Cognitive Dissonance

by, Renee Wood

 

What is going on with the people in the U.S. where we can’t even seem to find a point of fact that we can agree in order to start a discussion on any particular issue?  It’s maddening – like living in two different universes, and neither will stop and truly understand the others’ universe.  It’s like we’re fighting to make our universe dominant – “right fight” when there’s plenty of room for compromise, but no one wants to learn the others’ reality – too much work.  Just let me be with my version of reality and don’t bother me.  It wasn’t always this way.

I like to think the reason why I have many friends on both sides of the aisle is because I am adept at least at understanding the other point of view, whether I agree or not. But my held beliefs are NOT like gods to me that prevent me from changing with learning or discovering something new and credible, even if it opposes what I previously believed.  I have the premise that, even if we don’t agree on the candidates/issues, both sides started with reason, logic and facts. At least once I thought it was true that although one may interpret these differently, the discussion started with basic facts.  We may have veered in different directions during the conversation/debate according to the different lenses (religion, race, sex, ability, economic class, and educational background) one views life through, but it started with the same facts.

Searching for Facts Amidst Distrust  

Now we start conversations/debates with TOTALLY different facts, which causes us to see one another as liars, and creates mistrust among us.  This makes sense because if you take a theoretical discussion over the chemical components of the sun, the exploration would have to start with either the sun is various shades of yellow/oranges, or various shades purple/blues, but it’s not both.  We know that different chemicals give off different hues, so it leads to an argument when discussing the suns chemical makeup, when we start with starkly different facts about the color of the sun!  Can you see how this can digress into name calling and pointing out that something’s either desperately deficient about the other’s vision, so therefore it’s discredited, or they’re just plain lying to get that which benefits them.  If all can’t agree that the sun is various hues of yellow the conversation on the chemical make-up can never take place with two divergent facts at the table.  It just might be that one of them lives in a place with plenty of fires, and through the haze, the sun appears bluish, they’re not crazy, narrow minded or wrong, but for further discussion, they must concede in the vast majority of places on earth the sun apppears yellow.  However, the other side could conclude that in the future, more in depth research of the sun might tell us something a little different about the sun’s chemical makeup when viewing it through the haze of other chemical components.  For now, both sides need to start with the fact that the basic visual hue of the sun from earth is tones of yellow.  This is compromise, with the premise, that in order to accomplish the task of discovering the chemical components of the sun, both sides need to concede to some varifiable facts.

When I have a discussion with someone, it’s almost never my goal to pull them over to the way I think/believe, but to get a better understanding on their perception of things. Of course when I present facts that they were unaware of, and then they agree with me, I’m pleased!  But my true intent is to share knowledge with one another so we can each grow.  This doesn’t mean either necessarily changed their mind, but both grew in perspective.  Granted, if I still don’t agree with them after the discussion, I use their perceptions to better my argument for the next time because now I understand better, and do research to find flaws, in my argument, as well as theirs.

However, we now live in a different universe where some people’s basic facts are based on their own perception of; how things work, what’s really going on (conspiracy theories), and try to reconstruct the world as they envision it, leaving out or ignoring those people and facts that don’t fit into their social construct.  Then this social construct is bolstered by those who think the same, with no real evidence other than how they “feel”, and no collaborating evidence other than a website that started it, again, these websites have absolutely no verifiable evidence, except anecdotal videos promoting fear!  One can agree with them on the anecdotal facts, in that, “Yes, those things do happen from time to time”, but these anecdotal events do not support the data-driven statistical norms. Both sides use videos to debunk an issue with content that has very little connection to the primary issue of discussion.  Usually, further obfuscating the point, by conflating several issues into one.

For example, hypothetically, when talking about what kind of food dogs prefer.  One side might show a video of a starving dog in the wild who happens upon a pile of fish bones and eats them. However, statistical data proves, dogs don’t normally eat fish bones, although it happens on occasion.  Then the “fish bone believers” use that video to further their beliefs and say, “Of course dogs do prefer fish bones, look at him lap up those bones”.  And continue with; “Of course dogs are killing fish in the ocean (using a video of a dog swimming in the ocean), so therefore dogs kill birds too”!  One of those may be true, but since it’s all conflated into one synopsis, a person is overwhelmed with deconstructing this kitchen sink thrown at the opponents take on most dogs prefer fish bones for food.  When people who believe dogs prefer to eat the flesh of animals by pointing to a canine research site, and explain that the reason the dog in the video ate the fish bones, was either he was starving, or just an odd dog who likes fish bones.  To which the other side pushes back, that it’s false because the research website has ads for dog food, but no other collaborating evidence that proves that the website has something to do with the ads that are on it.  Also the fish bone believers say that not even a starving dog would eat fish bones if they didn’t have the propensity to like them in the first place.

One cannot have a discussion when nothing else is credible other than, that which points to what the person believes.  At this point, it’s not open to facts, because one is now arguing with someone steeped in a state of “cognitive dissonance”, so ANYTHING legitimately credible can’t be processed.  Essentially, cognitive dissonance is due to the discomfort of new information that contradicts one’s earnestly held beliefs.  We have all engaged in it at some point in our lives, to one degree or another.  Going through the Ignatius exercises with a trusted spiritual director, help me avoid some of the trappings of getting so steeped in what I believe in the here & now. I came to understand that one can only formulate beliefs and make decisions based on the information they have currently.  In the future, one might discover information that they didn’t have, and may have made a different decision if they had known.  Most of the time, new facts don’t change one’s core beliefs, but one has to “grow” to incorporate that truth with what they already believe.  This doesn’t by any means mean being “wishy-washy”, or “flip-flopping”, but embracing the “growing pains”, widens one’s grasp of the greatness of God.  But incorporating new information without rationalizing or giving up totally once held values is hard work and takes prayer and meditation.   One has to be radically open during meditation to grow and incorporate what would seem to oppose your past beliefs.

