We're looking for passionate and enthusiastic individual to be the Guide to the Animal Rights site of About.com!
What sort of information do we want the new Guide to provide?
Well, we're looking for someone to help keep the public informed about major animal rights issues, both in the United States and throughout the world. Since we are not a breaking news service, content should primarily provide deep background and perspective on major animal rights issues and current events. The site should also be action-oriented in giving readers constructive ways in which they can get involved.
What sort of person are we looking for to be the new Guide to Animal Rights?
Our ideal candidate:
- A journalist or author who has written extensively on the subject
- An experienced member or leader from an advocacy group who can address a broad spectrum of issues evenhandedly
If this sounds like you, and you've got excellent writing skills and the desire to reach and teach a broad audience through your writing, why not
go over to our application site to learn more about our hiring program and submit an application?
I heard an interesting story on NPR's Science Friday today. The guest was Elliot Aronson, a social psychologist who has co-written a new book, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). The theory is that human brains (regardless of cultural or gender differences) are hard-wired to reduce cognitive dissonance and increase pleasure. This means that people internally "self-justify" their choices, even if they are given information that proves their choices are wrong. This seems to be especially true if their choices are harmful to others.
In an excerpt on the NPR website, Aronson writes: “Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent, such as ‘Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill me’ and ‘I smoke two packs a day.’ Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don't rest easy until they find a way to reduce it.” Unfortunately, for many people, reducing cognitive dissonance doesn’t mean making a change but rather justifying the status quo.
This is discouraging for people trying to encourage social change, such as animal rights. For example, the brains of people who eat meat are predisposed to discounting pro-vegetarian messages -- even irrefutable evidence about the mistreatment of farm animals and the health consequences of the Standard American Diet -- to "protect" the person from feeling torn about their personal choices. In essence, the brain "turns off" its analytical centers so it doesn't have to process this information that is creating a conflict, which is not pleasurable. This is all done subconsciously.
Clearly, not everyone blocks out all conflicting information, or nothing would ever change. It would be interesting to see how the brains of people who do transition to vegetarianism (and other pro-animal behaviors) look in comparison to those who justify eating meat (or other behaviors harmful to animals). Perhaps this would give us some clues to being more successful at effecting social change.
