Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs

Hi Straggler, It should be relatively obvious to anyone reading the whole thread (it is to me) that everyone operates with a degree of cognitive dissonance, that it is essentially unavoidable -- the questions are: (1) what is the degree of dissonance being experienced and (2) how firmly are the beliefs being held. This can range from mild discomfort (see Panda above) to severe emotional trauma (epiphany moments).This is because we each and everyone have a worldview that differs from everyone else's, sometimes to large degrees and sometimes to small degrees. Large degrees cause greater cognitive dissonance when they are compared\contrasted one to the other.These individual worldviews are also embedded in cultural and national worldviews, and these can serve to reinforce individual worldviews, even when those individual views are in direct conflict with contrary information from objective empirical evidence (ie young earth views).analogyYou can think of your personal worldview as a cell membrane with your cognitive dissonance as a filter for information entering the cell -- it readily permits information that it thinks is confirmatory\favorable\benign to existing beliefs opinions and knowledge, but it tries to keep what it feels is contrary\disturbing\inimical information outside. In this analogy the cultural and national worldviews become similar to multicellular organisms working together.Personally I believe this process is evolving into a more international, interspecies worldview, but that we still have a long way to go in this regard (there are still some very tribal centric people in the world, and not just in the middle east).The key here is to learn to recognize the symptoms in your own arguments and to try to use a more open-minded skeptical approach to alternate explanations and information.Enjoy.

Thanks Dr Adequate, My personal opinion on this one is that the 9/11 attack was not so much an attack on the US as it was on the world economic capitalist system (it was the World Trade Center after all -- full of international business offices and foreign company workers), and that the overall effect of the attack was really rather minimal to the US people (there was more damage done by Bush and "Fear Inc" than by the actual attack). In addition profiling doesn't stop the homegrown terrorists from Timothy McVay to abortion doctor killing fundamentalists. My resolution is that the government over-reacted (in many ways including invading Iraq ...).Another one to look at is immigration.Principle 1: It is bad to immigrate illegally especially when people are waiting to do it legally
Principle 2: Farmers and factories need immigrant labor to meet their production needs, preferably with low pay workers
Solution: temporary work cards or some kind of "work to citizenship" program that would sign people up to work say 4 years, and learn english and get a GED in night school, with cit test at the end. Agreed, as we have shifted to the center (abandoned by the GOP) for fiscal responsibility and still hold on to principles of social justice the emphasis is more on a blend of socialism with a capitalist democracy, including a more just tax system, such as we see working in other countries -- particularly on things like universal single payer medicare and social security.This biggest threat I see to the US is the still growing corporate anarchistic hegemony takeover of government, using jingoist propaganda and actively seeking to lower the economy for the middle and lower classes. Companies becoming more like independent medieval city states and people becoming (if not already) peasants.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi Straggler,Again, not sure we need to revisit old arguments ... No surprise? Really? No effect at all?And yet, for the record, you could not let the discussion go (and still can't?), perhaps because your "resolution" is such a strong conviction that you are correct that you don't need to change ... but you have a nagging discomfort ...? So you are saying that the dissonance caused by the disagreement between us doesn't apply to you because you assign it all to me? -- aren't you excusing your part of the disagreement as justified by my apparent dissonance, thus maintaining your (notably) firm belief that you are correct? Is this not the first defense of cognitive dissonance? Again, everyone is "suffering" -- subject to cognitive dissonance -- it is unavoidable because no two minds are alike. The question is one of degree. Or do you deny this as well?It seems you ignored the whole cell analogy -- to turn the discussion back to one of your pet peeves, something that seems to disturb you, that you can't seem to let go -- why is that?Let me suggest that this discussion not disrupt this thread further, but that if you do want to pursue it further, we can have a new thread just to discuss your dissonant behavior ...Enjoy

Please Straggler, I do not want another long drawn out pointless wasting of a thread.I am just out from 5 days of 24 hr chemo, I am tired rundown and sore.(1) This thread is not specific to people but to groups of people (cultural beliefs)(2) There are a bunch of factors listed before getting to pseudoskepticism, and you apparently have not had any issue with them.(3) When I raised pseudoskeptics I specifically said it was to focus on a different aspect than the previous thread: bold addedNow do you, or do you not, agree that the behavior highlighted in color is consistent with cognitive dissonance and that this can and does define a subclass of skeptics (rather than individuals, and who is or isn't one)?If you agree then that is all that is needed here, and all I am concerned with at this time.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : hr

Hi Dr Adequate Or a way of modifying one of the two to reduce to dissonance. That is one example of many forms of Cognitive Dissonance. In other words, you don't understand my argument and thus assume that I am wrong and are impelled to imply this is often the case ...Enjoy.

