From: Will Vacher <WVacher-AT-clifton-college.avon.sch.uk>
Subject: RE: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 15:33:09 -0000


i'm sorry, where did the festinger stuff come from? - a good topic to
discuss though.

JdWv

> ----------
> From: 	sdv[SMTP:steve.devos-AT-krokodile.com]
> Reply To: 	technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Sent: 	Sunday, November 05, 2000 4:04 PM
> To: 	lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu; Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture;
> technology
> Subject: 	Re: Evolution and Cognitive Dissonance
> 
> Eric
> 
> apologies - I read the below without realising it was a quote from the
> website mentioned below....
> 
> best regards as always
> 
> sdv
> 
> Mary Murphy&Salstrand wrote:
> 
> > After I read these posted, I was curious to find out what the
> internet
> > might have to say about cognitive dissonance. I haven't heard this
> > theory discussed in over ten years.  Imagine my surprise to come
> across
> > the following splendid piece of intellectual garbage.
> >
> > If Bush becomes president, it is this kind of logic that got him
> there.
> >
> > I won't attempt a refution.  This one seems self-explanatory. The
> only
> > comment I will make is that the experiment which is cited seems more
> > about how money can corrupt value judgements more than anything
> about
> > cognitive dissonance.
> >
> > My final question is does anyone out there see a relationship
> between
> > cognitive dissonance and the differend?
> >
> > Mode 1 thinking privileges rationality over sentiment
> > Mode 2 thinking privileges sentiment over rationality
> >
> >
> > http://www.propaganda101.com/cognitiv.htm
> >
> > Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that
> individuals,
> > when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or
> situations
> > in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience
> > "cognitive dissonance."  Dissonance is defined here as an
> "unpleasant
> > state of tension."  Individuals will try to relieve this dissonance
> in
> > one of two ways:
> >
> > Increase the number of consistent cognitions  - In order to
> assimilate
> > inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals
> experiencing
> > dissonance will increase then number of consistent cognitions,
> thereby
> > abating the dissonance.  This often involves rationalizing...i.e.
> myopic
> > focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces an existing
> > worldview.  In most instances, the offending inconsistent cognitions
> are
> > dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus on extant
> > consistent cognitions.  This is called "rationalizing" because the
> > individual seeks out semi-logical conclusions using extant
> cognitions
> > and newly created consistent cognitions in order to find a way to
> > invalidate the inconsistent cognitions.  The reader must understand
> that
> > we are not talking about
> >
> > Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions - Individuals change
> > their attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions.  Instead
> of
> > rationalizing, the individual excises the inconsistent cognitions
> from
> > their worldview.  This is more consistent with mode 1 thinking.
> When
> > presented with logic or facts inconsistent with their worldview,
> > The following experiment, extracted from Principles of Psychology
> > (Price, et al   pg. 507), illustrates the reality of cognitive
> > dissonance:
> >
> > In one of the earliest experimental test of the theory of cognitive
> > dissonance, Festinger and J. Meririll Carlsmith (1959) had subjects
> > perform a very dull and boring task:  the subjects had to place a
> large
> > number of spools on pegs on a board, turn each spool a quarter turn,
> > take the spool off the pegs  and then put them back on. As you can
> > imagine, subject's attitudes toward this task were highly negative.
> The
> > subjects were then induced to tell a female "subject," who was
> actually
> > an accomplice of the experimenter, that this boring task he would be
> > performing was really interesting and enjoyable.  Some of the
> subjects
> > were offered $20 to tell this falsehood;  others were offered only
> $1.
> > Almost all of the subjects agreed to walk into the waiting room and
> > persuade the subject accomplice that the boring experiment would be
> > fun.
> >
> > Obviously , there is a discrepancy here between attitudes and
> behavior.
> > Although the task was boring,subjects tried to convince another
> person
> > it was fun.  Why?   To the subjects who received $20, the reason was
> > clear;  the wanted the money.   The larger payment provided an
> important
> > external justification consistent with the conterattitudinal
> behavior.
> > There was no dissonance, and the subjects experienced no need to
> change
> > their attitudes.  But for the subjects who received only $1, there
> was
> > much less external justification and more dissonance.  How could
> > subjects reduce the dissonance?  They could do so by changing their
> > attitude toward the task.  This is exactly what happened.  When the
> > subjects were asked to evaluate the experiment, the subjects who
> were
> > paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than
> did
> > either the subjects who were paid $20 to lie or the subjects in a
> > control group who were not required to lie about the task.  Since
