Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9011 total)
58 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 56 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 881,623 Year: 13,371/23,288 Month: 301/795 Week: 2/95 Day: 2/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 7 of 102 (669414)
07-29-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by RAZD
07-29-2012 7:39 PM


Personal experience
I'm not sure what more to contribute to your thread.
You have covered most of the points.

So I thought I would describe my own experience of cognitive dissonance...

quote:
Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions

I have never found it uncomfortable, per se.
It puts me in a state on confusion rather than discomfort.

I am left figuratively looking left then right and then left again, trying to figure out what I actually think.
The only solution to this is to do research (i.e. google it).
At this point I have to be very aware of confirmation bias by actively seeking both sides of the argument.
But my confusion is quite neutral, so I don't actually 'struggle' against a particular side.

The only real bias I have at that point is based on the history of the proponents I am using to find out more information.
If (e.g.) Fox news is the only advocate for a particular position then I will give their claims far less weight than (e.g.) a university professor.

Due to the lack of discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance, I don't really mind experiencing it.
I view it as a good reason for me to learn more.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2012 7:39 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2012 6:00 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 9 of 102 (669468)
07-30-2012 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
07-30-2012 6:00 AM


Re: Personal experience/s and worldview bubbles
RAZD writes:

Perhaps a better term to use here would be irritation rather than discomfort per se.


I agree - 'irritation' (or maybe 'niggle') is a better choice of word.
It annoys me enough to do something about it, but not enough for me to have to rush to a conclusion.

RAZD writes:

... rather than someone trying to reinforce strong beliefs.

...unless my most cherished belief is that I don't know anything.

RAZD writes:

It seems fairly clear to me now that everyone's personal worldview (embedded within their cultural worldview), and it's impact on accepting and learning new information is their personal cognitive dissonance bubble, their worldview bubble, with the strength of the bubble wall being dependent on the tenacity of strongly held personal beliefs vs the willingness to discard falsified concepts and incorporate new ones.


Maybe my world view is based on the fact that I know I don't know everything - and I know that the things that I think I know might be wrong.
I have no blind certainty about anything - and I am ok with that.
But it makes 'changing my mind' comparatively easy - as I was already part-way there.

RAZD writes:

Perhaps the biggest dissonance I experience now is trying to understand why some people struggle so much with accepting evidence when it seems so natural to me, and perhaps this is what has led me here.


This sounds more like a person's normal ignorance of other people's motives, rather than cognitive dissonance.
What would be the conflicting facts that cause this dissonance?
Perhaps this is more like the psychological behaviour where we expect others to think the same as we do? (I can't remember it's name.)

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2012 6:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 1:45 PM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 12 of 102 (669533)
07-30-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Modulous
07-30-2012 1:45 PM


Re: Personal experience/s and worldview bubbles
I was thinking of the False-consensus effect (which conveniently was on the page you linked).
quote:
There is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values and habits are 'normal' and that others also think the same way that they do.

p.s. Your url is formatted incorrectly.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 1:45 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 34 of 102 (671218)
08-23-2012 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
08-23-2012 8:57 AM


Re: revisiting old arguments again? is that not a sign of dissonance?
RADZ writes:

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 ...?

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 ...?

It seems strange for you to accuse Straggler of "not let[ting] the discussion go" when it was you that re-started it in Message 24 and continue to argue about it.
But it seems less strange when your behaviour is viewed from the PoV of cognitive dissonance.

I suspect that your own cognitive dissonance about your belief in an unevidenced deity causes you several problems - that discussion being one of them.
I am wondering if this whole thread is actually to give you comfort, where you can describe others and say to yourself: "They are as conflicted as I am!"

But Straggler denies having any discomfort - and you seem unable to accept that.
I too feel/felt no discomfort during the PseudoScience discussion.
But I don't expect you to believe me either.

What reason would you give for someone denying the personal claims of others without any supportive evidence?
Sounds like cognitive dissonance to me...


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2012 8:57 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 68 of 102 (672708)
09-10-2012 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
09-10-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance and Protective Insulation for Your Worldview
RAZD writes:

People experiencing surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment should certainly suspect that they are confronting dissonant information, but what about other behaviors? What about annoyance?


If reducing discomfort is the 'aim' of CD then annoyance doesn't seem a likely candidate.

RAZD writes:

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).

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.

RAZD writes:

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.

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?

RAZD writes:

And here I add the 6th:

  1. omniscient - knows the truth about everything.

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?

  1. immune - unable to be affected by cognitive dissonance.
  2. 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.

RAZD writes:

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.


An agnostic deist?
A sceptical believer?

Thank god I am an atheist!


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 4:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 7:03 PM Panda has responded
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2012 10:11 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 78 of 102 (672724)
09-10-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by RAZD
09-10-2012 7:03 PM


Re: Cognitive Dissonance and Protective Insulation for Your Worldview
RAZD writes:

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?


It is definitely possible that only one side feels CD.
How much CD do you feel when a YEC claims that the Earth is ~6000 years old?

RAZD writes:

Panda writes:

The only person that would (e.g.) show that the earth is 4.5 million years old is a palaeontologist.

So the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread is all for naught?

Did you post that to mitigate your own CD?
If not then my point stands.

Your first example of how someone would change the new dissonant information coming in ("show that it actually is erroneous") is not correct.

RAZD writes:

I'd likely put them under stupid or deluded ... but I open to considering other categories that can be defined as groups.


You missed my point.
I suspect on purpose - but I guess it could be CD.

RAZD writes:

lol - and that is a group as well.


And again.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2012 7:03 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 89 of 102 (672880)
09-12-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dr Adequate
09-12-2012 7:36 AM


Re: The "fuckwitted" and "wanker" groups
Dr. A. writes:

This is why I gave an elephant as an example of a mammal, rather than a hat-stand.


But Straggler's issue was with RAZD pointing at both elephants and hat-stands and calling them both mammals - or at least not being able to distinguish between them; simply assuming they are both mammals.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2012 7:36 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2012 7:51 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2012 10:06 AM Panda has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2372 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 99 of 102 (672917)
09-12-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
09-12-2012 10:06 AM


Re: The "fuckwitted" and "wanker" groups
RAZD writes:

???


Are you really unable to see that you are guilty of the very behaviour you criticise bluegenes for?

Your complaint against BG clearly applies far more accurately to someone who is unable to answer the childishly simple question: "Did a human make this painting of a boat?"

Ask yourself: what are you hiding from?


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2012 10:06 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020