Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs

I've seen the phrase "cognitive dissonance" being used elsewhere on the board in a way that shows that it's easily misunderstood. Perhaps some of the examples on the thread might help.Would anyone like to think up any more?

Well, for example, one might go like this. "My bank accidentally put $5,000 which I didn't actually earn into my bank account. I want to keep the money. Also, I am a good moral person and not a thief."Now, if someone in that situation wants to keep the money, 'cos they really want it, then how are they to justify it to themselves? How do they reduce the cognative dissonance between" I am not a thief" and "I am going to steal this money"? Well, they might start thinking to themselves that the bankers are all thieves anyway and that banking is an immoral rapacious system for stealing from the poor, and that stealing from a thief is no crime.This is an idea that would probably never occur to you, but it's very attractive to someone who really wants to keep the money.A great example of this sort of thinking is the "Freeman-on-the-Land" nonsense, again about banks (among other things, like everything). For example, they don't want to pay off their mortgages, 'cos they don't have the money, and they don't want to have their houses repossessed, for obvious reasons. So they construct an elaborate pseudolegal theory whereby they don't owe that bank any money, because it cost the bank nothing to lend it to them, and so they owe the bank nothing. Now, the reason why I say this is an example of cognitive dissonance is that (1) with a few minutes' research, or thirty seconds' thought, it's obviously stupid; (2) you never find anyone who's paid off their mortgage explaining this. This halfwitted pseudolegal theory only appeals to people who can't pay their mortgage but want to keep their houses.

Let's say that I have just had a load of money somehow land in my account in the way you describe.I was going to tell the bank of their error. I didn't have a particular problem with telling the bank of this error. But having just read what you say above about bankers and banking being an "immoral rapacious system for stealing from the poor" I've decided not to tell them.I might give some of the money to charity. Or I might not. I haven't decided yet.Am I suffering from cognitive dissonance do you think? If so how have you decided that this the case? I don't feel particularly conflicted.....

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.

Well, if you have already thought of banking being an "immoral rapacious system for stealing from the poor", then you may possibly be wrong about that, but it's not a way of reducing cognitive dissonance.But if that position concerning bankers only starts to appeal to you after you have this opportunity to steal from them, and take it, then probably you are just reducing cognitive dissonance. Suddenly you acquire a new idea about what the banking system is all about, and instead of thinking of them as honest custodians of our money, you start thinking of them as wicked thieves. Then it is likely that you are just resolving cognitive dissonance.

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?

A number of individuals have been used as examples in the thread, and they will all be members of groups. Bolder-dash and Mick Huckabee and your sports fan, for example.I'm sure the character I described (John) is not alone in the world in having the beliefs described.Some people have shared their own personal experiences with CD on the thread, but I don't see how these are necessarily off topic unless they're so specific as to be unique. I'm glad you recognised the CD.

If reducing discomfort is the 'aim' of CD then annoyance doesn't seem a likely candidate. I think the first example ("show that it actually is erroneous") is not correct.The normal way is to simply claim that something is erroneous - but be unable to explain why.
And, appropriately, they would think the people that disagreed with them were being stupid, ignorant, deluded, insane or wicked.
But actually proving something is wrong is unlikely, imhysao.Because surely the only people that feel CD are those whose world views are contradicted by reality.
The only person that would (e.g.) show that the earth is 4.5 million years old is a palaeontologist.
And a palaeontologist feels no CD over the age of the earth.
When palaeontologist argues with a YEC it is not with any discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance. This sounds as if you are claiming that people are affected by CD when discussing any subject?
Or perhaps I am reading too much in to it? Do you not wonder why you felt the need to add a 6th?
Particularly since there is no evidence of anyone being omniscient?
Odd behaviour indeed.Should we then add a 7th? And an 8th?

7. immune - unable to be affected by cognitive dissonance.
8. selectively immune - chooses to be unaffected by cognitive dissonance.

The list of unevidenced categories of people is quite long.
It is amazing what our imaginations can conjure up. An agnostic deist?
A sceptical believer?Thank god I am an atheist!

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, :

What I didn't recognize in your description was why your example would be suffering from cognitive dissonance, because you didn't describe any conflicting cognitions.

The scenario you paint could be a sign of cognitive dissonance. Likewise those who consider homosexuality a choice (as per your previous example) could be doing so as a result of CD.But I put it to you that rather than CD being rampant and evidenced by nearly every fuckwitted conclusion that resolves a seeming conflict, there is another and far more evidenced explanation for such contradictory and fuckwitted thinking. The most common reason for people to believe stupid and contradictory things in my experience is because they have unquestioningly accepted the idiocy of those around them.Thus I put it to you that most of those who believe being gay is a choice do so not because they are seeking to resolve cognitive dissonance but because they haven't really thought about it, have no dissonance at all, and just accept the stance taken by the media, their family, their friends and the others that they listen to on such matters.Likewise - If I decide, after reading the contributions of people such as yourself, RAZD etc. etc. on this very debate site that bankers are wankers and that practically anything I do with my ill gotten money will be morally superior to handing it back to make a drop-in-the-ocean contribution to wankers bonuses - Then I am not necessarily suffering from CD. I am just being overly influenced by others in a way that may have nothing to do with CD at all.In short I think you are seeing conclusions that could be explained by CD and seeing CD at every turn. Even when the far more likely reason for such fuckwitted conclusions is unthinking acceptance rather than the need to resolve any conflict.

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, : .

But if I never had any feelings of discomfort or contradiction and I just "followed the herd" where does the CD come into it.....?

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, : .