> the
> > external justification --the $1 payment--was too low to justify the
> > counter attitudinal behavior, the subjects simply changed their
> > attitudes to make them consistent with behavior.
> >
> > One can see in this experiment how easily people rationalize
> situations
> > to make them consistent with their worldview.
> >
> > There is a connection between mode 2 thinking and cognitive
> dissonance.
> > Emotionally based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and
> logic
> > which contradict the justification for that thinking or emotional
> > worldview.   Factually or logically inconsistent cognitions are
> > countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with
> > emotional cognitions.  For the mode 2 thinker, the universe is not a
> > matter of logic and fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when
> presented
> > with logic or facts that contradict a strongly held emotion, they
> > respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that contradiction,
> but
> > with an emotional refutation.    The mode 2 thinker refutes
> emotionally,
> > not logically.  This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and
> facts
> > with mode 2 thinkers.  Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with
> > emotional discussion or debate.  It is like trying to debate with a
> > child...they simply don't hear you.
> >
> > How can one counter emotional arguments?  Answer:  It is not
> possible.
> > Mode 2 thinkers cannot be persuaded rationally...i.e. with facts and
> > logic that contradict their worldview.  Only rational individuals
> can be
> > persuaded with contradictory facts and logic.
> >
> > The question is this then:  How does one persuade an irrational
> > person?   The simple answer is....conditioning.  Mode 2 thinkers can
> > only be persuaded by subtle conditioning, by adding the gist of the
> > argument that is to persuade them as a subtext to the plots of the
> > stories that they consume as entertainment.   Vicarious
> identification
> > seems to be the only effective means of persuading mode 2 thinkers.
> One
> > on one debates....ineffective.  Informational
> propaganda...ineffective.
> > Manipulating the story characters with whom they identify and
> > controlling the means of propagating this stories (movies,
> television,
> > etc)......very effective.
> >
> > The Left do not disagree with the Right intellectually...with few
> > exceptions, they are virtually incapable of intellectual
> disagreement.
> > The Left disagree emotionally.   Really, this is a psychological and
> not
> > ideological phenomenon.  It is a mass neurosis of sorts.  When
> millions
> > of people cling to worldviews which have failed for the last 80
> years,
> > something is wrong.  When people celebrate degeneration in defense
> of
> > freedom of speech, there is something wrong.  When people elevate
> the
> > murder of innocent unborn children to a "right" but simultaneously
> fight
> > against the application of capital punishment for heinous crimes,
> > something is wrong.  Liberalism is so full of logical and factual
> > contradictions that one wonders how a rational person can subscribe
> to
> > such a worldview.  Only mode 2 thinkers can rationalize such things.
> > The mind of the liberal is literally shut off to logic and facts.
> >
> > Liberalism (or what it has come to connote), is really the result of
> > decades of emotional conditioning which has left those conditioned
> > without the faculty of critical thought.  Certainly those emotions
> are
> > there to begin with.  Humans are animals.   It is the taming of our
> base
> > animalistic impulses that makes civilization possible.   When those
> > taming influences are supplanted by devices that condition and
> reinforce
> > the animalistic impulses, civilization crumbles.  This is why
> morality
> > and social structure are so important (stating the obvious in this
> age
> > is iconoclastic..lol).   The point here is that what has happened
> over
> > the last 40 years is that our consumption of
> entertainment--television
> > primarily, movies secondarily,  and in some cases novels--has had
> the
> > negative effect of conditioning either by design or inadvertently,
> > emotions and worldviews inconsistent with reality.  These
> condititioned
> > fantasy and utopian worldviews can result in societal collapse.
> > Cognitive dissonance is but one vehicle in the war of the mind.
> >
> > Cults can easily be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance.  All
> > inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by violence.  In a cult,
> > inconsistent cognitions are dealt with by shunning, by starving, by
> > confinement, etc....  Liberalism does the same thing!  Political
> > Correctness, the illegitimate step-child of liberalism, is cultlike
> in
> > its establishment of correct speech.  This is what cults do..they
> > prohibit certain words and discussion of certain topics.
> >
> > The Left are essentially a "cult of cognitive dissonance."
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> __
> This message has been checked for all known viruses, by Star Internet,
> 
> delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. 
> For further information visit:
> http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp
> 


     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---