Cognitive Dissonance

[Totenkindly]

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's discuss cognitive dissonance.

It's an idea that crystalized for me over much of the past year, I find it a fascinating topic.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas...

Lots of examples abound. An easy example:

A person believes that God will heal a loved one's sickness.
God doesn't.

Now hard questions are raised.
Is God loving?
Is God powerful?
Why didn't God do what they thought he would do?

Maybe one's concept of God was wrong.
But it can't be.
If the concept was wrong, then a lot of things would have to be rethought.

Therefore, there is temptation to come up with other reasons to resolve the difficulty so that the person won't have to change their thinking, and the dichotomy over "God wants to heal my friend" vs "God let my friend die" can be resolved with the least amount of stress and ambiguity.

So....
Maybe the friend sinned and thus was being punished.
Maybe people just didn't have enough faith or God would have pulled through.
Maybe God had some special plan that is even better in the long run than the friend's survival.
Lots of "reasons" are generated so that the original premises/opinion of God and what he should do doesn't have to change.

Or maybe someone thinks that gay marriages are bad for kids and "turns kids gay."
Then studies show the opposite. (Not saying they do, just saying, "What if the CW is wrong?")
Does the opinion change?
Or is it easier to generate reasons that can explain away the study without reconsidering the opinion?
(Perhaps the study was fradulent. Or it was run by gay people, so it must be biased. Or the families in question had other factors making them good. Or... whatever?)


So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?

What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?

Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?

Who pays the expense of the unwillingness to change?

I don't even have a particular idea in mind in terms of direction of the conversation, I'm just curious to see what others have to say about the topic and how it plays out in daily life and common society.

 

[Mole]

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's discuss cognitive dissonance.

It's an idea that crystalized for me over much of the past year, I find it a fascinating topic.



Lots of examples abound. An easy example:

A person believes that God will heal a loved one's sickness.
God doesn't.

Now hard questions are raised.
Is God loving?
Is God powerful?
Why didn't God do what they thought he would do?

Maybe one's concept of God was wrong.
But it can't be.
If the concept was wrong, then a lot of things would have to be rethought.

Therefore, there is temptation to come up with other reasons to resolve the difficulty so that the person won't have to change their thinking, and the dichotomy over "God wants to heal my friend" vs "God let my friend die" can be resolved with the least amount of stress and ambiguity.

So....
Maybe the friend sinned and thus was being punished.
Maybe people just didn't have enough faith or God would have pulled through.
Maybe God had some special plan that is even better in the long run than the friend's survival.
Lots of "reasons" are generated so that the original premises/opinion of God and what he should do doesn't have to change.

Or maybe someone thinks that gay marriages are bad for kids and "turns kids gay."
Then studies show the opposite. (Not saying they do, just saying, "What if the CW is wrong?")
Does the opinion change?
Or is it easier to generate reasons that can explain away the study without reconsidering the opinion?
(Perhaps the study was fradulent. Or it was run by gay people, so it must be biased. Or the families in question had other factors making them good. Or... whatever?)


So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?

What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?

Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?

Who pays the expense of the unwillingness to change?

I don't even have a particular idea in mind in terms of direction of the conversation, I'm just curious to see what others have to say about the topic and how it plays out in daily life and common society.

Why not discuss cognitive dissonance within MBTI. It's right here and right now - it is germane - it is pertinent.

Or is it too close to the bone?

 

[Totenkindly]

Why not discuss cognitive dissonance within MBTI. It's right here and right now - it is germane - it is pertinent. Or is it too close to the bone?

My only guideline would be to discuss things in ways that ultimately keep the conversation about cognitive dissonance rather than diverging into an argument about particular happenings elsewhere.

 

[Anja]

Here's one I deal with:

I like to believe that everyone has positive intentions. . .

 

[Didums]

So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?

What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?

Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?

Who pays the expense of the unwillingness to change?

I don't even have a particular idea in mind in terms of direction of the conversation, I'm just curious to see what others have to say about the topic and how it plays out in daily life and common society.

The human brain is rather inflexible once one's views are set in stone. People have some sort of irrational negative view of Change. For some reason, staying the same in one's ways has some sort of positive result in their brains, it doesn't want to have to radically change its wiring.

Also, if this is relevant in any way (the title of the vid is):

*NSFW - language*

Also, the thumbnail is deceiving, attention grabber, the vid is actually very interesting.

