Cognitive Dissonance

[iBrian]

A2: No, I feel confident that the two are not mutually exclusive, that both are correct, that it is a lack of data that appears to make them dissonant.

Quite agree as well.

As there seems to be an attempt to hijack this into a critique of science again, I'm going to bring in an account of personal spiritual development.

In periods of spiritual growth, there is often a heightened awareness of information, and how it can interrelate. It feels like you've got some of the jigsaw pieces that help create an overall picture of reality and its deeper meanings.

The trouble is, you never have all of the jigsaw pieces - the moment you think you have them, you've stopped learning.

Some of the jigsaw pieces seem to fit well, but some of them don't - not yet.

And yet, underlying it all, has to be a sense of humility - that no matter how much you think you know, how much of the picture you feel you can construct, you have to accept that you may be wrong. After all, this is the process of learning!

A wise man* once told me: "The fool who thinks himself a wise man is but a fool; but the fool who realises that he is a fool demonstrates wisdom!"



* Actually, it was a voice in my head. Spirit guide kind of thing.

 

[Paladin]

Tao, I submit that what you are talking about isn't a case of cognitive dissonance as much as it is a type of cognitive bias.

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For your perusal.

 

[Tao_Equus]

And yet, underlying it all, has to be a sense of humility - that no matter how much you think you know, how much of the picture you feel you can construct, you have to accept that you may be wrong. After all, this is the process of learning!

I go a tad further...internally I presume I am wrong. But it does not make for a good argument... and I do love a good argument

 

[earl]

I go a tad further...internally I presume I am wrong. But it does not make for a good argument... and I do love a good argument

An interesting revelation Tao, (I'll leave aside what Snoopy was hinting at as to your attempt to imply an opinion is somehow different from a belief). So, if you assume you're wrong whenever you so vehemently trash a view you do not agree with, upon what are you basing your vehemence? I, too, am honored I was an inspiration for starting a thread. But, your presumption for it was wrong. My contention about NDE evidence was only that it provided strong evidence for the notion that consciousness is not exclusively dependent upon brain function. Not that it conclusively proved life after death. Am amused by our debates given that you so enjoy your dialogues with Kim and about 99% of everything she's claimed has been exactly my position. earl

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, I submit that what you are talking about isn't a case of cognitive dissonance as much as it is a type of cognitive bias.

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For your perusal.

Yeah my "wishful thinking", if it is wishful thinking, is a cognitive bias but the dissonance comes from its conflict with evolution theory based on chance mutation and natural selection. Evolution theory as it stands is quite adequate to explain what we see and does not require Gaia theory to 'make sense'. However I entertain the thought that life on Earth has a singular purpose, (that of any organism - reproduction), that required it to evolve a species (organ) with the ability to take life to another planet. So my question is did mankind evolve by chance or was it that old fashioned biological imperative.
From the list you linked to I can apply at least a half dozen categories of cognitive bias to my thinking on Gaia. But I remain attracted to it

 

[Tao_Equus]

An interesting revelation Tao, (I'll leave aside what Snoopy was hinting at as to your attempt to imply an opinion is somehow different from a belief). So, if you assume you're wrong whenever you so vehemently trash a view you do not agree with, upon what are you basing your vehemence? I, too, am honored I was an inspiration for starting a thread. But, your presumption for it was wrong. My contention about NDE evidence was only that it provided strong evidence for the notion that consciousness is not exclusively dependent upon brain function. Not that it conclusively proved life after death. Am amused by our debates given that you so enjoy your dialogues with Kim and about 99% of everything she's claimed has been exactly my position. earl

I "vehemently trash", as you put it, for a variety of reasons ranging from being in a foul mood to finding someone's argument preposterous. Why do you do it?

You were not the inspiration for this thread but do not be disappointed, I promise I'll start one about you soon I only mentioned you to Wil as an example. And sorry, but you have provided no evidence of any value to date to support that contention.

Kim does not tend to go round trying to rubbish virtually everything I say. She does not try to invent new words as labels for me. She does not start threads to try and label me according to her need. She answers my questions, (often too well). And when I say something emphatically and clearly she accepts that is what I am saying without trying to imply I am saying something else. And, of course, you are not nearly as good looking

 

[earl]

I "vehemently trash", as you put it, for a variety of reasons ranging from being in a foul mood to finding someone's argument preposterous. Why do you do it?

You were not the inspiration for this thread but do not be disappointed, I promise I'll start one about you soon I only mentioned you to Wil as an example. And sorry, but you have provided no evidence of any value to date to support that contention.

Kim does not tend to go round trying to rubbish virtually everything I say. She does not try to invent new words as labels for me. She does not start threads to try and label me according to her need. She answers my questions, (often too well). And when I say something emphatically and clearly she accepts that is what I am saying without trying to imply I am saying something else. And, of course, you are not nearly as good looking

why do I do it? Because you're often in a foul mood and often your arguments are preposterous. earl

 

[earl]

why do I do it? Because you're often in a foul mood and often your arguments are preposterous. earl

But, no doubt she's better looking. earl

 

[path_of_one]

If I wasn't, it'd say something about both of your sexual tendencies.

