Cognitive Dissonance

[PMZ]

Politics invariably applies simplification to perplexing life. It increases contrast. Moves things to more black and white. Reduces confusion and increases certainty. Makes everyone on all sides of every issue feel smarter and better informed and in possession of THE answer.

Now someone from the opposing side comes along and says A, which is a point that the opposing position relates to better than your position.

Cognitive dissonance results. You want so to be right in your position and your adversary just threw up an obstacle.

Then the name calling starts and rational debate ends.

Debate can only proceed when both sides accept that they could be wrong. The opposing side could be right in this instance.

Politics as a result of the incorporation of statism [mob rule] and its attached sovereign status [haha cant sue me] above it creators [thought to be you and I] encroaches upon our personal religion [within our private lives] and enforces theirs upon us at the end of a barrel of a gun all while telling us its what we want.

Most political arguments are born from little napoleans who want to rule the planet in their own image most often without due consideration of others or the consequences of their customs, religion, tradition, way of life or status.

The choice, I believe, is between order and chaos. Every organization, be it a family, corporation, community, or country, chooses order, in order to help each other get things done.

Most life does the same through evolution. Order improves the odds of sustainability.

Some groups may do it more effectively than others, but all naturally do it.

The most primitive order is based on power. If I have a bigger club than you, I have more influence in the group than you do.

 

[ShawnChris13]

If you're not familiar with the term, Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will give you a brief overview.



I find that while debating points and counterpoints, it is far too common for people to be angry. I believe cognitive dissonance leads to most of the anger we experience when confronted in our beliefs.



I believe we could improve political debate by raising awareness of this happenstance so that people can stop and look at what they're frustrated about. Most frustration lies in the facts that are held within other peoples perspective.

[MENTION=46050]ShawnChris13[/MENTION]



You must be referring to statements like the one in my signature line made by a flaming liberal and welfare queen.



You would do well not to be trying to do the psychology number until you become better informed to do so.

I'm not trying to point out anyone specifically with the OP. I'm also not trying to act like I have deep insight on psychology.

The only response I can make is that I'm not trying to play any numbers, only seeking a way to improve how we debate political, social, or economic issues. Too many arguments reference what public figures state as opinion as fact, or use statistics that use poll numbers as fact. While there is science to statistics and worthwhile knowledge to be gained from experts, I would prefer people not use emotions as happens all too often to prove their point.

 

[PMZ]

If you're not familiar with the term, Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will give you a brief overview.



I find that while debating points and counterpoints, it is far too common for people to be angry. I believe cognitive dissonance leads to most of the anger we experience when confronted in our beliefs.



I believe we could improve political debate by raising awareness of this happenstance so that people can stop and look at what they're frustrated about. Most frustration lies in the facts that are held within other peoples perspective.

[MENTION=46050]ShawnChris13[/MENTION]



You must be referring to statements like the one in my signature line made by a flaming liberal and welfare queen.



You would do well not to be trying to do the psychology number until you become better informed to do so.

I'm not trying to point out anyone specifically with the OP. I'm also not trying to act like I have deep insight on psychology.

The only response I can make is that I'm not trying to play any numbers, only seeking a way to improve how we debate political, social, or economic issues. Too many arguments reference what public figures state as opinion as fact, or use statistics that use poll numbers as fact. While there is science to statistics and worthwhile knowledge to be gained from experts, I would prefer people not use emotions as happens all too often to prove their point.

IMO, your initial supposition, that cognitive dissonance is at the root of dysfunctional emotions in debate, especially political debate, is insightful.

