Cognitive Dissonance

[Resha Caner]

Cognitive dissonance is experienced by everyone, but to varying degrees. Just as, we all use denial at times as a defense mechanism, but again to varying degrees.

With some people, they can not get to the point of acknowledging information that may go against a tightly held belief and they will experience cognitive dissonance to a much higher degree and they will also develop defense mechanisms that become so strong, they will not let anything past that threatens the belief.

I guess the question would be how one separates cognitive dissonance from incommensurablility and/or differences in assumptions. And if one can separate them, how is one's approach to that person different?

 

[bhsmte]

I guess the question would be how one separates cognitive dissonance from incommensurablility and/or differences in assumptions. And if one can separate them, how is one's approach to that person different?

Specific assumptions, can be directly related to warding off cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance: Why Conflict Can Change Behavior

 

[Chesterton]

Why not just moderate those who were trying to be mean?

My best guess is that it would still be disruptive even if they weren't necessarily mean. I could think up lots of examples, but just for a couple: in my church's forum, people sometimes post prayer requests for sick family members or such. What would an atheist have to contribute in a thread like that? Another example: I may be discussing theological differences with a Roman Catholic. What would an atheist have to add to the discussion? I assume his thoughts would be something like "Why are you guys arguing, there's no God to argue about." And if he posted anything like that it would just amount to a thread derailing if responded to.

I can rattle off a dozen or so atheist posters on here who are extremely courteous and kind, even if they disagree with Christianity.

Certainly. In fact one of my favorite people on all of CF is a British, homosexual, atheist (former wiccan) scientist. When I joined CF, if someone had wagered me that a person of that description would be one of my favorite people, I'd probably have lost some money. We disagree on much (obviously) but we've had many very lengthy and deep discussions which are mutually respectful, interesting, challenging and downright fun. I flat-out like the guy! It can be done.

 

[BL2KTN]

You think they deal with it differently than non-believers? Or do you think non-believers never experience it?

I'm sure if a believer had compelling evidence to change the world view of non-believers, the non-believer would feel cognitive dissonance. I haven't seen compelling evidence ever presented on these forums however, so I don't have any evidence of a non-believer here experiencing such. I have had believers privately message me the converse.

I was a raging scientific realist at one point, but the data I collected for my engineering career just wasn't supporting that position.

Feel free to provide that data.

I reached a major "oh crap" point in my career that sent me on a philosophical journey, and at the end of it I basically became an instrumentalist - even changed jobs. It seems most non-believers here believe in some kind of scientific realism or empiricism, and I used to hope my experience would be helpful to them.

Not so, it seems.

I've never seen you post anything compelling in this regards. Do you have anything? I'm always willing to change my belief if the truth is elsewhere (what choice would I have).

For a long time I wondered why that was. After much pondering, it seems to me it comes down to differences in experience and the assumptions we make based on those experiences. It seems an issue of incommensurability - that people who haven't shared my journey honestly can't understand what I'm saying.

Egocentric enlightenment isn't very persuasive. If someone tells me a 2,000 year old Chinese man floated above the clouds and now has a personal relationship with them in their mind, it might take more than incommensurability to prove to me they're sane.

For what it's worth, I've had similarly jarring experiences on the religious side of the spectrum. It's just that it didn't cause my faith to collapse because my faith isn't based on me, just as my friends and family don't exist on the basis of my rationalizations.

I'll let this one sit for now. I've provided enough for you to respond to.

With some people, they can not get to the point of acknowledging information that may go against a tightly held belief and they will experience cognitive dissonance to a much higher degree and they will also develop defense mechanisms that become so strong, they will not let anything past that threatens the belief.

But are they self-aware of this?

 

[Resha Caner]

I've never seen you post anything compelling in this regards. Do you have anything? I'm always willing to change my belief if the truth is elsewhere (what choice would I have).

I haven't said much about it in quite some time, but wouldn't that be a distraction from the topic? Arguing specific details I mean.