As for CD- I'm somewhat fascinated by it. It's been a particular interest of mine in playing with cultural model theory. Humans have a remarkable ability to maintain cognitive dissonance, which to me indicates it is cognitively useful for us.

I think Brian covered a lot of why I think it is useful for us. I'm still playing around with the details.

CD allows us to play around with opposing ideas without fully committing to one or the other, which allows us greater flexibility in the way we adapt best- through our capacity for thought. Our survival as humans depends on our capacity to be innovative, imaginative, and to not be too attached to a certain way of thinking. If we are, we fail to be able to rapidly adapt to changing social and environmental circumstances. CD allows us to maintain mutually exclusive ideas or beliefs, leaving the window open for relying on either one of them if the need should arise. I am working on how CD is related to cultural models and decision-making- to me this is really interesting (because I am a big geek like that).

On a spiritual level, I think there is also value in CD. First, just as it allows us to adapt to new contexts in our physical lives, it also allows us to maintain an openness to spiritual growth. I think this occurs in many people even when they consciously attempt to block doubt and seek to shore up a particular set of beliefs, a particular worldview. People may personify this as temptations from Satan or what have you, but I think that this capacity is mostly positive in human beings. Doubt allows for openness to learning new things, as well as the potential for real faith. On a deeper level, I think CD gets at the true nature of the universe. I think paradoxes are inherent in reality, and boundaries are fuzzy despite our best attempts at fulfilling our desires for an orderly world. CD is perhaps an accurate assessment of what actually is- a world that is more complex, paradoxical, and integrated than most people's conscious minds are comfortable with. CD allows us to get at this reality without overloading our conscious mind with potentiality and blowing some circuits. With training, we can learn to recognize and play around with our own CD in a way that is constructive and even entertaining on a conscious level. We can learn to enjoy this process rather than being discomforted by it.

 

[Snoopy]

Out of interest...what are your ethical concerns?
I was joking but what might I not really get?

Sorry, but I don't really have the time or inclination to derail the OP on Festinger's theory. I've talked about the ethics of food / vegetarian issues here before.

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry, but I don't really have the time or inclination to derail the OP on Festinger's theory. I've talked about the ethics of food / vegetarian issues here before.

s.

Ok, your a 3 bar hero now for it

 

[Tao_Equus]

why do I do it? Because you're often in a foul mood and often your arguments are preposterous. earl

You are right on the first count. I tend to do my mr angry routine in the mornings, I'm not a morning person, or late at night, if I have had a drink and am feeling fed up.(It is a depressant). In-between I'm usually ok. Usually. Not always though.
As for me often being preposterous well you can hardly expect me to agree with that.
I can occasionally be vehement, but I think you may confuse my sense of the absurd and my directness for it on occasion. I also see that those that feel like they have been attacked often feel so when they meet an argument that blows theirs out of the water. Do you think you have a tendency to shoot the messenger?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Humans have a remarkable ability to maintain cognitive dissonance, which to me indicates it is cognitively useful for us.

While I agree it is also fence sitting at times. Which is not always the best option. And too much of it is just another way of saying stupid.

 

[nativeastral]

You are right on the first count. I tend to do my mr angry routine in the mornings, I'm not a morning person, or late at night, if I have had a drink and am feeling fed up.(It is a depressant). In-between I'm usually ok. Usually. Not always though.
As for me often being preposterous well you can hardly expect me to agree with that.
I can occasionally be vehement, but I think you may confuse my sense of the absurd and my directness for it on occasion. I also see that those that feel like they have been attacked often feel so when they meet an argument that blows theirs out of the water. Do you think you have a tendency to shoot the messenger?

hey tao, found your diagnosis

'On the other hand, self-deception may not always be a flaw and may even be beneficial at times. If we were too brutally honest and objective about our own abilities and about life in general, we might become debilitated by depression.'

self-deception - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[Tao_Equus]

hey tao, found your diagnosis

'On the other hand, self-deception may not always be a flaw and may even be beneficial at times. If we were too brutally honest and objective about our own abilities and about life in general, we might become debilitated by depression.'

self-deception - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Not so sure. I did a test and I know that I am in the top 1% of people who are always right.

 

[nativeastral]

On a deeper level, I think CD gets at the true nature of the universe. I think paradoxes are inherent in reality, and boundaries are fuzzy despite our best attempts at fulfilling our desires for an orderly world. CD is perhaps an accurate assessment of what actually is- a world that is more complex, paradoxical, and integrated than most people's conscious minds are comfortable with.

l agree with you here path, and 'normal' folk can deal with dissonance adequately, but tip the balance and it can become pathological evidenced with all the mental illnesses around [which are still stigmatised]. Logical linear and rational thinking is praised as an ideal, illogical haphazard intuitive contrariness not [unless you have managed to market it as art!]