Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've always found this terrifying. Not because it means that the people around me will do stupid dangerous things but because it implies that even if I try really hard to make reasonable decisions about the world I can never really know. That's straight up Lovecraft style creepy to me.
I totally agree. And whats worse, is that knowing about it, and trying not to fall victim to it, you really just find ways to convince yourself that you are being open to new ideas while dismissing any evidence that shows you aren't open to ideas.
its this crazy stuff that makes me love the brain, but ya, when I think about what it means for me, it is a little terrifying and depressing
EDIT: Ive never seen bones though
Originally posted by inimalist
you are essentially right (as in, I'd be nit picking to correct your definition of dissonance), but, you are adding an extra step in the process of action and justification. It goes a little something like this:-Preconscious motivation to act based on current goals and maintaining homeostasis
.
-Motor system prepares to act, before you become consciously aware of your desire to act
.
-you act
.
-based on the immediate contexts and your previous beliefs about yourself/everything, you come to a narrative conclusion about what happenedyou are adding a stage between the 3rd and 4th stages that has people weight or evaluate themselves and the consequences of their actions, which does not exist (it is called an anxiety disorder if people are constantly going over what they have done in their heads). People go straight from acting to why their act was congruent with their beliefs, not to evaluating the content of what they have done versus some moral principle.
This isn't to be condescending, but a lot of people outside of psych seem to have this "rational actor" idea of human behaviour, where we think people are these thinking and reasoning beings. It just isn't true. I think you might be a bit caught up in that type of thought here.
lol, did writing up that middle part seem a little bit like a test you had to take as an undergrad? (seemed like a test style essay.) I hope I didn't bring out the ol' test anxiety memories from back in the day. lol
To address your point, part of cognitive dissonance is the "outcome" of the conflicting state and actions are taken.
* Change our behavior.
* Justify our behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.
* Justify our behavior by adding new cognitions
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm
What I was referring to does not occur between steps 3 and 4, it is step 4...sort of. It's more of a step 5.
From my understanding of cognitive dissonance and that websites understanding of cognitive dissonance, it would be more of a "rationalizing actor", lol.
And, no, it wasn't condescending, it just just doesn't apply to me on this particular subject. From what I am gathering from your post, you assert A and B and then conclude with not all of B. I see a partial conflict in your reasoning. The justification occurs after the dissonance and if I understand your post correctly, the dissonance, or uncomfortable feeling, is the narritive? If so, then I just misunderstood your point 4 and no conflict is in your post.
And, yes, with dissonance, I could probably convince JIA of some of the faults that I myself experienced dissonance about and concluded that there's no logical way around it: there ARE mistakes and contradictions. Using dissonance is a persuasive method, especially if done gently and with care for the person.
One important example of using cognitive dissonance as a persuasive tool is socialism. All the time, I hear anti-socialistic sentiments. A quick and easy way to create dissonance about their take on "evil socialism" is saying something like this: "Socialism isn't that bad or are you saying you want to end your police and fire services for your community and kick your grandmother off of medicare?" 😆
Anyway, do not read into my post as me being "snarky" or combative. That has lead into shitty pissing matches and I don't want to do this. I'm more or less curious and want to resolve my understanding of cognitive dissonance with what you know. Again, I'm on the border of talking out of my ass on this subject so I'll probably agree with whatever you post next.
Originally posted by inimalist
it is really easy though. dissonance only exists when there are two possible cognitive states (ie: "I'm can do bad things" or "I can't do bad things"😉. people who know, without doubt that they don't do bad things never entertains narratives that allow for anything else, thus avoiding any dissonance
To keep with your example, the person that lies 50 times a day is a pathological liar and, therefore, never experiences dissonance? Is that what you're saying?
Cause I would still disagree. Pathological liars are very much aware of their lying most of the time. I would say that they have 'desensitized" themselves to the dissonance and just don't give a **** until they experience those depressive periods where they do experience dissonance.
Originally posted by dadudemon
To keep with your example, the person that lies 50 times a day is a pathological liar and, therefore, never experiences dissonance? Is that what you're saying?Cause I would still disagree. Pathological liars are very much aware of their lying most of the time. I would say that they have 'desensitized" themselves to the dissonance and just don't give a **** until they experience those depressive periods where they do experience dissonance.
but this isn't a theory about "pathological liars", it is about "people-who-think-they-can't-do-bad-things", and even then, only accounts for 50% of the people who believe this. It simply is an explanation for a group of subjects who said they never lie, lied, and then completely dismissed the moral implications of their action, they still saw themselves as not lying.
"desensitizing" or "not giving a shit" are cognitive strategies, much like "dismissing", that prevent the person from experiencing dissonance