Save All the Puppies Act
In a blogpost entitled Nationwide Mental Health Crisis? I stated:
Policy such as a hypothetical Save All the Puppies Act may sound pleasing. Who would be opposed to such a thing? Still, looking beyond catchy titles designed to activate emotion or provoke a sense of urgency may be useful when assessing the urgency of a mental health crisis.
Regarding that blog entry, I critiqued a trend by which government authority figures use the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion in order to usher through legislation which is sometimes of a detrimental nature to civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution.
Using titles about which people maintain irrational beliefs, bills may be passed by legislators who likely don’t want to explain to their constituents why something like a Save All the Puppies Act wasn’t voted for. Vote for the Act or puppies will die!
Would you want to justify your actions for not having voted for the Act when the death of puppies was at stake? Keep in mind that members of society would likely hold you accountable during the next election cycle if such was the case.
Motivated reasoning
To better understand the mechanism underlying this cagey sociopolitical behavior, it may be useful to know about motivated reasoning. According to one source:
Motivated reasoning (motivational reasoning bias) is a cognitive and social response in which individuals, consciously or sub-consciously, allow emotion-loaded motivational biases to affect how new information is perceived. Individuals tend to favor evidence that coincides with their current beliefs and reject new information that contradicts them, despite contrary evidence.
Suppose that the main proposal of the Act was to prevent puppies in shelters from being euthanized, strictly defining puppy as a canine from one-day to one-week old. Additionally, the Act contained a clause to donate $100 billion to a foreign nation’s defense fund.
Proponents of the Act may be motivated by emotionally-loaded motivational bias to do what they think is morally good action by saving puppies while also helping a foreign nation. Therefore, proponents refuse to hear arguments of opponents to the Act.
Regarding this matter, one source suggests, “Changing one’s mind and changing one’s lifestyle are hard work; people prefer mental shortcuts—in this case, having the goal fit their ready-made conclusions.” It may be unpleasant for proponents of the Act to hear rational arguments against their position.
For instance, opponents of the Act may accurately highlight that the United States (U.S.) has $34,554,311,451,753 in national debt (per one source and at the time this post is drafted). Although puppies and foreign aid may be important, so are human lives in this nation, they argue.
While one source maintains that “it is important to note that attitudes can and do change in response to new information,” suppose proponents to the Act willfully refuse to change their minds. Can anything be done to influence people who use motivated reasoning?
One source frankly states that “people see what they want to see and they are relatively immune to contradictory evidence.” When practicing Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) with clients, I tend to encounter this form of irrationality quite a bit.
For some people, no matter how ardently I dispute irrational beliefs, a number of individuals absolutely refuse to let go of motivated reasoning. In general terms, reasoning processes are influenced by motivations and goals.
When referencing motivations, I mean the reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way. Not always are these motivations based in logic or reason. Using a modus ponens syllogism, here’s what a proponent of the Act may conclude:
Form – If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example – If you’re a good person, then you’ll support efforts to save puppies and offer foreign aid. I’m a good person. Therefore, I’ll support efforts to save puppies and offer foreign aid
The flaw in logic occurs with a premise based on morality and not objective evidence. How does one measure what “good” is, aside from saving puppies and giving away money?
Although motivation regarding a proponent of the Act may be accepted by in-group members who also support similar efforts, reasoning processes influenced by emotions aren’t logical or reasonable. The other influential factor of reasoning processes relates to goals.
In simplest terms, a goal is the end toward which effort is directed. A proponent of the Act irrationally determines that “good” people support efforts to save puppies and offer foreign aid. Therefore, the goal relates to steps taken to save puppies and distribute money.
For instance, the U.S. may issue a mandate to all shelters within the nation, requiring that puppies within a specified criterion be saved from euthanasia. As well, our country may incrementally send money to a foreign nation until the proposed $100 billion is donated.
Regarding motivations and goals, one source clarifies:
Motivations are desired end-states that individuals want to achieve. The number of these goals that have been theorized is numerous, but political scientists have focused principally on two broad categories of motivations: accuracy motivations (the desire to be “right” or “correct”) and directional or defensive motivations (the desire to protect or bolster a predetermined attitude or identity).
To better understand the mechanism underlying this cunning sociopolitical behavior, whereby politicians may vote on the Act in accordance with constituents of a proponent majority, it’s useful to know about what people consider “right” or “correct,” and how they’ll protect moral imperatives.
Kids Online Safety Act
Setting aside the fictional Save All the Puppies Act, I now turn to the Kids Online Safety Act – an actual legislative element that functions on the basis of motivated reasoning. According to one source:
The “Kids Online Safety Act” (KOSA) is a bill introduced in the United States Senate by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D‑CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R‑TN) in February 2022 and reintroduced in May 2023; the bill establishes guidelines meant to protect minors on social media platforms. The bill charges individual state attorneys general with enforcing the bill. The bill has been criticized by civil rights organizations for potentially enabling censorship, including of material important to marginalized groups.