[youtube=y6Rv5KNQFu4]Cognitive Dissonance - TheAmazingAtheist from Youtube[/youtube]

 

[Xander]

"The reduction in cognitive dissonance" sounds like a title for an INTPs memoirs to me...

 

[cafe]

I don't understand why someone would believe God will heal their loved one, I guess. I see little evidence in the Bible or in life that God singles people out to exempt them from normal human suffering. Everybody dies. Often there is no apparent rhyme or reason to when and how they do. I believe the Spirit of God can comfort and guide us through life's difficulties, but I don't believe that he shields us from most of them.

 

[Domino]

I don't understand why someone would believe God will heal their loved one, I guess. I see little evidence in the Bible or in life that God singles people out to exempt them from normal human suffering. Everybody dies. Often there is no apparent rhyme or reason to when and how they do. I believe the Spirit of God can comfort and guide us through life's difficulties, but I don't believe that he shields us from most of them.

I'm afraid I've felt very misled by stories of healing in the Bible. I think that's what makes people want to believe in modern day reprieve, 11th hour rescues when all hope is gone.

 

[Anja]

I'm thinking, Pink, that the Bible addresses that specifically because that's how people instinctively like to think when all hope is gone.

People who are desperate are easy to motivate. . .

(You look so particularly muscle-y today, my dear.)

Might even go so far as to say you look "gluteus."

 

[cafe]

I'm afraid I've felt very misled by stories of healing in the Bible. I think that's what makes people want to believe in modern day reprieve, 11th hour rescues when all hope is gone.

*sigh* Yeah. Wanting to believe, hoping, and praying are good and I do believe that God still heals people, but I don't see any kind of pattern for it. It's kind of like winning the lottery.

IMO, a lot of the Evangelical faith healing/prosperity teachers have done a great deal of wrong in some of the ideas they have promoted. They only tend to focus on the good, but not the hardships. They speak as though it is a sign of faith to be healed, and it can be, but to me, it takes much more faith to trust in and serve God despite not being healed.

I wish there was more more balance in the things that get taught. Job was a good man, and God restored much of what he lost, but his older children were not resurrected. Ezekiel did not get his wife back. Most of Jesus' disciples are believe to have been murdered. Horrible things sometimes happen to wonderful people and sometimes wonderful things happen to horrible people. There some families where it's impossible to imagine how so much hardship seems to be piled upon them and others where they just seem to breeze through life with straight, white smiles and picket fences never disturbed.

 

[Ilah]

In my mind there are different types of cognative dissonance.

The two examples in the post are both examples of values v. logic. Or F v. T.

It is also possible to have values v. values dissonance. To merge your two examples: Say you believe strongly in gay rights, but you also believe strongly in your faith (as defined by your church) and your church says being gay is a sin. Which value do you go with?

Another type is logic v. logic. There are studies that say soy is great for our health and we should eat more of it. There are studies that say soy is bad and we should not eat it at all. Both arguments are presented logically and have scientific studies, which one do you choose?

The first type, in my mind is hardest because it forces you to choose between values and logic. Strong T/weak F would just abandon "illogical" values. Example: athiests who gave up their faith because it was not logical. Strong F/weak T would just ignore any logic or scientific evedence that contradicted their faith. This seems common in fundamentalist Christians. If your T and F are reasonably close, then you would work with the situation, adjusting values or logic or both till they fit. You might try out many different adjustments searching for something that is acceptable to you. It may be possible that you cannot make them both fit and have to give up one, but it is more of a last resort.

The second type can be a very angst ridden choice but it is more straighforward. Which of the two do you value the highest. You keep the one you value highest. The other one you either get rid or modify. In the above example, you might switch to a more liberal church, modifying your beliefs, but not abandoning them altogther.

The choice between two types of logic is not as emotional as a values choice. It can still be very distressing though, since unlike values, there is an expectation that truth is objective and therefor logical things should be compatible. Both agreements would be looked at logically and objectively to see which one is more likely to be true. There is more of a tendancy to completely reject one agrument than adjust them to accomidate both, although sometimes you can find something that works. For example you might conclude soy is good up to a certain amount, but bad in extreme high levels.

 

[Totenkindly]

... it takes much more faith to trust in and serve God despite not being healed.

That's what I believe too.

...Horrible things sometimes happen to wonderful people and sometimes wonderful things happen to horrible people. ...

My 13-year-old and I talked for some time over the weekend about abortion and capital punishment and religious beliefs trying to be implemented as law in our country, and that was one of the things I told him.... that essentially bad things still happen to good people and vice versa.

