Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Using Confabulation To Defend Against Cognitive Dissonance
I had a fascinating conversation with a patient today. Very pleasant 81-year-old woman who is always a joy to be around. She grew up in a wealthy family in New Jersey, married a wealthy man, and is comfortably wealthy and reflexively liberal, like she’s supposed to be. Just the nicest person you’d ever want to meet. She asked how I thought COVID was likely to go in the next few years, and I first said that I don’t know of course, but then I said something like, “I think it will gradually get less dangerous, like all other viruses do. But I really don’t know, because this has behaved very differently than other coronaviruses, and other viruses in general. I don’t know where it came from, and I don’t understand how it works. If this was intentionally developed as a biological weapon, then I have no idea how this will go.”
She asked if I thought it really was a biological weapon, and I said, “I don’t know. But if China is developing biological weapons, then we have very serious problems. Problems a lot worse than COVID. I wouldn’t trust Obama or Trump or Biden or anyone else with biological weapons. I certainly wouldn’t trust Xi with them.”
Without missing a beat, she said, “Can you believe that Rittenhouse boy? He had this big, silly rifle that he’s not nearly old enough for, and he comes in from out of state pretending to be a tough guy, hoping to shoot some protestors. I can’t believe that he’s about to get away with murder.”
I just looked at her for a second and then said, “Well, um, OK, but I don’t think the Rittenhouse kid is likely to threaten Western civilization with biological weapons. * pause * But China might.”
She looked away and mumbled, “Well, yeah … “
What a strange conversation.
In Alzheimer’s disease, we call that confabulation. The Alzheimer’s patient is in a conversation, loses track of what is being discussed, gets confused, and starts talking about something that he knows about. So you’ll be talking about the weather, and all of a sudden, he’s talking about World War II or something. Their confusion and discomfort drives them to reach for something familiar and comfortable to them. Very common in Alzheimer’s.
After her blatant example of this, I’ve started to notice that this is very common in leftists, as well. If the facts don’t fit with their desired narrative, they start talking about transsexual bathrooms, or racist microaggressions, or systemic oppression, or whatever. Regardless of what we were talking about before. The topic doesn’t matter. Or at least, the topic doesn’t matter once they realize that they’re losing track of what they want to be real. Their confusion and discomfort drive them to reach for something familiar and comfortable to them.
My leftist brother-in-law does this. I’ll make a comment about how unseasonably cold it is, trying to avoid talking politics with him by talking about the weather. He somehow senses that weather is innately political, so he makes a comment about Charlottesville. It’s very rare to have a conversation with him that does not involve Charlottesville. It gets more surreal every time.
He’s just confabulating, I guess.
The world must look very strange to Alzheimer’s patients. And to leftists.
Odd that they develop similar methods of dealing with their cognitive dissonance.
Or, perhaps, it’s not odd at all …
Published in General
Weirdly I’ve experienced conversations like that on Ricochet. Must be infiltrated…
Actually, Z, you’ve done that to conversations on Ricochet.
MaybeI blame your short attention span.Most every time, actually. Subtle non-sequiturs and suggestive questions without making a clear point.
I’ll try to do better
* wrings hands *
Hey, wait a minute….