We all have cognitive dissonance to some degree but why do we immerse ourselves so deeply in our ideologies that we cant listen or cant yield or grow?
Lately I have seen a lot of people with such rigid thoughts that it amazes me. I cant say that I don't have conflicting ideas that I dismiss to support what I think. I do, however, feel that I am least somewhat open minded and try to balance my thinking by listening and considering other ideas.
Does it seem to others that our politics, cliques, religions, etc have turned into multiple one sided arguments where no one listens?
Ixxy is right.
However, this is what I am trying to point out:
Basically, I have seen a lot of foot stamping and just many people talking over each other on the forums. Of course we are impassioned by our thoughts and hey I have been there myself.
The problem is that there is no discussion and if we were to actually break this down the conversation would be.........your wrong blah blah blah your wrong blah blah blah. I have had a few of these discussions and the person I discuss it with doesn't listen and also holds very hard rigid views.
Have we become so closed minded that we will do everything we can to prove why what we think is right? We all do this to some extent but if we are in a discussion there has to be a give and take.
All we know is like a habit. The known is already stuck in our heads like an edifice. So we are a little bit attached to it. The reptilian brain is very slow.
Imagine a kid who has never seen broccoli. you can't expect them to try that weird looking thing. They have to watch you eat it and not die or get sick ten times before they warm up to the idea of putting it in their mouths.
I agree and I will be the first one to say that I can be pretty darn stubborn when it comes to what is in my mind. I also think that it is pretty normal.
I would not want to eat it either. I have seen some pretty weird things in other countries that I wouldn't ever eat like balut. yuck
It is tough to give up ideas we hold.
In layman's terms, cognitive dissonance is the fact that you, as your own person, are quite determined to uphold and stick to your own beliefs and ideologies as opposed to keeping an open mind when in discourse among your peers.
It's hard, you see, to hold two ideas in your hands--if one is on the far right, and the other on the far left.
I've ran an art/news/poetry/whatever group for a couple of years, I'm used to the idea of keeping an open mind when among people.
If, for at the very least, to make sure there's no quarreling.
Um, no, not really. Cognitive dissonace is when you feel uncomfortable because you hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Specifically, it is often a habit people fall into to justify poor decision making. For example, let's say you are a person that regularly visits a tarot card reader with two "psychics." One you visit regularly and the other, not so much.
One week, you read about the tarot card reader you don't visit being sent to jail for lying to their clients. What we'd LIKE to think we would do is say "Oh, my, well, now I know that psychics are frauds."
What a person with cognitive dissonance will do is say "Oh, thank goodness I chose the trustworthy psychic."
This situation can be go through a number of different premutations. For instance, the psychic you go to IS the one that is arrested. Cognitive dissonance would be either thinking it is awful that someone railroaded your trustworthy friend or thinking that it was a mistake to go to the wrong psychic and taking up with the one you had ignored previously.
Essentially, it is a mechanism we use to avoid responsibility for incorrect ways of seeing the world. I make no comment on how it applies to conversations on the HP forums but it is ALWAYS worth stepping back and thinking about what you're saying.
Yes, it is hard to admit mistakes.
Sometimes it appears as fringe behavior but you know what I have realized I guess I just need to let it be and let those who want to argue alone. I can always have discussions with those who want to have a civil conversations.
So in other words...toxic people? Manipulators, deceivers, liars, and con-men? I would hope HP isn't full of these kinds of people - at least I haven't thought there were many here, anyway.
Right. What I said.
At any rate, I'm not sure if the OP is true or not, judging by how the thread's shaped up.
But is it true, most of the time there is a right and wrong side of an argument and you need to choose the one that is right? I understand the need to resolve conflict. It is sometimes necessary to allow a wrong thought or action to prevail to keep the peace.
"It is sometimes necessary to allow a wrong thought or action to prevail to keep the peace."
You do not allow a wrong, to keep the peace... that is so wrong in it's own.
When it comes to dealing with toxic people, allowing a wrong to prevail is sometimes the only option....so you don't end up in jail due to someone elses mental issues (or worse, like dead)
It's called CONFLICT RESOLUTION and it's done every day all day.
I don't believe there is always a right and a wrong side. It is based on an individuals perspective.
I don't think that most of the time there's a right and wrong side of an argument. I think a good part of the time both sides of any argument have some valid points (at least if both sides have a reasonable, well thought-out, argument). Then, too, sometimes one side is right, and the other is wrong. People need to use their sound, rationale, reasoning skills to figure out what's what (but too many people either lack those skills or else let their own selfishness, arrogance, ego, self-interests, or emotions get in the way. Then, too, there are those times when there IS no right or wrong on one issue or another.
"Then, too, there are those times when there IS no right or wrong on one issue or another."
that's when you've got cognitive dissonance, real bad! It's a very uncomfortable feeling and maybe that's why Brenda won't allow herself to see anything but her own narrow views and why Nixon was impeached. Or was he?
cognitive dissonance, having two opposing ideas at the same time, this is often not recognized,which is what causes the dissonance. Religion and sexuality are always good ones for this. Freedom of sexual exploration versus the desire to have one monogomous relationship.
Cognitive dissonance pertains to far more than ideologies...it speaks to the very construction and upkeep of ourselves...
There first is what we really are....and then there is the idealistic image that we create in our minds...how we perceive ourselves...
The dissonance is the difference between that "creation" and the real thing...and the greater the distance, the more work, the more aggressive action must be done to create a positive self-image...
This goes directly to the "other"....what those like TMMason like to put forward regarding Muslims...."they" are backward, evil, corrupt.... Not "me"..in Masons case, Christians...
They minimize similarities between themselves and those they seek to criticize, and overemphasize what they consider flaws...in order to try to create the "they are worse than I/us" self-fulfilling prophecy...
All in all, many of these persons are trying to make up for some kind of inner inability or incapability of their own....and through their typically negative and hateful tones (like Mason, Sab Oh, and the ol Texan..if anyone remembers him) their true selves are projected out for all observers to take note...
Just because some people actually have strong values and stand up, doesn't mean they're compensating for something.
And most of the Leftists here are MUCH more "negative" and "hateful" than those people. You know that, but yet you point the finger at conservatives.
There's no "cognitive dissonance" in the debate; there's only those who stand for what's right, and those who intentionally stand for wrong.
Those who intentionally stand for wrong? Sounds like a straw man argument to me.
It has absolutely nothing to do with strong values. It has to do with using any information to just prove to ourselves that we are right.
How am I pointing my finger at conservatives?
That is your perception.
I don't think you know what cognitive dissonance is. I do think that some people go to ridiculous lengths and fight and bite to make points.
You have already got everyone divided into camps. Brenda please read what it is okay.
Cognitive dissonance (according to the definitions I found) means wishy-washiness, instability in opinions, conflicting emotions or opinions within one's self.
Is that not correct?
Hey, gee, that definition is really only a theory cooked up by some professor or whoever it was anyway.
My point is----there are some subjects that just ARE legitimately black and white, no gray area, no room for "cognitive dissonance".
It isn't wishy washiness.
Lets look at it this way and step away from the word cognitive dissonance and look at a discussion.
Black and white, good and bad..........Now if you are trying to convince me of your viewpoint and there is no gray area, how can we discuss it.
Your opinion to you is correct. We will disagree and just yell. Okay that might be fun and others will find some entertainment.
What is accomplished? Nothing.
Well the subjects that are black and white with no gray areas......Hmmm what was that word I was looking for.......?
In all seriousness, I don't believe there is "black and white". Utopia is a fantasy.
You're correct! Those areas of black and white aren't receptive to discussion, only debate. Matter of fact, there IS NO healthy discussion about some things. Some things should never even be discussed.
The reason I engage in some topics that I'm sick of discussing is because those subjects are becoming mainstream and some people need to stand against mainstreaming those subjects. It's not just a matter of free speech anymore, even; it's a matter of those subjects, if left unchecked and unopposed, worming their one-sided proponents' ways into our public education systems and legal system, even.
Brenda I don't oppose you and you should speak out for what you feel is right.
Discussion and debate are the same thing. It also okay if you want to bring attention to certain topics. When you present your information in a way that another person cannot accept it there is no discussion nor debate.......It is just 2 onesided individuals arguing.
My philosophy on education is actually fairly conservative but I am not going to follow the path of the John Birch Society. Education needs a lot of work and I am not going to open that can of worms right now. That has its place in another forum.
A person who goes around (I am not speaking about you) and interjects their opinion on every thread is not accomplishing anything. If a person is going to convince somebody, they have to have give and take and they have to not present their opinion as fact.
Despite this nothing will change and Brenda I don't have anything against you. I try to keep both my religious as well as political beliefs private. I however don't like things to be shoved down my throat but I will listen and discuss if the other party will do the same.
If...a party proposes something that you know is absolutely wrong, do you not understand that your allowance for discussing that only serves to blur the lines and give them room to make excuses and never be held accountable at all?
I have heard so much garbage from both sides. I am not a political party and I don't shape my views based on those of a particular political party.
If I disagree with something I will speak up and I would encourage you to do the same but I would not approach the discussion with a closed mind. Also I don't support or not support something because of its basis on political platforms. I support it based on my experience and its merit. If somebody has a differing opinion I will at least listen. There is also a possibility that I may change little parts of my opinion based on little nuggets that are presented to me. I wont listen to somebody who is screaming or pulling facts out of the air. I close them off right away.
If someone presents something that you deem false, you can call the person on it but you distinguish whether it is your opinion or an actual falsehood.
If I have two quarters in my hand and I say I have three, you can say, "Hey Ben, you only have two quarters in your hand"
If you say I am a bad person, that it is your opinion and I will disagree with you (I am not saying that you think this). Most political views are going to be very polar. That is just the nature of the beast. If you present your information to a person and you are calling them wrong, all you are doing is making sure that the person will not listen to you. All that occurs is a mutual venting.
I understand what you're saying, believe it or not.
But...I personally have a set standard by which I measure almost any discussion, and I don't veer from that. I believe the Bible to be fact, and I perceive almost all discussion from that standpoint.
For instance, the "cognitive dissonance" discussion-----
That label is what I see as one of the reasons that Bible-believing college students are sometimes persuaded by liberal professors to become indecisive about their Faith. "Cognitive dissonance" says hey look at this from another angle, be "tolerant" of anti-Christian views, maybe you're wrong after all, lookie here at how athiests and homosexuals are persecuted, lookie here at how the Christians wield power over you just 'cause they wanna control you, lookie here at how cruel your Biblical God is, etc. and etc.....
When all a person has to do is simply hold to a set standard and not veer from it. Be decisive. Be sure. Know the Truth and hold to it.
I am not going to fault you for your conviction and I can understand that you want to protect your beliefs.
All I am saying is that others will perceive you as attacking them so they wont listen if you are trying to show them that they are wrong.
A lot of what I have believed all my life has been correct. I, however, have had to change my thinking. A case and point is........I stopped nicotine. I had to change not only my behavior but how I perceived my control over nicotine. Being steady and decisive is good but we cant hold onto everything because we have to grow. By learning we grow.
You don't have to change your conviction; you just have to understand that other people hold different beliefs and the only way you are going to potentially convince someone of anything is to be considerate of their convictions.
"Hey, gee, that definition is really only a theory cooked up by some professor or whoever it was anyway."
Yeah it does sound a bit funny; sorry.
But it's the truth. Just because somebody has a theory about something doesn't mean it should be placed in a dictionary as a valid definition or used as a valid.
I could make up a theory about how watermelon is really supposed to be blue, but it wouldn't make it true. And especially it's irritating when "professors" or others come up with those theories and some complicated label or name attached, when all they have to do is say it in simple words.
"Cognitive dissonance" is simply indecision!
Cognitive Dissonance isn't about indecision. It is about how we process information. You seem to believe it is about confusion, where it is mostly about how we delude ourselves. It is a scientifically verifiable phenomenon.
On its own, cognitive dissonance is not particularly important. What is important is how it causes people to act. When cognitive dissonance occurs, it forces a person to evaluate their viewpoint. Unfortunately, this very often causes them to come up with false reasons to shore up the belief they are most comfortable with, even when given factual evidence to the otherwise.
Bringing it into politics, most people believe that politicians are liars. Congress has, what, 25% approval rating? But people are often very enthusiastic about the candidates they support.
Idea 1: Politicians are all crooks
Idea 2: I like my candidate!
That isn't indecision, it is a disconnect between two pieces of information we have. People generally reconcile this by deciding that MOST politicians are bums, but my guy is one of the few honest ones out there.
That is how cognitive dissonance effects perception and decision making.
No that is not correct. Before trying to bolster an argument with scientific concepts, it pays to know a bit about them.
Wow.. someone is holding a grudge for being opposed in thier apologetic views of Islam.
I cannot help that I point out facts about what is said, and expected of them, by thier God. If you think I hate every muslim cause thier muslim... then you do not grasp things to well... shallow thought.
You should really listen to what I say... instead of reading into it what you want.
Ask if you don't understand.
And you know i will leave it at this.. I wouldn't want to hurt your feeling with my hateful words. God knows you'll probrably report me for hurtin them
Ben Evans makes a valid point. Much of what people disagree about has to do with shades of gray.With topics such as religion or politics, there is no black or white. We have
Ben Evans makes a valid point. Much of what people disagree about has to do with shades of gray. With topics such as religion or politics, there is no black or white. We have
OPINION but not truth. Has anyone ever heard debates of Gore Vidal and William Buckley? Both were brilliant men, but they were in complete disagreement. We should be willing to listen to others and try to see where they are coming from.
Gore Vidal and William Buckley are good examples. I have only read and have not had the chance to hear the debates.
