Page 1 of 1
"Harm Reduction" based arguments and cognitive dissonance
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:34 am
by PorcelainLark
An issue with harm reduction based arguments:
A frequent argument brought up is that the stigma against MAPs leads to more abuse because MAPs are less likely to seek therapy. However, I think because those kinds of arguments accept the premise that MAPs are bad, it causes cognitive dissonance. A person believes that MAPs are bad, but destigmatizing MAPs is at odds with that belief, so they end up rejecting the idea you should destigmatize MAPs even if, logically speaking, the outcome would be beneficial from their own perspective.
I think if we want to be more effective in our arguments we need be careful to try to avoid causing cognitive dissonance in others, which may mean shifting away from harm reduction arguments and towards challenging the underlying view that AMSC is bad.
However, if there's a way to make the harm reduction arguments without potentially causing cognitive dissonance, I'd be interested to hear it.
Re: "Harm Reduction" based arguments and cognitive dissonance
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2024 5:58 am
by Fragment
I totally agree. I'm opposed to a harm prevention narrative for that very reason.
That said, I think a more empowering narrative is one of self-mastery. Therapy can help you get in touch with your feelings better so you are able to make better decisions. You can better analyse your feelings towards minors and adopt healthier thought patterns that inform your relationship with yourself and with others.
I think one of the most damaging messages in MAP therapy discourse is the idea that MAPs should stay away from minors. I see this as bad not only in terms of MAP self-esteem, but even from a self-mastery point of view. It basically says "you can't be trusted", while simultaneously pushing MAPs towards objectifying kids rather than seeing them as "just another human". MAPs shouldn't be seeing minors as something "distant" or "unobtainable" or otherwise mystifying them. That to me seems harmful not only to the MAPs, but having the potential to lead to harmful behavior.
Therapy definitely shouldn't be bringing in ethical claims, either. "I'll help you to avoid illegal behavior" should be enough. "I'll help you to avoid harming kids" is not a positive message.
Sorry for the slight stream of consciousness response.
Re: "Harm Reduction" based arguments and cognitive dissonance
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2024 3:17 am
by Nix
After reading, your views appear to me to be very logical and sound. Just expressing my opinion.
Re: "Harm Reduction" based arguments and cognitive dissonance
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2024 12:55 pm
by BLueRibbon
PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2024 3:34 am
I think if we want to be more effective in our arguments we need be careful to try to avoid causing cognitive dissonance in others, which may mean shifting away from harm reduction arguments and towards challenging the underlying view that AMSC is bad.
This is one of the key points of the Pro-Reform framework.
Many of our detractors believe that, without treatment, we will all eventually act on our feelings, and that we will cause harm by doing so, either through the use of PIM or by engaging in AMSC. While it is not correct that PIM always depict AMSC, and the argument that every instance of viewing AMSC contributes to the abuse of a child is incredibly illogical in itself, all arguments against PIM (except for religious nonsense) have absolutely no basis if we can successfully argue that AMSC is not inherently harmful. Of more importance, if AMSC were accepted as a potentially positive experience, much like AASC and MMSC, the argument that non-offenders are nothing better than ticking time bombs would be of no use either. In fact, the 'ticking time bomb' argument could only be used to support my argument that MAPs should not be pushed into dangerous behavior by unnecessarily harsh social and legal structures.
Every argument against non-contact MAPs is predicated on the belief that 'pro-contact' MAPs are fighting against: the idea that AMSC is harmful. And with their staunch position against AMSC, NOMAPs are now at a point where the inflexibility of their position is shooting themselves in the foot. The anti-contact lobby needs to adopt a more moderate position.
Essay link in signature.
Re: "Harm Reduction" based arguments and cognitive dissonance
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2024 5:17 pm
by PorcelainLark
BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 12:55 pm
This is one of the key points of the Pro-Reform framework.
I had in mind the process of persuading non-MAPs to be sympathetic to our perspective. Initially I was going to call this thread "Getting non-MAPs more invested in the MAP cause", with more of a focus on why arguing from a negative position seems to have it's limitations. Another title I was thinking of using was "Defensive arguments and Cognitive Dissonance", because I was hoping to show that defensive arguments cause cognitive dissonance, e.g.
Drugs are bad;
banning drugs leads to more drug use;
therefore drugs should be decriminalized.
The person who believes drugs are bad would find the idea of decriminalization incongruent with that belief, even if, strictly speaking, it's logical. So paradoxically, by trying to compromise or find common ground, you may be less likely to change a person's mind.
I was kind of inspired by the following article (although on the face of it, it would appear to argue the opposite). I think you have to appeal to something people value more highly than desexualizing children. Maybe the extent to which those beliefs contradicts personal/first-hand experience?
Article:
Cognitive Dissonance, or why it’s so hard to persuade people with facts
https://jitha.me/cognitive-dissonance/
Re: "Harm Reduction" based arguments and cognitive dissonance
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2024 4:24 am
by ZVOTD
I agree with you on this.
Also, I am a little bit skeptical when it comes to therapy. Therapy can be good if it is used to help us get through our issues and live a normal life without changing who we are, but I am completely against it if it views what we are as "bad" and tries to change us to something we are not. As of now I have no intention of doing therapy myself. Therapy has not worked at all in other areas of my life so I doubt it would work in this one too.
Re: "Harm Reduction" based arguments and cognitive dissonance
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2024 5:15 am
by Fragment
Most therapy done nowadays is some variant of CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) which is based on the idea that you have wrong thoughts that need to be adjusted. If you do have irrational thoughts “I can’t do x because of y” then it can help break down barriers to allow you to do it.
But when those barriers are real and not just mental… lt can just be frustrating.