Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs

Hi Panda, getting back to you. No, just pointing out that the only way you could be absolutely sure that you are not suffering from CD in some way at some time, would be to know all there is to know about everything. What's odd about pointing out what is obvious to both you and me?Enjoy.

Hi Straggler,Consistent with CD, agreed.Do you not agree that there are degrees of CD? that it is more of a spectrum than a black and white issue?Curiously, I find it difficult to consider any difference of opinion not causing some degree of CD, no matter how small the difference is. The reason we debate is because of conflict between opinions. The greater the difference in opinions, the more involved the debate gets trying to resolve it.Your example with Dr Adequate actually involves two situations, (1) getting the money and whether to return it or not, and then (2) if not returned, then how to dispose of it, both of these are resolved by subsequent behavior. First, in response to the new information, you decide to not return it to the bank; second, you raise your belief in you being a good person (which is in conflict with your decision not to return the money to the bank) by giving it to a charity instead of keeping it.A two step process that leaves you feeling like you have "done the proper thing."So yes, full resolution requires both parts of your actions. imho.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Hi all,I have thought about this thread during my long and tedious trial with chemo-therapy -- a rather vicious protocol that had me oscillating between knocked down on my knees puking on the floor to fairly normal able to ride a bike behavior (recovery over a two week period, getting "well" just in time for another knock down session). The medication is trying to kill parts of me but leave most (essential?) at least alive enough to recover. Intentionally facing near death is an interesting experience.It seems to me that there are several factors that lead to cognitive dissonance. Perhaps others can add to this list, but I will start with two that I feel are most critical:

1. the difference between a persons belief\opinion and the information that contradicts\counters it, and
2. the emotional attachment a person has for their belief\opinion.

Learning\reading\education\science tend to direct a person towards beliefs\opinions that are consilient with objective empirical evidence, thus reducing potential cognitive dissonance due to evidence contrary to belief\opinion. There is not much need for emotional attachment to such evidence congruent beliefs\opinions, especially in science where tentativity of conclusions are necessary.Group (mob?) behavior, however, tends to direct a person towards beliefs\opinions that are common to the whole group regardless of factual basis, due to the (emotional) need to conform and fit in to the group. Repetitive assertions of certain beliefs\opinions within a group setting can cause - and reinforce - an emotional bond to those beliefs\opinions out of proportion to their factual basis (this is how propaganda and advertising works).Jingoist nationalism is a case in point: there is no rational reason to favor one country over another, but strong emotions can be created.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : and reinforce

Here's an interesting article:Decoding the Political Buzzwords of 2012 | BillMoyers.com

quote:

---

Jonathan Haidt has described this phenomenon using William Gibson’s notion of a consensual hallucination, and the thing to focus on here is the sense of collective identity that comes from defining your beliefs in opposition to the other guy’s. It’s connected to the way the discourse of the right has become hermetic and self-referential. I’m not thinking just of Fox News or Limbaugh, but of online discussions and Twitter. There’s a group of Michigan researchers who have been doing large-scale statistical analysis of tweeting, and they’ve found that conservatives are more densely connected, retweet each other much more frequently, and stick to a narrower range of topics than liberals do.

​

That creates the bubble environment that licenses politicians to make these off-the-wall charges, then answer the people who challenge them with, Well, we won’t let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers, or that marvelous remark Jon Kyl made after claiming that 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services were abortions, It was not intended to be a factual statement. You’re not going to hear that sort of thing from Democrats. Not that they’re above a little mendacity now and again, but they tend to be more traditionalist about it.

---

Cognitive dissonance tries to resolve things by searching for reinforcing beliefs from others in order to make the existing belief seem more valid. In a large enough group this becomes rather incestuous and self referential in terms of where information comes from that is trusted, and the narrower the sources of information become, the narrower the belief is.The more broadly based a belief is, the more information is sought from all sources to test the validity of the belief, and the smaller the sources of information that are not trusted.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty