”
It also appears, from a cursory examination (neither [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) nor [m-w.com](http://m-w.com) is exactly thorough), that both convey the relevant meaning.
---
### Author:  [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/45 "2004-09-28T04:18:20Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#):
>
> “Belittling oneself is almost universally referred to as self-deprecation these days, through constant misapplication, though it is a corruption of self-depreciation. Deprecate, which had meant plead against, now primarily means depreciate, or belittle.” (From the web)
“Deprecate” has had the meaning of pleading against or disapproving of one’s own faults since at least 1641. Hardly a neologism. Both “self-depreciate” and “self-deprecate” do not appear before the 19th century. While I’ll grant that “self-depreciate” is the older of those two words, it’s still a couple of centuries younger than this meaning of “deprecate”.
> [@Oxford English Dictionary defn of "deprecate"](#):
>
> 1. trans. To plead earnestly against; to express an earnest wish against (a proceeding); to express earnest disapproval of (a course, plan, purpose, etc.).
>
> 1641 J. SHUTE Sarah & Hagar (1649) 133 Saint Paul undertaketh…that he shall return and deprecate his fault. 1646 SIR T. BROWNE Pseud. Ep. VII. xix. 385 Other accounts…whose verities not onely, but whose relations honest minds doe deprecate. 1659 BP. WALTON Consid. Considered v. §2 Cappellus…no where that I know affirms this, but rather deprecates is as a calumny. 1742 FIELDING J. Andrews IV. vi, I believe…he’d behave so that nobody should deprecate what I had done. 1808 Med. Jrnl. XIX. 389, I cannot help deprecating the conduct of the other two anatomists. 1875 OUSELEY Mus. Form xiii. 60 Such a method of proceeding is greatly to be deprecated. 1882 Times 5 Dec. 7 To deprecate panic is an excellent counsel in itself.
> [@roger thornhill](#):
>
> But I think you still miss my point that making assumptions about other people’s mental states is not something to be codified as an argumentative tactic.
It’s a useful psychological term, and if we’re out of the Pit it can be used of ideas rather than of people. That is, one poster is allowed to call another poster’s ideas meglomaniacal, hypocritical or to suggest that two mutually incompatible ideas must cause cognitive dissonance.
---
### Author:  [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/46 "2004-09-28T04:32:48Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#):
>
> That is, one poster is allowed to call another poster’s ideas meglomaniacal, hypocritical or to suggest that two mutually incompatible ideas must cause cognitive dissonance.
“Mutually incompatible” ideas is a nebulous concept. Who is to judge that the “ideas” are incompatible?
In one of the cases that prompted my tirade, Jamaico-British brothers spouting “love” and “homocide” (sic) were felt to be demonstrating c…d… I think a much more useful critique would have concentrated on the concept of “love”. Without deconstructing this all-too-often meaninglessly-used word, just about anything that the brothers advocated alongside “love” could be construed to be incompatible with it. Anything of a non-passive bent, anyway.
Rather than the long phrase “holder of mutually incompatible ideas”, I think I prefer the pithier alternative: “human”.
---
### Author:  [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/47 "2004-09-28T05:55:00Z")
I think that the reggae singers simultaneously advocating loving your fellow man (as in _agape_) and murdering him is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. It’s not an abstract situation construing just about anything to be contradictory to love, it’s about a very specific situation. The ideas of loving someone and murdering them are entirely contradictory - I presume you agree with this.
We accept a certain human ability to hold contradictory views, as you say (your “pithier alternative”), but this is far beyond normal human behaviour. The concepts of “cognitive dissonance” and the “true believer” are extremely useful in attempting to understand this particularly hideous contradiction
---
### Author:  [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/48 "2004-09-28T06:23:10Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#):
>
> I think that the reggae singers simultaneously advocating loving your fellow man (as in _agape_) and murdering him is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance. It’s not an abstract situation construing just about anything to be contradictory to love, it’s about a very specific situation.
But was it ‘agape’? The word ‘love’ gets thrown around a lot and becomes about as meaningful as ‘okay’, as in ‘I’m okay’ in answer to the question ‘How are you?’
> [@Atticus Finch](#):
>
> The ideas of loving someone and murdering them are entirely contradictory - I presume you agree with this.
Yes, but not, of course, if you substitute ‘kill’ for ‘murder’. (Hence the Biblical injunction.)
> [@Atticus Finch](#):
>
> We accept a certain human ability to hold contradictory views, as you say (your “pithier alternative”), but this is far beyond normal human behaviour.
Is that the royal ‘we’?
> [@Atticus Finch](#):
>
> The concepts of “cognitive dissonance” and the “true believer” are extremely useful in attempting to understand this particularly hideous contradiction
And what do you mean by ‘true’ believer? (Tricky word ‘true’.)
---
### Author:  [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/49 "2004-09-28T07:13:17Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#):
>
> But was it ‘agape’? The word ‘love’ gets thrown around a lot and becomes about as meaningful as ‘okay’, as in ‘I’m okay’ in answer to the question ‘How are you?’
I chose ‘agape’ as opposed to ‘eros’. I’m trying to choose the loosest definition of love or good feeling for your fellow man, and no matter how low you set that bar, it isn’t compatible with the idea of murder.
> [@](#):
>
> Yes, but not, of course, if you substitute ‘kill’ for ‘murder’. (Hence the Biblical injunction.)
But we’re not talking about any kind of permissible killing in this case, no kind of self-defence or anything of the sort. The reggae artists in the thread you refer to are discussing the _murder_ of some people and loving your fellow man at the same time. Do you not find these two ideas, murder and love (in its loosest form) entirely and utterly contradictory?
> [@](#):
>
> Is that the royal ‘we’?
Don’t be facetious. Try “It is generally accepted that there is a certain human capacity…”, if you’d prefer.
> [@](#):
>
> And what do you mean by ‘true’ believer? (Tricky word ‘true’.)
It’s all one phrase - “[true believer](http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html)” (scroll down about half-way on the page). It’s probably not good psychology, but then neither are Freud’s ideas any more, and we still use them, at least for illustrative purposes. I think it’s a useful concept.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/50 "2004-09-28T11:02:16Z")
I suspect you doth protest too much, **roger**.
Could it not be that the term [Cognitive Dissonance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) (a well supported psychological phenomenon) actually describes _your_ state of mind due to [your own beliefs](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5290583&postcount=22), rather uncomfortably accurately?
---
### Author:  [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/51 "2004-09-28T11:11:05Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> I suspect you doth protest too much, **roger**.
>
> Could it not be that the term [Cognitive Dissonance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) (a well supported psychological phenomenon) actually describes _your_ state of mind due to [your own beliefs](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5290583&postcount=22), rather uncomfortably accurately?
Look, **Sentient** , couldn’t you have stayed in Amsterdam a few more days? It was all going swimmingly until you turned up.
---
### Author:  [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/52 "2004-09-28T11:47:26Z")
Heh heh, sorry **roger** - I have promised to cut you some slack and I should stick to it. It is just that you are clearly an intelligent chap in other respects, and CD _is_ the brain’s way of saying that something is logically “jarring”.
---
### Author:  [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)
#### Post date: [September 28, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277/53 "2004-09-28T13:37:04Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#):
>
> Heh heh, sorry **roger** - I have promised to cut you some slack and I should stick to it. It is just that you are clearly an intelligent chap in other respects, and CD _is_ the brain’s way of saying that something is logically “jarring”.
That break has obviously done you a lot of good, **Sentient**. I’m thinking of using this for my signature.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-cognitive-dissonance/266277.md?page=2)