I could see him wrestling with that.
He has not had the experience yet, he's young.
But he will.

How does it get resolved in one's mind?
Can it be?

The human brain is rather inflexible once one's views are set in stone. People have some sort of irrational negative view of Change. For some reason, staying the same in one's ways has some sort of positive result in their brains, it doesn't want to have to radically change its wiring.

So you're saying it could have a neurological basis -- that some people simply do not form new connections/patterns neurologically in their brain / lay them down as quickly as others, or perhaps the process is not as psychologically painful (or perhaps there is a neurotransmitter REWARD for laying down new configurations or changing configurations for these people)? So that's why some persist and others do not? There could be physical reasons that drive the emotional ones?

(Rather like basic assembly code speaking straight to the hardware versus a high-level language like VB that operates on an abstracted level from the actual hardware, the latter being a frame that equates to a purely psychological explanation?)

Here's one I deal with:
I like to believe that everyone has positive intentions. . .

Did you say that for a good reason?

In any case, how do you determine when someone's intentions are not positive?

 

[Totenkindly]

Various strategies can be associated with cognitive dissonance.

One such strategy is hostility, where the anxiety/tension of being faced with contradictory thoughts is displaced on someone else who can then be "destroyed" and thus in a way destroying one of the dichotomous ideas.

This has happened with race relations (if the black person is attacked and/or destroyed, then they are no longer around to provide tangible evidence of that race being equal to white people).

Same thing with homosexuals and the "gay bashing" phenomena, preemptively or post. Displacing anger on the target group prevents any sort of relationship from occurring where the cognitive dissonance comes into play, potentially forcing a change. (Otherwise known as, "Hey, I know a gay person, and they're actually just like me! Now what do I do?") To protect the original idea from being challenged, the communication/relationship is circumvented up front.

 

[Ilah]

I changed my spiritual beliefs at around age 30. It was a really difficult, traumatic, angst ridden process.

On the other hand, I heard of people who have mid life religious converstions and potray the process very angst free - no doubts, no uncertainties, very comfortable with their new life, etc.

So you're saying it could have a neurological basis -- that some people simply do not form new connections/patterns neurologically in their brain / lay them down as quickly as others, or perhaps the process is not as psychologically painful (or perhaps there is a neurotransmitter REWARD for laying down new configurations or changing configurations for these people)? So that's why some persist and others do not? There could be physical reasons that drive the emotional ones?

(Rather like basic assembly code speaking straight to the hardware versus a high-level language like VB that operates on an abstracted level from the actual hardware, the latter being a frame that equates to a purely psychological explanation?)

 

[Anja]

...In any case, how do you determine when someone's intentions are not positive?

Thanks for asking, Jennifer. After posting, I thought it was interesting that that was the first thought about cognitive disonance which came to mind as I read. Perhaps no coincidence?

The answer to your question is that I cannot always determine that.

I like to believe, say in the case of child abuse, that parents are trying to do the best they can to raise a well-adjusted child, but they don't have the tools.

This gives me comfort because my homelife was wretched at times and it made it easier for me to heal from some of the things that happened to believe that my parents were doing the best they could.

Then I may read of an incident so diabolically sadistic that it shakes my belief that all are trying to do their best. But I still want to hang on to my generosity of spirit so there I sit wondering what to do with that clash between what I want to believe and what seems obviously opposite.

It's an existential dilemma. The ancient good/evil dichotomy. I prefer to use the words health and dis-ease.

Since I see that cafe reads the Bible, which I also do on occasion, I will borrow from it the best answer to your question I can manage. I often cannot tell what someone's intentions are but "by their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:16

I equate health with growth/internal order and disease with decay/internal and external chaos. So it's often after the fact that I can determine what is positive and what is negative. What consistently follows in the path of a person?

And, drat. Thinking as I type, you have truly created for me a question which throws me into cognitive disonance!

Perhaps the word "intention" is the hang-up. Because good intentions don't always produce good results.

I'm going to have to think further on this before I say more. Because I surely don't believe that mistakes are evil.

I do think it is in observation of a personal pattern than I determine what a person's intentions are.

____________________________________________________________

You say that one response to cognitive dissonance is hostility. May I swat you now?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Various strategies can be associated with cognitive dissonance.

One such strategy is hostility, where the anxiety/tension of being faced with contradictory thoughts is displaced on someone else who can then be "destroyed" and thus in a way destroying one of the dichotomous ideas.

