Cognitive dissonance
 

Cognitive dissonance: "a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent" whish produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don't rest easy until they find a way to reduce it.

In other words, self-deception proves itself to be more powerful than deception.

Consider the current war in Iraq. The president and many members of Congress believe that we must "stay the course" and not "cut and run". We all make similarily irrational arguments about decisions in our lives: we hang on to losing stocks, unprofitable investments, failing relationships and unsuccessful relationships. Rational thinking would lead us to the point where we would simply compute the odds of succeeding from this point forward and then decide if the investment warrants the potential payoff. But we are not rational beings and fall into the "sunk-cost fallacy".

What if an individual actually fessed up instead of the non-personal "mistakes were made" defense? What if our president made this speech?

"This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For a wise man once said, 'An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it'. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors.....We're not going to have any search for scapegoats....the final responsibilities of any failure are mine and mine alone."

This speech was made, and the man who spoke it saw his popularity go up, despite the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

I recommend: "Mistakes were made (but not by me)" by Carol Tarvis and Elliot Aronson

Mistakes are made every second. Call them accidents or true failures - either way, the wise learn and adapt while the fool continues to fail.

Cognitive dissonance is a form of intellectutual anxiety created by either not commiting to an idea fully or overthinking the concept to the point of confusion. Often those that are centrists suffer the most, hard right or hard left rarely if ever suffer cognitive dissonance. It can also be argued that hard liners push a commitment while those who suffer CD will strike a balence yet suffer at the expense of their beliefs.

Mike:

I tend toward centrism and generally seek positions with which the various sides of an issue can at least agree on. I do not find this at all leading to any kind of dissonance, cognitive or not!!! Comes from years of acting as a negotiator and conflict resolution. Truly blessed are those who can arrive at simplistic (or a better word, simple) answers to complex situations. Most of us have to compromise, and in doing so we have to rationalize our positions. It is interesting even here in our microcosm of PPOT the different positions people profess that are actually self contradictory. Anti abortion and putting people to death with whom we have "misunderstandings", for example. I suppose some will post defending these positions but let it be said: I am not saying these positions are right or wrong, as long as they satisfy the one holding them.

Cognitive dissonance is a burden we all carry to some degree.

Bob - centrism to work out an issue is the heart of negotiation, as an ideal is far more complicated. It requires knowing both sides arguements and motives very deeply and pulling the best of both sides to form your own idea. It doesn't surprise me that you are a centrist, your posts are intellegent and insightful.

There is a point in an arguement that requires a side to be taken. It may not feel 100% right. A commitment must be made and followed through. You can't always be a bridge.

Actually, it isn't that difficult. It is a matter of disassociation from the two arguing parties. I seem to have that trait to some extent, but must be careful to pick issues where I have no axe to grind. A committment can be made only when all involved parties have reduced their individual dissonance to a minimum. It never completely goes away. If the "bridge" is involved on one side or another, things can get fairly nasty real quick.

I have very few truly solid positions, and this may be a flaw. I do not know. But, it makes me rather mellow and open to new ideas without preconceived notions. I am curious about just about everything and figure that I can learn from just about anyone, no matter how smart or how stupid. Everyone has something to bring to the table.

You're probably a traitor :-)

From Forbes:

Bush Administration Awash in Scandals
By TOM RAUM 04.22.07, 1:41 PM ET

Campaigning in 2000, Texas Gov. George W. Bush would repeatedly raise his right hand as if taking an oath and vow to "restore honor and integrity" to the White House. He pledged to usher in a new era of bipartisanship.

The dual themes of honesty and bipartisanship struck a chord with many voters and helped propel Bush to the White House in one of the nation's closest-ever elections...

Now, with fewer than two years left of his second term, the Bush administration is embroiled in multiple scandals and ethics investigations. The war in Iraq still rages. Bush's approval ratings are hovering in the mid-30s.

--------full story--------
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/22/ap3638689.html

Oddly, there are a few who still can't see the lies, the scandals, the corruption. Can't see or won't see.

People who get all worked up about Clinton's lie about infidelity can't be concerned about misstatements that lead to the deaths of 33XX of America's sons and daughters.

There I've heard some medical experts have stated that cognitive dissonance is a side effect of an extreme partisanship. That people who are defensive about their opinions cannot even admit that 1+1=2 if their "enemies" claim it.

So where are the convictions?

yrs ago a car had two bumper stickers. One was anti abortion and the other was "Bomb Hanoi".


i would venture a guess that many of Bush's associated scandals could have been avoided if he managed better by replacing people periodically? Excess baggage is vulnerable. At least the military doesn't seem follow his lead on that subject.