beastie wrote:Mr. Liddy owns a department store that specializes in electronics, Liddy’s Department Store. Mr. Liddy ran a splashy ad advertising the sale of a high definition TV for a very low price. Five customers purchased the TV.
Customer A purchased the TV, took it home, hooked it up. After a few days, he became suspicious of the quality and began wondering if it really were a high definition TV after all. He did some investigation into the product, and discovered that it really wasn’t a high definition TV after all. He had bought a standard TV, believing it to be a high definition TV. He was angry about being deceived. He returned to the store and demanded his money back. But Mr. Liddy would not admit that this was a standard TV, and implied that Customer A was trying to pull off a scam. Customer A clearly either just changed his mind and was trying to blame Mr. Liddy, or Customer A was an agitator from the competition, or Customer A was mentally unbalanced. Mr. Liddy didn’t know which, but he wasn’t going to allow Customer A to cheat Mr. Liddy, so he refused to give him a refund. Customer A is now even angrier. He is filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, is telling all his friends and neighbors not to shop at Liddy’s Department Store, and is writing a letter to the editor of the paper warning others. He may even file a lawsuit.
Customer B purchased the TV, took it home, hooked it up, and enjoyed it. Of course, Customer B doesn’t know anything about High Definition TV other than it was The Thing to have, so he didn’t become suspicious from the poor picture quality. Customer B still believes he purchased a high definition TV.
Customer C didn’t actually purchase the TV, but his parents gave it to him as a hand-me-down. He knows enough about high definition to recognize that even though his parents believed it was a high definition TV, it really is a regular standard TV. But he didn’t invest any money or time in it, so he doesn’t really care. He’ll just use it as a regular old TV.
Customer D purchased the TV, took it home, and also realized it wasn’t a high definition TV. It was a standard TV. But customer D is Mr. Liddy’s cousin, and to make a fuss would cause a family problem. He grew up with Mr. Liddy and considers him his friend. He doesn’t believe Mr. Liddy would intentionally deceive him, either, so isn’t really mad. He just tries to shrug it off and enjoy it as a regular TV.
Customer E purchased the TV, took it home, and also realized it wasn’t a high definition TV. It was a standard TV. But Customer E happens to be a spinster who is deeply in love with Mr. Liddy and fantasizes about him noticing her one day and falling in love with her, too. Maybe even marrying her. Customer E not only accepts that Mr. Liddy wasn’t intentionally deceiving her, but convinces herself that the TV she actually has is far superior to a High Definition TV anyway, and is really happy about the situation.
Now, is Customer A suffering from “cognitive distortions”?
The only way to know is to know two things:
1) Is the TV a high definition TV or a standard TV?
2) If it is a standard TV after all, did Mr. Liddy knowingly deceive Customer A?
Whether or not Customer A is suffering from a cognitive distortion in his anger depends entirely upon number 1. How he will proceed later, in terms of filing lawsuits or whatever, depends upon number 2.
Assuming that the TV really is a standard TV after all, then not only is Customer A justified in his anger, but even if Mr. Liddy unknowingly sold him a standard TV as a high definition TV, it is Mr. Liddy’s responsibility to provide accurate information to the public before enticing people to buy his product.
Now imagine that the purchase of the product didn’t just result in some inconvenience and lost dollars. Imagine the purchase of the “product” entailed making every subsequent life decision based on the belief that the product was what it had been advertised to be. Imagine the possible losses incurred then.
So the dynamic of loss and hurt can only be resolved by first resolving what kind of TV was purchased in the first place. Pretending that doesn’t matter might even be called a cognitive distortion.
This is an interesting, though still "who is Right" focused, and thus irrelevant, scenerio. Perhaps we can address it once we come to a consensus on the WORKABLE solution to the relevant scenerio. Better yet, perhaps you can take this scenerio to the "Venting" thread where it is relevant.
(Here we are closing in on page three of this thread and Beastie and Who Knows still haven't got a clue. Oh well...)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-