Here's one we should all be familiar with:The sports fan:Every year is convinced that "this year .... " (fill in the blank sports team) " ... will win ... (fill in top award in sport in question).Then invests lots of time watching TV ... talking and sometimes bizarre behavior ... as if their support will make a difference.and more often than not, it is just another year in a string of years where it just doesn't happen.Enjoy.

Hi bluegenes,You appear to have missed that the topic is NOT about individuals, but about groups of individuals. The sports fan is a member of a group of sport fans, they can seek confirmation of their beliefs in their teams success with other sports fans, and thus reduce dissonance.Your examples, while CD, are not groups of people, hence off topic.Enjoy.

What a lot of people are ignoring in this discussion of cognitive dissonance is that there are protective insulation behaviors associated with coming into contact with dissonant information.Everybody believes they are rational beings and do not have any dissonance with reality, this is what their worldviews tell them.To protect them from information that this may not be the case, they have an insulating barrier.The average creationist avoids boards like this, the average atheist avoids going to church regularly, the average politician avoids fact checking his political adds, etc etc etc.These avoidance\insulation mechanisms\behaviors are also listed in part within the wiki article.Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the discomfort felt by a person seeking to hold two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1] The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology purposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] An example of this would be the conflict between wanting to smoke and knowing that smoking is unhealthy; a person may try to change their feelings about the odds that they will actually suffer the consequences, or they might add the consonant element that the short term benefits of smoking outweigh the long term harm. The need to avoid cognitive dissonance may bias one towards a certain decision even though other factors favour an alternative.[2]

​

Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. According to Festinger, we engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which he said could be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[5] This bias gives the theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior.
...
Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.

---

color used for emphasisPeople experiencing surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment should certainly suspect that they are confronting dissonant information, but what about other behaviors? What about annoyance?The predictive power of the theory also means that recognizing that the existence of certain avoidance\insulation mechanisms\behaviors can predict that conflict is in place.So what are these avoidance\insulation mechanisms\behaviors?The three specifically mentioned in the article are:

1. lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors,
2. adding consonant elements, or
3. changing one of the dissonant factors.

Note that #3 needs to be divided into two parts, (3A) changing the dissonant information coming in or (3B) changing the dissonant belief/s you hold, the only way dissonance is truly resolved when the new information is valid. For this section we will be discussing (3A) - changing the new dissonant information coming in:3A. How does one change the new dissonant information coming in?A couple of ways are:

1. show that it actually is erroneous (the objective empirical evidence shows that the age of the earth is over 4.5 billion years, not mere thousands), or
2. decide that it is not that important to you (the cigarette smoker in the article).

2. How does one add consonant elements?One can:

1. seek out new information (note that this can actually reduce dissonance in favor of your belief if done in an unbiased open minded way, so this is similar to 3B), or
2. use confirmation bias, to cherry pick new evidence that appears to support your beliefs (while ignoring dissonant information).

1. How does one lower the importance of one of the discordant factors?There are several ways, imho:

1. disbelief\rejection of dissonant information (ie - the fox\grapes)
2. misperception of the information (not understanding it properly)
3. avoiding situations where dissonant information is likely to be encountered
4. reducing the importance of the messenger/s (and by implication the message)
5. seeking confirmation bias from other people with beliefs similar to your own to make your beliefs seem more important than the dissonant information (the cult believers in the article)
6. lowering the importance of one of your beliefs (again, like 3B a valid way to reduce dissonance).

Feel free to add to any of the above.Summary: how can one tell if one has cognitive dissonance?Rather obviously, imhysao, if one is displaying surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment or any of these avoidance\insulation mechanisms\behaviors they should at least suspect that they are experiencing cognitive dissonance in some form or other, from mild discomfort to great annoyance. Note that the level of discomfort can be related to the thickness of the avoidance\insulation barrier as well as to the degree of dissonance between belief and new information.Curiously, there is a well known quote from Richard Dawkins that I think applies here:Page not found | Free Inquiry

quote:

---

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

---

He says the largest group is ignorant, and that it isn't a crime or a put-down, because it is curable, people can learn. He also goes on to say:

quote:

---

I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed.

---

Elsewhere I have characterized this last group as deluded, people misinformed by people they trust to tell them the truth. That gives us these categories:

1. stupid - cannot understand the issue
2. ignorant - unaware of the issue
3. deluded - misinformed about the issue
4. insane - not in touch with reality, unable to deal with the issue rationally
5. wicked - purposefully lying about the issue

There is one other category that I could add, but I will come to that.One thing to note about #1-stupid and #2-ignorant, is that there is a curious behavior in some people that are otherwise quite intelligent, but apparently not deluded, insane or wicked: they just seem to be unable to grasp a point in debating an issue, as if they have some kind of selective stupidity. This could be due to under-education - ignorance - of a technical topic, but this does not always seem to be the case, especially when the issue is non-technical. This is sometimes labeled "willful ignorance" as it appears that they willfully choose to remain ignorant.So, could this not really be a sign of (unconscious) cognitive dissonance affecting their behavior, rather than it being a willful action? I so believe.I also believe that anyone that does not believe they are personally affected by cognitive dissonance is either:

1. stupid - cannot understand the issue/s
2. ignorant - unaware of the issue/s
3. deluded - misinformed about the issue/s
4. insane - not in touch with reality, unable to deal with the issue/s rationally
5. wicked - purposefully lying about the issue/s.