Who would be opposed to something as seemingly banal sounding and intentioned as the Kids Online Safety Act? Per Senator Blumenthal’s webpage:
The bipartisan Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which is supported by over half of the U.S. Senate, provides young people and parents with the tools, safeguards, and transparency they need to protect against online harms. The bill requires social media platforms to put the well-being of children first by providing an environment that is safe by default.
Protection against harms? Which harms? What protections? Putting the well-being of children first? With infringement upon which civil liberties? Provision of a safe environment? Isn’t this the same concept as safetyism?
I’d thought that KOSA lay dormant until a couple days ago when one source reported, “With new changes to strengthen the bill and growing support, we should seize this moment to take action.” In the statement, motivated reasoning was paired with demandingness.
The use of should, must, and ought-type narratives often facilitate the process of irrational self-disturbance. In specific, this occurs when one rigidly demands what should or shouldn’t be the case.
While I’ve little doubt that those who champion KOSA are well-intentioned, because they likely have a desire to be “right” or “correct” while also desiring to protect or bolster predetermined attitudes about children, I reject their motivated reasoning on the same basis as outlined for the Save All the Puppies Act.
It’s not the role of the federal government to trample protections enshrined in the Constitution. Even if people irrationally believe that measures such as KOSA are necessary components to chip away at the First Amendment, I emphatically disagree.
To be exceedingly clear, when Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S. Ketanji Brown Jackson recently stated that “the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways” was a possibility, I posit that the purpose of the First Amendment is to do just that.
Conclusion
I once proposed a hypothetical Save All the Puppies Act to illustrate how seemingly mundane U.S. government proposed legislation actually functions. At times, based on irrational appeals to emotion, these acts can have detrimental consequences once passed.
Herein, I’ve highlighted how motivated reasoning often underlies questionable sociopolitical behavior in this regard. Emphasizing how motivations and goals interplay with emotion-loaded motivational biases, I used logic and reason to demonstrate the problem with this form of irrationality.
I then addressed the Kids Online Safety Act, which uses similar motivated reasoning to garner support from bipartisan actors. As well, I provided evidence of the First Amendment to counter emotionality and demandingness associated with KOSA.
Nevertheless, I maintain a flexible perspective, because I understand that no matter how passionately I dispute irrational beliefs, a number of individuals absolutely refuse to let go of motivated reasoning. Therefore, I unconditionally accept that some people behave in a ridiculous fashion.
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Binion, B. (2024, March 19). ‘Hamstringing the government’: A viral narrative distorts Ketanji Brown Jackson’s understanding of free speech. Reason. Retrieved from https://reason.com/2024/03/19/hamstringing-the-government-a-viral-narrative-distorts-ketanji-brown-jacksons-understanding-of-free-speech/
Blumenthal, R. (n.d.). Kids Online Safety Act. Richard Blumenthal U.S. Senator for Connecticut. Retrieved from https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/about/issues/kids-online-safety-act
Federal Trade Commission. (2018, May). Scams and your small business: A guide for business. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/scams-your-small-business-guide-business
Gadde, S. (2024, March 10). Kid sit infront of study table [Image]. Playground. Retrieved from https://playground.com/post/kid-sit-infront-of-study-table--cltl7yc8508fis601qz4qf450
Gingrich, C. (2024, April 11). Time to pass the Kids Online Safety Act. Newsmax. Retrieved from https://www.newsmax.com/callistagingrich/social-platforms-zuckerberg/2024/04/11/id/1160621/
Haas, I. J. (2016). Political neuroscience. Neuroimaging Personality, Social Cognition, and Character. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/motivated-reasoning
Hollings, D. (2023, October 14). Appeal to emotion. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/appeal-to-emotion
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Blog – Categories: Disputation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/blog/categories/disputation
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2024, April 13). Goals. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/goals
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2022, June 29). Nationwide mental health crisis? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nationwide-mental-health-crisis
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, January 4). Rigid vs. rigorous. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rigid-vs-rigorous
Hollings, D. (2024, April 1). Safetyism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/safetyism
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2022, July 11). Unconditional acceptance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unconditional-acceptance
Leeper, T. J. and Mullinix, K. J. (2018, February 22). Motivated reasoning. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0237.xml
Peter G. Peterson Foundation. (n.d.). What is the national debt today? Retrieved from https://www.pgpf.org/national-debt-clock
Psychology Today. (n.d.). Motivated reasoning. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/motivated-reasoning
Smith, N. & Leisetowitz, A. (2014, May). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4298023/
Vaeni, B. (2019). Mitigating motivated bias. Center for Faculty Excellence, United States Military Academy, West Point. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/usma-media/inline-images/centers_research/center_for_teching_excellence/PDFs/mtp_project_papers/2019_papers/Vaeni_19.pdf
Wikipedia. (n.d.). In-group and out-group. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Ketanji Brown Jackson. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Kids Online Safety Act. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Online_Safety_Act
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Marsha Blackburn. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha_Blackburn
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Motivated reasoning. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Richard Blumenthal. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Blumenthal