Reducing cognitive dissonance might be a side effect of destroying the person (and destroying the evidence of contradiction) but really, I don't think that's why people do battle with each other. They fight because they're territorial and afraid of what will happen to them if they let their guard down.

 

[Mole]

Astrology, Astronomers and Cognitive Dissonance

No astronomer believes in astrology.

All astronomers know that astrology is untrue.

Yet hundreds of millions look up their horoscope every day.

This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Or is it?

In fact the hundreds of millions do not experience cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is painful, while reading your horoscope is pleasurable.

How can this possibly be explained?

Easy - cognitive dissonance is not experienced when the cognitive faculties are asleep.

And the cognitive faculties are asleep when you are in a trance.

So those who believe in astrology are in a trance.

And even an astronomer can't wake them up.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

No astronomer believes in astrology.

All astronomers know that astrology is untrue.

Yet hundreds of millions look up their horoscope every day.

This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Or is it?

Is it even true?

In fact the hundreds of millions do not experience cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is painful, while reading your horoscope is pleasurable.

How can this possibly be explained?

Easy - cognitive dissonance is not experienced when the cognitive faculties are asleep.

And the cognitive faculties are asleep when you are in a trance.

So those who believe in astrology are in a trance.

I don't believe in astrology either, but your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises, and if you think it does, then I'd like to see how, from those premises.

Second, what you're saying is still problematic, because even if what you're saying is true, the astronomers would "wake up" from their trace when they were not thinking about astrology. At that point, assuming they still believed in astrology, they would experience cognitive dissonance. The alternative, which is interesting, is that when they're back to work, they don't hold astrology in the same regard. It raises the possibility/theory that ideas are maintained in relation to their environment, in other words, when I'm at work, I stop believing in this and believe strongly in that, and when I leave work, I suspend belief in that and embrace this. That actually makes some sense to me.

 

[Totenkindly]

In fact the hundreds of millions do not experience cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is painful, while reading your horoscope is pleasurable.

I'm not sure that everyone reads horoscopes because they actually believe tangibly it's true.

What seems to occur is that people use their daily read more as a focal point -- an arbitrary angle by which to view the world for that day, much as someone else would read a Bible passage or an inspirational quote.

So when I pick a fortune at random here from my little wall mount (let's say, "He who seeks will find"), that thought is now consciously in my mind until my next horoscope, and today I will look at the world in terms of seeking and finding. Tomorrow I will focus on something else. It's not an actual prediction to be potentially falsified or not, it's just a way of seeing the world for a time.

Now I will qualify what I just said -- it's probably not that clear-cut, most people seem to be a mix of both the practical that I just described as well as wishful (sort of like when you play the lottery and HOPE that you'll win, although you know damn well you are not going to... yet you trick yourself consciously into doing it just because you want to). Horoscopes seem to be similar -- there's still a little hope that the fortune you got will come true, even if you know it's not going to happen... because it makes you feel like something good can happen to you even if it's unlikely, and there's some purpose to things.

So I don't tend to see horoscopes in terms of cognitive dissonance, except for the rabid astrologers who, like those who believe in UFOs, or some sort of inevitable "wait on the mountain top" second coming of a religion figure, have their expectations publicly and severely dashed and now have to deal with the incongruity.

Reducing cognitive dissonance might be a side effect of destroying the person (and destroying the evidence of contradiction) but really, I don't think that's why people do battle with each other. They fight because they're territorial and afraid of what will happen to them if they let their guard down.

You're right in that what you suggest is probably of more direct import -- pure survival and wanting to avoid harm. What I described is just layered into it.

 

[Totenkindly]

I changed my spiritual beliefs at around age 30. It was a really difficult, traumatic, angst ridden process.

So why did you feel your spiritual beliefs had to change? (If you want to talk about it.)

If it was painful, you must have felt like you had good reason to make that modification in order for you to proceed.

On the other hand, I heard of people who have mid life religious conversions and portray the process very angst free - no doubts, no uncertainties, very comfortable with their new life, etc.

Some of them seem to be more impulsive, but I've heard of others who just flipped like a switch. I wonder what happened internally. Was there really dissonance there? Or what is more like an expansion of what they already believed at some level, and the religious thought merely fleshed it out or added to it in some way?

(I think that happens, where people run into a religion or see an old religion in a new way that they immediately recognize as an extension/expansion/clarification of what they already believe... so there is nothing to change and it's like "going home.")