And here I add the 6th:

6. omniscient - knows the truth about everything.

Now I certainly don't claim to be omniscient, and am willing to recognize that I do have some cognitive dissonance on some issues. For instance, I recognize that my belief in the possibility of god/s is at odds with the logic that says the only deductively rational position is agnostic, that anything else relies on guess\opinion\bias\hunch\conjecture, and I reduce this conflict by tending to be an agnostic leaning deist with an open-minded skepticism, and that I choose to guess in favor of god/s because of my worldview bias.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : formatEdited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : one last time?

Hi bluegenes and others, Yes the intent is to discuss group cognitive dissonance, and you can go from one example to infer behavior of the group, but you will miss some of the group reinforcement that makes the group behavior different from the individual.I'm glad you recognize the sports fan as part of a group. This is also seen in the behavior of the cult in the article, where the group took a course that individuals may not have taken. I think it helps\helped to recognize certain behaviors that are associated with CD, and possibly help others see it in their own behavior as well.But once we recognize CD in an individual case we then need to bring it into a group setting to remain on topic. I've posted (Message 66) how to recognize it in oneself and in others as a guide to the first part here.I'm open to discussion of how to recognize it as a practical means of identifying it in people, and then associating it with group behavior, what the group is, and how being in a group alters the behavior. I'd like to end up with a list for group behavior mechanisms that would then help predict CD behavior better than just individual behavior indicators (ie - why some creationists leave after a few rounds for instance - where do they go? and why do they often not return?)Personally I think the group behavior is the more important indicator of behavior than an individual per se, but that is just my opinion at this point. It is also why I want to discuss\investigate the group aspect over the individual at this time.At this point in time the one thing I see different in a group, is reinforcement of the behavior by association with others of similar beliefs, no matter how valid the beliefs are.And, coincidentally, I note that Straggler is a little annoyed on the Peanut Gallery 2012 thread, in Message 40 he says: This, of course, is not entirely correct, it is either a misinterpretation or misunderstanding, as this thread is not intended to be about individual accusations, but about group dissonance issues (eg - the "and Cultural Beliefs" - part of the topic title).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : english

Hi Panda,Yes I think you are reading too much into it. Of course -- do you think CD is not reciprocal? that only one side experiences it? that one side is necessarily correct? what about muslims\jews\christians arguing over Jerusalem? So the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread is all for naught? That would depend on whether you are a "grouper" or a "splitter" . I'd likely put them under stupid or deluded ... but I open to considering other categories that can be defined as groups. lol - and that is a group as well. enjoy.Edited by RAZD, :

Hi Straggler, Congratulations, you just recognized the group reinforcement element of cultural cognitive dissonance, the element that is associated with the cult group behavior, and the type of behavior this thread is about. And then you would be behaving according to group reinforcement to reduce your CD ... Call me obstinate, but I just don't see any way around it being part of our mental makeup, Straggler, we are not perfect beings.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : .

Hi Straggler, Why did you change your behavior? A conflicting opinion to your just returning the money was presented, you considered the options, the saw the dissonance between them, and changed your behavior to one you felt was more approved by the group, rather than any actually known to be valid reason.Does the dissonance have to be fully conscious or can your open-mindedness (or gullibility for the "fuckwits" ) to change lower the threshold so that it is hardly noticeable?Look at Romney dancing all over the place on Obamacare -- as was fully predicted btw -- that guy has some real issues to resolve between all the different sides of the different issues. His goal is to get elected, and he will flip and flop to election day.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added RomneyEdited by RAZD, : .

Hi Straggler, Your "initial instinct" was an "unthinking response" response because it was from your worldview: it is part of your worldview that it is proper to return property to the owner, and it is more of an unconscious response than an unthinking one (it has been previously thought out ... or taught to you by parents etc ... it is part of your cultural makeup).You could almost say it is a programed response.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : last line added

Hi Straggler, You still modified your behavior, and in this case, you still felt you did not deserve the money (worldview beliefs again) and so gave it to someone else you felt could best use it. Yes, because of behavior modification (AND because you still were conflicted to keep or give to someone else? then resolved that to preserve your feeling that you are honest by not keeping it by giving it to what appears a worthy cause, well done)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

???