In short, I once believed the parameters used in classical mechanics (e.g. mass, stiffness, damping) to be an emergent property of the underlying molecular structure of a material. If true, then mathematical models were predictive of real behavior. When that idea ran into difficulty, I chased the alternatives and found none.

In operational terms, leaving the model as merely an approximation works well enough. But if one is in pursuit of constant improvement, the idea again runs into difficulties.

Egocentric enlightenment isn't very persuasive. If someone tells me a 2,000 year old Chinese man floated above the clouds and now has a personal relationship with them in their mind, it might take more than incommensurability to prove to me they're sane.

I was only referring to my experiences as an engineer, which haven't involved any floating Chinese men. Incommensurability refers to an inability to relate different models of the same thing. Relativistic mechanics, classical mechanics, and Non-Newtonian mechanics do not have a means for comparing their definitions of some basic concepts. As such, acceptance or rejection of those models comes down to their efficacy in specific situations. Unfortunately, there is not a comprehensice trimuph where one model always does better than the others. The triumphs are always singular.

 

[Rubiks]

I would love to hear an honest reply about your thought processes while reading it.

I love a lot more import matters to do, but thanks for the offer

 

[Paradoxum]

"hurr durr why would God rape virgin mary"

I know God didn't rape her (no sex), but I wonder if God asked Mary for consent to put a baby inside her. Being pregnant isn't a minor things... it deforms you and messes with your body chemistry.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a big problem, it just isn't something I've thought about before.

 

[Chesterton]

I know God didn't rape her (no sex), but I wonder if God asked Mary for consent to put a baby inside her. Being pregnant isn't a minor things... it deforms you and messes with your body chemistry.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a big problem, it just isn't something I've thought about before.

Luke 1:38

 

[BL2KTN]

My best guess is that it would still be disruptive even if they weren't necessarily mean. I could think up lots of examples, but just for a couple: in my church's forum, people sometimes post prayer requests for sick family members or such. What would an atheist have to contribute in a thread like that?

A prayer forum would appropriately be limited to those who believe in prayer.

Another example: I may be discussing theological differences with a Roman Catholic. What would an atheist have to add to the discussion?

It depends on how much the atheist has studied theology or religion. An atheist who is professor of religious studies might have real insight into things you are discussing.

I assume his thoughts would be something like "Why are you guys arguing, there's no God to argue about." And if he posted anything like that it would just amount to a thread derailing if responded to.

It's the assumption that gets you.

Certainly. In fact one of my favorite people on all of CF is a British, homosexual, atheist (former wiccan) scientist. When I joined CF, if someone had wagered me that a person of that description would be one of my favorite people, I'd probably have lost some money. We disagree on much (obviously) but we've had many very lengthy and deep discussions which are mutually respectful, interesting, challenging and downright fun. I flat-out like the guy! It can be done.

Glad you're making friends with those who are different than you.

I haven't said much about it in quite some time, but wouldn't that be a distraction from the topic? Arguing specific details I mean.

If it was worth changing your modus operandi, surely it's worth sharing. Feel free to link to a new thread where we can discuss. Just make sure it's in one of the few places non-believers can participate.

In short, I once believed the parameters used in classical mechanics (e.g. mass, stiffness, damping) to be an emergent property of the underlying molecular structure of a material. If true, then mathematical models were predictive of real behavior. When that idea ran into difficulty, I chased the alternatives and found none.

In operational terms, leaving the model as merely an approximation works well enough. But if one is in pursuit of constant improvement, the idea again runs into difficulties.

Open a thread, let's discuss. Looks perfect for Physical Science. And who knows, maybe you'll find your answer so you can switch back to naturalism

I was only referring to my experiences as an engineer, which haven't involved any floating Chinese men. Incommensurability refers to an inability to relate different models of the same thing. Relativistic mechanics, classical mechanics, and Non-Newtonian mechanics do not have a means for comparing their definitions of some basic concepts. As such, acceptance or rejection of those models comes down to their efficacy in specific situations. Unfortunately, there is not a comprehensice trimuph where one model always does better than the others. The triumphs are always singular.