People who know me, know I am radically pro-life.  However, I’ve said if someone can show me the science that proves that abortion does not end the existence of an early developing human offspring (remember, all humans are in some stage of development), then I would be open to the idea of the morality of abortion.  I’ve even agreed to discussing the offspring’s right to live, only if we start with the scientific fact that abortion ends the life of the offspring.  For if we can’t start the conversation on common facts, how can we ever get to the discussion of “personhood”, “mother’s status in life over the offspring’s right to continue its life”.  So far no one’s willing to start with the science.  I still remain open, even in this core belief about abortion.  So far no one presented me the science that disproves abortion stops life.  With my current knowledge that abortion ends life, my morality says, “Unless someone is going to end your physical existence, ending another’s life (even that which you can’t get away from – such as no help from anyone to ease dealing with the daily behaviors a 2 year old child) is wrong”.  I deduce all life is of equal worth, so the mother and unborn child’s life (existence) is of equal value.  Since the unborn is more vulnerable, its mother has the responsibility to protect it until someone else can take that role.  To avoid falling into cognitive dissonance, I still remain open to listening to scientific facts that abortion doesn’t terminate the existence of a human offspring, or at least hearing the concession, “Yes, science does indicate that abortion does terminate a living offspring, but this is why that’s acceptable….”.  I may not change my mind, but thus far haven’t found any opponent who will look at the science first.

Cognitive dissonance as a defense mechanism for mental discomfort, only becomes dangerous when the new information could save your life, or that of another, but the brain refuses to adjusts it’s previously held beliefs to prevent impending harm (death, irreparable bodily injury).  The vast majority of the time, cognitive dissonance causes no harm, but it’s futile to present facts to someone whose brain is protecting them from the discomfort of having to somehow incorporate new information that seems contradictory to previous beliefs.

It’s difficult to have a discussion with someone who has no verifiable facts other than websites written by people who also have no verifiable facts.  When you present data from reputable sources, they discount it because government is not to be trusted – unless it’s someone in government who thinks like them, then suddenly government is credible.  This makes it difficult to present sources because everything is arbitrary and is debunked if it doesn’t fit with what they believe.

Without Agreed Upon Facts – Discussion Becomes Futile

Did you ever argue with a 3 year old?  Even the most patient parent who really wants to know why the child believes something, at some point realizes their child’s perception is either based on fears (that need to be addressed or calmed when possible), or based on a fantasy from a book or a movie that’s real to them, but not based in facts.  It can be frustrating arguing with a child, but at least one knows they will grow up and understand that that’s not true (if they even remember that belief they carried at 3 years old).  We now have a whole group of grownup people that their own view of reality is based on internal beliefs and/or feelings with little legitimate facts, other than their own anecdotal life experiences.  This reality is based on fear – and let me be clear, for the record, both sides engage in it equally.  CNN as well as FOX, and for us gold miners looking for nuggets of facts to build a solid case on, it’s like sifting through shit to find a gem.  If I went into examples, I would lose people, and never get the main point across, so I am not going to digress into the issues, and examples of fear-baiting the opponents use to try to win people over to their side, but rather discuss how mistrust in one another will destroy our country faster than anything.

Civil War

Even before the current climate of 2020, I predicted that the U.S. would once again get itself into a civil war.  Citizens of the U.S. have always been strong-minded, passionate and opinionated, with little appetite for compromise, negotiations, rolling on another’s wheels, or taking one for the team.  I’m equally guilty of some of these propensities.   We want to be known as, strong, knowledgeable and fearless in defending what we hold to be true.  However, “What is true, is not always self-evident” meaning it’s not always obvious to everyone.  This means if one believes they hold the truth, then others should just concede and believe their version of the truth – classic self-righteousness!  Many religious wars have started this way.  When I thought of the U.S. as engaging in another civil war, I imagined it would be over something like; poverty, race, rights, morality, religious freedom, protection of the unborn people, etc., but it won’t.  This civil war will be a “truth” war.  Neither side will be fighting with total facts, data and other tangible material to prove their case, because this war of “truth” will be based on ideology, theories and anecdotal evidence.  It will be “F” facts – it’s the truth of whoever wins the civil war that counts.  This civil war is now brewing and will break out between November and January of 2020 no matter who wins the 2020 presidential election.

The ultimate Truth is no one can/will win this war!  There will be just subjects of the winner who haven’t been convinced of the victors “truths”.  These subjects will be lying in wait for another opportunity to attack, and possibly win their chance to dictate their truth to reign over the land.  This is no way to live or run a country.  Whichever side wins will be a dictatorship for those who don’t see truth the same way as the victors.

“Might doesn’t make right” – it makes cowards!  Cowards are afraid to listen and broaden their scope to include other perspectives and make it work for all, without compromising their basic moral principles.  One has to know the difference between “moral principles” and “preferences” – in today’s world these are thought of as one in the same, which is one of the problems, and the reason why neither side can compromise on anything.  Finding compromise takes real work in listening to what’s important to others, but more importantly why?  We’ve all become lazy and stubborn in our relationships with one another, in that we are not even willing to contemplate sacrificing what we believe would be the ideal, for the greater good.  In my early 30’s, a priest once told me, “Sometimes even when you know you’re right, for the sake of the relationship, it’s better to let it go and let them be right once in a while”.  In my self-righteous youth, my immediate response was – “But they’re not right”! I now understand, Truth is not always self-evident.  Love is first.