It is hard to listen but those who can will learn a lot.
There are things which are simply black and white in this world.
Just as there are things which entail many shades of gray.
To think everything is nogotiable... or tolerable just for the sake of something else.... is absurd.
I miss William F. Buckley, even though I disagreed with everything he probably ever said, he had class and was willing to listen to the other side. He knew how to have a debate, how to argue, and how to disagree with honor.
Ben. I like the way we think, and I am glad we have started following each other. As a teacher, I tried to encourage my students to think "outside of the box" and to listen to each other. Often, I succeeded.
To Uninvited Writer: When I heard those debates, I was so young and so apolitical that I was left with a feeling of total confusion. But I was not stupid. i realized that brilliant men can have opposing opinions, and I began to believe there is no one absolute truth.
"Cognitive Dissonance is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time."
When I searched for it, that's the definition I got. I wonder if you just started this thread to get people to start arguing about "right vs wrong"? because I have this uncomfortable feeling now and I'm trying believe that you really believed that cognitive dissonance was an inflexible mindset. And it occurs to me at the same time, that you just didn't look it up first and were ready to rant about some idiot or other who refused to see the logic of some arguement you made. Me, I'm almost always suffering from cognitive dissonance lately.
Like, for instance, I know that people are really trying to stop the oil spill in the Gulf, but I also know that some people are just stupid enough to think they might profit from it. These are awfully conflicting thoughts. And I have to accept that I may never know what is true about that. I am so tense it isn't even funny!
and now I must try to get some sleep . . .
It is a bit more simple than that. We all have our arguments and that is all right. There are some people here who are perpetually trying to push their ideologies down other peoples throats. There are a fair amount of people that do this.
I don't have a problem with people who strongly support their beliefs but when people try to force it very aggressively on others I don't think that is fair. They often do this by presenting opinion as fact.
Okay, now I know you can see that I am not talking so much about a mere conflicts in our minds but discussing more about how people will circumvent fact to support their opinions.
So what right?
Well as the saying a goes "A little isn't bad but a lot will kill you". There are some people that want to stifle a normal discussion by interjecting their points many times to many posters and calling people wrong and idiots. I don't think this is really fair.
There is really nothing so esoteric about the thread. I hope you had a good sleep.
• noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Karl Popper 1902-94: The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
Source: Oxford University Press
Hi Ben - I had a great sleep, and even though my dreams were very weird, they were useful. (travelling in Africa, meeting people who thought I was very primitive) Anyhow I'm not nearly as tense as I was last night.
I think I will relay some great advice my mom used to give me about dealing with all kinds of rascally people who got to me. She would say things like "Maybe her mother didn't love her enough so she can't think straight" or "If you ignore him, he'll stop. He just wants attention" or "Stick to your guns, don't let stupid people bully you, but don't let them get you all riled up, either!"
For awhile, I would see irritating attention seekers posting forum titles that really riled me up. So I stayed away from the forums. But last night when I saw the words "cognitive dissonance" I finally got educated about a term I had heard but didn't really understand. Then I entered this thread and found the same cast of characters acting out their biases and having a discussion (or spouting off) about discussions and this morning, on the first day of summer, it just seems outstandingly hilarious!
So thanks, everybody, for reinforcing my view of Hub humanity!
sometimes cognitive dissonance is the moment of polarity that creates the space for understanding of what is between. by working with polarities, you can create a clearer argument of what outcome you are desiring. Or it can help shift the equilibrium one way or the other. Hopefully for the better. .. beyond polarity is a state of love.. consciousness and what others may say is oneness.
by John Wilson2 months ago
Those smarty pants. Those intellectuals who knew. Trump was a loser and all the other names the intellectuals used. The pollsters were guaranteeing a win by hillary killar of land slide proportions. Trump didn't stand a...
by Rod Martin Jr4 years ago
Trauma affects all who witness it. The trauma of 9/11 affected the world, not only emotionally, but economically and politically. Not only did 3000+ people die on that day, but tens of thousands of others have died as a...
by Credence219 months ago
Based on the linked article, it appears that there was no such thing as the Supreme Court Decision entitled Roe Vs Wade. What was it, over 40 years ago, and we still deal with these RED retrograde states trying to chip...
by Haunty7 years ago
Do you think that we can discuss anything and everything with a close friend, a spouse or a parent? Or are there some things that you would never try to discuss?
by janesix2 years ago
Why take more resources than you need to be comfortable? How many cars or jets or mansions is REALLY enough?Is it wrong to take more than your fair share?
by American View5 years ago
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Winston Churchill Why is it Hubbers cannot respect someone lses view by spewing name calling? Why do they not stcik to their rhetoric when shown...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.