Look forward to discussing it with you.

I love a lot more import matters to do, but thanks for the offer

So you will not have any spare time in the next week, eh?

Looks like someone's afraid of the topic of this thread. :lol:

 

[dac2015]

Credit to Bhtmse for giving me the idea of this thread. I'm just curious... do the vast majority of Christians seek to avoid conversation with non-believers on the veracity of Christianity because of the cognitive dissonance that it inevitably creates inside their own minds? I know that when I was a Christian, I enjoyed the conversations because I only wanted the truth, no matter where it led me. Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places. And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith? I know I wasn't capable of such, but are others? Just curious, BL

Lol I rather enjoy having in depth conversations with atheists, evolutionists etc. And I hope that I create some cognitive dissonance in their minds. Although I'm sure some of them didn't think twice about it afterwards.

 

[Resha Caner]

Open a thread, let's discuss. Looks perfect for Physical Science. And who knows, maybe you'll find your answer so you can switch back to naturalism

I have had threads about it in the past. But I wasn't looking for an answer. I was curious what the mix is here of instrumentalists, realists, empiricists, Platonists, etc.

With respect to the incommensurability, I've had discussions with respected mathematicians about it, and they more or less told me it's an unsolvable problem ... or at least it would rank in difficulty with the list of problems on the Clay Institute list. Thing is, people would have to be interested in the problem before they'd put much effort into it.

So, I've also talked with some of the leading dynamicists in the world about the level of interest. Bottom line - not much. Actually, what one of them said was he could help me get into a doctoral program to study the topic, but if I didn't do it, probably no one else would. That was a bit too much of a life change, so I didn't make the leap.

Anyway, I've moved on. I'm doing other things. It was just an example. I'm not sure what is driving your interest in creating a separate thread. I was driving toward the experience/assumptions aspect. In regard to your comment about egocentric enlightenment, I think trust & authority actually do play a big role. I don't think you'll have a big impact on believers here because they don't trust you. I don't mean that as an insult. The same goes for me. I doubt I've had much of an impact on atheists because they don't trust me.

 

[BL2KTN]

Actually, what one of them said was he could help me get into a doctoral program to study the topic, but if I didn't do it, probably no one else would. That was a bit too much of a life change, so I didn't make the leap.

Well, let's hope someone does soon. There are answers to be had =)

 

[bhsmte]

I'm sure if a believer had compelling evidence to change the world view of non-believers, the non-believer would feel cognitive dissonance. I haven't seen compelling evidence ever presented on these forums however, so I don't have any evidence of a non-believer here experiencing such. I have had believers privately message me the converse.



Feel free to provide that data.



I've never seen you post anything compelling in this regards. Do you have anything? I'm always willing to change my belief if the truth is elsewhere (what choice would I have).



Egocentric enlightenment isn't very persuasive. If someone tells me a 2,000 year old Chinese man floated above the clouds and now has a personal relationship with them in their mind, it might take more than incommensurability to prove to me they're sane.



I'll let this one sit for now. I've provided enough for you to respond to.



But are they self-aware of this?

What they are very aware of is the internal turmoil from being exposed to evidence that threatens a tightly held belief. At that point they have a choice, acknowledge their belief is wrong, or protect it. If the belief holds a high degree of psychological importance to them it is likely too much pain would be involved in acknowledging the belief is false.

 

[Chesterton]

A prayer forum would appropriately be limited to those who believe in prayer.

So Christian forums are appropriately limited to those who believe in Christ.

It depends on how much the atheist has studied theology or religion. An atheist who is professor of religious studies might have real insight into things you are discussing.

There are forums here where "secular" aspects of religious things can be discussed by atheists, such as this philosophy forum, the science forum, the history forum, etc. Even a limited apologetics type forum.

It's the assumption that gets you.

Does any atheist care whether we were born with original sin or ancestral sin? I wouldn't think he believes in sin at all. I guess an analogy might be a "Scientologist Forums" (if there is such a thing). What would I as a Christian have to say to those people in their threads discussing Scientology issues? "You're fundamentally wrong about pretty much everything."? But I think they have the right to talk amongst themselves without interruption if they want.