 

[lakeview]

I don't think cognitive dissonance has anything to do with disagreements or rudeness in political discussions. The example of cognitive dissonance given in the OP really isn't applicable to political opinion, the people who were paid $1 to turn pegs didn't have any other option so they had no choice but to convince themselves that they were somehow getting a good deal in order to resolve their internal conflict. People who are debating issues aren't forced to do so, they can walk away at any time, no one is forcing them to identify with any specific party, no one is forcing them to hold any specific opinion and people can and do change their minds. I have a feeling that the people who routinely resort to rudeness in the forum also resort to it in real life, let's not validate their rudeness by falsely assigning a psychological disorder to them...some people are just jerks and while they may suffer from one or more psychological issues in this case cognitive dissonance ain't one of them.

 

[PMZ]

I don't think cognitive dissonance has anything to do with disagreements or rudeness in political discussions. The example of cognitive dissonance given in the OP really isn't applicable to political opinion, the people who were paid $1 to turn pegs didn't have any other option so they had no choice but to convince themselves that they were somehow getting a good deal in order to resolve their internal conflict. People who are debating issues aren't forced to do so, they can walk away at any time, no one is forcing them to identify with any specific party, no one is forcing them to hold any specific opinion and people can and do change their minds. I have a feeling that the people who routinely resort to rudeness in the forum also resort to it in real life, let's not validate their rudeness by falsely assigning a psychological disorder to them...some people are just jerks and while they may suffer from one or more psychological issues in this case cognitive dissonance ain't one of them.

My impression is that cognitive dissonance is not a "psychological issue" but something that happens to everyone when confronted with two things in conflict that both seem right.

BTW I agree with your idea that rude people here are rude people in the rest of their lives that just don't know better.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I don't think cognitive dissonance has anything to do with disagreements or rudeness in political discussions. The example of cognitive dissonance given in the OP really isn't applicable to political opinion, the people who were paid $1 to turn pegs didn't have any other option so they had no choice but to convince themselves that they were somehow getting a good deal in order to resolve their internal conflict. People who are debating issues aren't forced to do so, they can walk away at any time, no one is forcing them to identify with any specific party, no one is forcing them to hold any specific opinion and people can and do change their minds. I have a feeling that the people who routinely resort to rudeness in the forum also resort to it in real life, let's not validate their rudeness by falsely assigning a psychological disorder to them...some people are just jerks and while they may suffer from one or more psychological issues in this case cognitive dissonance ain't one of them.

Cognitive dissonance is only a psychological theory of human interpretation and response. It's not a diagnosis of anything. While people can walk away from any discussion as they choose, it is more likely that people voice their opinion. We are still convincing ourselves that were getting a good deal. Any policy that must be questioned or debated is obviously disputed as a good deal.

 

[lakeview]

Cognitive dissonance is only a psychological theory of human interpretation and response. It's not a diagnosis of anything. While people can walk away from any discussion as they choose, it is more likely that people voice their opinion. We are still convincing ourselves that were getting a good deal. Any policy that must be questioned or debated is obviously disputed as a good deal.

Just because something is disputed does not mean that cognitive dissonance is relevant in any way. Many of the opinions people hold are just that, opinions. There isn't often a clear right or wrong way to think about a lot of the issues we discuss today. People have to know that there is something wrong with their opinion in order for cognitive dissonance to come into play. They also have to be unable to change their minds on the opinion they know to be incorrect in order for the internal conflict to be present.

Your OP assumes that people are being forced to believe things that they don't really believe and that they're being forced to justify those beliefs. Ignorance, poor communication skills, and bad attitudes have far more to do with your observations than cognitive dissonance.

 

[PMZ]

Cognitive dissonance is only a psychological theory of human interpretation and response. It's not a diagnosis of anything. While people can walk away from any discussion as they choose, it is more likely that people voice their opinion. We are still convincing ourselves that were getting a good deal. Any policy that must be questioned or debated is obviously disputed as a good deal.

Just because something is disputed does not mean that cognitive dissonance is relevant in any way. Many of the opinions people hold are just that, opinions. There isn't often a clear right or wrong way to think about a lot of the issues we discuss today. People have to know that there is something wrong with their opinion in order for cognitive dissonance to come into play. They also have to be unable to change their minds on the opinion they know to be incorrect in order for the internal conflict to be present.

