything negative about it, just probably my weird train of thought here was not obvious at all. So yeah, I think the disagreement here is not with what you say per se but where you shift your focus. This is not any smart conclusion, just stating the obvious about what I think is the real problem and if you agree about it then indeed we agree in terms of views, just not in terms what's worth emphasising.
Thanks for clarifying — that all makes sense! I think I misread the tone.
To clarify: I wrote a piece about cognitive dissonance, so the majority of the piece is an explanation of cognitive dissonance. I would push back on the idea that I brush over other topics because that's not the focus of this piece. I've written extensively about what asks are appropriate for the movement in many other pieces and focus quite a bit on systemic change.
Yes to "changing the ask!" Most change comes about incrementally (aside from crises) and it was how I changed. It would be hypocritical for me to expect others to change overnight.
Great explanation of cognitive dissonance! Can we also feel some real empathy for the other person as we're affirming, validating and lifting them up? This makes all the difference. We all want to feel seen and respected.
Thanks for this article. It really provides an scientific angle to understand these contradictory claims from “animal lovers” who actually love none.
Great article, and highly needed.
Maybe something to add/clarify further is that, while vegans lament the cognitive dissonance, it's not the CD in itself that's the problem, but the chosen CD-reducing strategy is (mostly rationalizing/willful ignorance).
(I think this also starts with people realizing what the CD actually is, namely an internal friction. It's not synonymous with hypocrisy or anything. I constantly see it used the wrong way. )
I think something you brush over here, which is "changing the ask," is probably the most important thing. There was probably very little change in history, where the whole society went, e.g., from racist to antiracist... they went from racists supporting slavery, to racists supporting segregation, to secret racists, to tolerant, to neutral, to accepting, to supporting equality (with only a little fraction becoming antiracist activists). From the right to vote, to equal pay, to protection from any kind of harassment (with a small fraction becoming feminist advocates). Wouldn't it be easier if all we talked about for now was ending factory farming practices - convincing people to "would you pay a bit more, and eat meat a bit less frequently, if the animal is kept in much better conditions?" This is a foot in the door. We have years of books on how to influence people, and what we do is knock on the door and try to sell them an impractical thing they absolutely don't want. Matthew Glover seems to have learned that on Veganuary and now launched the Slingshot project (it has its flaws, but it probably assumes a more accessible funnel for the general audience). I feel like we could do much more to avoid causing so much dissonance and to unite with the rest of society on key progress points, while later leading by example to take further steps that would be beneficial.
Glad you agree with me!
Hey Bjorn, I can't reply in DM, because Substack for some reason asks me to verify my age, because of some UK Online Safety Act, so I need to dig into why this is required here. Replying here, this is not a negative comment, this is just to point out that I understood the main change the article is proposing is in regards to how you convey the same vegan message, while I was saying the most important lesson is possibly no how but what the message is in this particular case. So when you write you agree with me, I corrected that with a joke, because I think we disagree with where the emphasis should be in the problem. And given your comment is later than mine, this would mean, you agree with me. Haha didn't mean anything negative about it, just probably my weird train of thought here was not obvious at all. So yeah, I think the disagreement here is not with what you say per se but where you shift your focus. This is not any smart conclusion, just stating the obvious about what I think is the real problem and if you agree about it then indeed we agree in terms of views, just not in terms what's worth emphasising.
Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for clarifying — that all makes sense! I think I misread the tone.
To clarify: I wrote a piece about cognitive dissonance, so the majority of the piece is an explanation of cognitive dissonance. I would push back on the idea that I brush over other topics because that's not the focus of this piece. I've written extensively about what asks are appropriate for the movement in many other pieces and focus quite a bit on systemic change.
I think we agree on most of these points!
Yes to "changing the ask!" Most change comes about incrementally (aside from crises) and it was how I changed. It would be hypocritical for me to expect others to change overnight.
Great explanation of cognitive dissonance! Can we also feel some real empathy for the other person as we're affirming, validating and lifting them up? This makes all the difference. We all want to feel seen and respected.