 

[BL2KTN]

So Christian forums are appropriately limited to those who believe in Christ.

Apparently "Christian" includes far more topics than would should expect.

There are forums here where "secular" aspects of religious things can be discussed by atheists, such as this philosophy forum, the science forum, the history forum, etc. Even a limited apologetics type forum.

This thread is about cognitive dissonance, not these specific forums. Still, it should be noted that there is no real apologetics forum.

Does any atheist care whether we were born with original sin or ancestral sin?

Those who study the evolution of beliefs, religions, world religions, ancient religions, the bible, etc, probably do care about those sorts of ideas, even if they think neither is actually true.

I wouldn't think he believes in sin at all. I guess an analogy might be a "Scientologist Forums" (if there is such a thing). What would I as a Christian have to say to those people in their threads discussing Scientology issues?

Your opinions.

"You're fundamentally wrong about pretty much everything."? But I think they have the right to talk amongst themselves without interruption if they want.

Again, this thread is specifically about cognitive dissonance. Some have tried to make it about these forums, but that is not the intended purpose of this thread.

 

[Chesterton]

Again, this thread is specifically about cognitive dissonance. Some have tried to make it about these forums, but that is not the intended purpose of this thread.

Read your own OP again. A brief paragraph of self-honoring loaded sentences about which you are "just curious". The OP is about Christians seeking to avoid conversation as evidenced by the policies on CF. I claimed that 1) many of us do not avoid conversation for the reason you gave, and 2) the policies of CF are reasonable for reasons unrelated to cognitive dissonance. And you want to change your own subject - possibly a classic symptom of cognitive dissonance? If you just wanted to engage in name-calling, you got the OP title correct, but not the substance of the OP.

 

[RDKirk]

Read your own OP again. A brief paragraph of self-honoring loaded sentences about which you are "just curious". The OP is about Christians seeking to avoid conversation as evidenced by the policies on CF. I claimed that 1) many of us do not avoid conversation for the reason you gave, and 2) the policies of CF are reasonable for reasons unrelated to cognitive dissonance. And you want to change your own subject - possibly a classic symptom of cognitive dissonance? If you just wanted to engage in name-calling, you got the OP title correct, but not the substance of the OP.

I have to agree with this.

 

[BL2KTN]

And you want to change your own subject - possibly a classic symptom of cognitive dissonance? If you just wanted to engage in name-calling, you got the OP title correct, but not the substance of the OP.

The subject is Cognitive Dissonance, and the forum rules were one thing I briefly mentioned. The reason I do not want to tarry on it isn't cognitive dissonance, but the knowledge that moderators will lock the thread and put me in timeout if that's the topic. It isn't so stop trying to hijack it in that manner.

 

[juvenissun]

Credit to Bhtmse for giving me the idea of this thread.

I'm just curious... do the vast majority of Christians seek to avoid conversation with non-believers on the veracity of Christianity because of the cognitive dissonance that it inevitably creates inside their own minds? I know that when I was a Christian, I enjoyed the conversations because I only wanted the truth, no matter where it led me. Even on these boards, the display of cognitive dissonance is obvious in that non-believers are relegated to a very small number of forums so that they cannot talk openly with others in most places.

And also, when the cognitive dissonance is more than the determined Christian can bear, do they then find a way to lie to their own self in order to maintain faith? I know I wasn't capable of such, but are others?

Just curious,

BL

Does that mean you are more reasonable than nearly all Christians you know?
If so, then you are exactly the one who is cheating yourself, and are proud of it.

 

[Chesterton]

The subject is Cognitive Dissonance, and the forum rules were one thing I briefly mentioned. The reason I do not want to tarry on it isn't cognitive dissonance, but the knowledge that moderators will lock the thread and put me in timeout if that's the topic. It isn't so stop trying to hijack it in that manner.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED! Do you see him repressing me!? You saw it, didn't you!?