Your OP assumes that people are being forced to believe things that they don't really believe and that they're being forced to justify those beliefs. Ignorance, poor communication skills, and bad attitudes have far more to do with your observations than cognitive dissonance.

From Wikipedia.

"The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes 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] Cognitive dissonance is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."[4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of control.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]"

"Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction," which can 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.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior."

I agree that this isn't the only source of emotions in political debate but not that it never comes into play.

I believe that every political position is situational. That's why there are no universal solutions. If there were there'd be no need for politics.

 

[lakeview]

There are some people on this board who without a doubt will stick to a position because they think they have to in order to keep their right wing/left wing "credibility" and it doesn't matter if any facts that may be injected into the debate hurt their position but are they experiencing cognitive dissonance or are they just stubborn? Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict are two different things.

 

[Flopper]

The phrase perfectly describes so-called political moderates. It comes close with the global warming crowd.

I think it describes most people particularly when discussing political issues. Even people that seem totally brainwashed have conflicts in their beliefs. For example, I do believe the planet is heating up and that man bears most of the responsibility and action should be taken. However, I also know that any action that might be effective would have huge costs and would require changes that I don't want to see happen.

 

[PMZ]

There are some people on this board who without a doubt will stick to a position because they think they have to in order to keep their right wing/left wing "credibility" and it doesn't matter if any facts that may be injected into the debate hurt their position but are they experiencing cognitive dissonance or are they just stubborn? Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict are two different things.

I believe that cognitive dissonance is an attempt to explain why "Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict" are related things.

 

[Flopper]

In high school debate you have to argue for an issues even though you don't believe in them. Lawyers and politicians do it every day. I think everyone should do this from time to time. It forces you to see both sides of an issue.

 

[Billo_Really]

I believe that cognitive dissonance is an attempt to explain why "Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict" are related things.

I disagree. I think they're the same thing!

 

[Sunshine]

When they are out classed they simply won't make any effort to discuss it. I reference this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/323464-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy.html

It is all too clear.

...or they create and use a pejorative to ridicule you.

Or they say something like is in my signature line.

 

[lakeview]

I believe that cognitive dissonance is an attempt to explain why "Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict" are related things.

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I believe that cognitive dissonance is an attempt to explain why "Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict" are related things.

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

But isn't an ignoramus being a jerk someone who refuses to weigh new information and justifies their behavior based on what they already know despite new information?

 

[Listening]

In high school debate you have to argue for an issues even though you don't believe in them. Lawyers and politicians do it every day. I think everyone should do this from time to time. It forces you to see both sides of an issue.

And you are judged on your argument/supporting material/organization & presentation of facts.

I'd love to see a debate zone where a small panel is selected to judge the quality of the posts (maybe rate them).

 

[KokomoJojo]

I believe that cognitive dissonance is an attempt to explain why "Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict" are related things.

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

know or be intelligent enough to know?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I believe that cognitive dissonance is an attempt to explain why "Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict" are related things.

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

But isn't an ignoramus being a jerk someone who refuses to weigh new information and justifies their behavior based on what they already know despite new information?

that leans into straight up denial

 

[lakeview]

I believe that cognitive dissonance is an attempt to explain why "Not wanting to change your opinion and feeling that you have to reconcile an internal conflict" are related things.

It depends on why. In order for it to be cognitive dissonance they have to know that they are wrong and have a problem with that, without those two things it isn't cognitive dissonance it's just some ignoramus being a jerk.

But isn't an ignoramus being a jerk someone who refuses to weigh new information and justifies their behavior based on what they already know despite new information?

Refusing to weigh new information is not cognitive dissonance. If they did evaluate new information, realized that their opinion is wrong, and then made up a reason to continue believing as they had all along in spite of the new information then that would be cognitive dissonance.