Cognitive dissonance self-diagnosis

[TE44]

How do I know what I know, seems a simple enough question, when looking at our own beliefs and assumption where they come from, how we learn, what we rely on etc. Having similar beliefs with others where the same action or decisions are

taken does not guarantee the same morals. It depends which situation you're looking at. To observe lets say 2 different heroin dealers as simply commiting an act of what appears to be selling drugs to make money. On hearing two very different stories it may be your judgement morally differs with each when understanding of

the people, individually, outside of there action

is learned, creating no dissonance, then again it may be on your estate where your children pass each day, and you feel threatened, once we feel threatened it breeds a cutting of point for many, or else a battleground for each side to have

Inclination to see it through each other view.

[TE44]

Sorry not ver clear my post above, couldn't

see what I had typed. I suppose we all feel some dissonance on different levels. Holding and understanding two viewpoints that are contradictory does not have to cause dissonance,

This has been suggested to me when speaking to others on this forum around my beliefs and choices, I had never heard the saying before. Not taking this off topic.

On reading about Fastinger and his experiments

I felt it was a term that could only be recognised by yourself and by your actions. Not everyone that say is diabetic will feel dissonance whilst eating something they fell they shouldn"t be. Its interesting to hear how people

behave to get rid off the feeling.

[Blah Blah]

I think it is a very relevant conversation to have in today's climate of fact denial (climate change), conspiracy theories (9/11 'truthers'), and an extended us of 'whataboutery' by just about everybody, including those who govern us. On less clear cut ideas/ beliefs, such as those based around philosophical/ moral arguments, it becomes tricky though. These are social constructs and learned. Religion is a perfect example of that. The existence of a God or gods is not proven, yet so many are convinced they exist. That confidence of belief in something as true. without hard evidence, fascinates me more.

[Davis]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How do I know what I know, seems a simple enough

> question, when looking at our own beliefs and

> assumption where they come from, how we learn,

> what we rely on etc. Having similar beliefs with

> others where the same action or decisions are

> taken does not guarantee the same morals. It

> depends which situation you're looking at. To

> observe lets say 2 different heroin dealers as

> simply commiting an act of what appears to be

> selling drugs to make money. On hearing two very

> different stories it may be your judgement morally

> differs with each when understanding of

> the people, individually, outside of there action

> is learned, creating no dissonance, then again it

> may be on your estate where your children pass

> each day, and you feel threatened, once we feel

> threatened it breeds a cutting of point for many,

> or else a battleground for each side to have

> Inclination to see it through each other view.

The question you started with is an extremely important and unfortunately most people do not question why they believe what they consider to be a given truth, an objective fact. In most social contexts the status quo is taken as a means to validate what people believe and how they act. If a certain act or belief conforms to social norms it is legitimized and if it clashes with them, it is rejected. This is a circular form of argument i.e. it would be like saying this idea is correct because it is the same as my idea even though I have no proof that my idea itself is correct.

Regarding the same belief producing different morals this is true to an extent. From my own research in this area I would argue that people adhering to the same ideology can have differences in cursory elements as long as those differences do not challenge the foundational premise of that ideology.

You also highlight how different perspectives change judgment in the example of a drug dealer. However, there is another element to this which is double standards derived from an ideological bias. For example, most people in the UK would condemn the 9/11 attacks as an immoral act of terrorism because the perpetrators of the attacks targeted civilians, but they would not apply this rationale to the RAF?s deliberate bombing of Dresden and Hamburg which targeted civilians and killed hundreds of thousands. The cause of this is ideological bias. When the same act is committed for the advancement of an agenda that people are in agreement with the act is legitimized, but when the same act is committed for the advancement of an agenda that people are opposed to than it is condemned.

The other point you make about a diabetic eating something they feel they know is harmful is not completely the same as the main topic I raised about cognitive dissonance. A diabetic can eat unhealthy food while maintaining the belief that it is healthy. Most people contradict through actions what they belief. However, the main point I raised is when people deny observable evidence because it contradicts core beliefs. For example, imagine a good friend that you trust and have invested a lot of time into building a strong relationship with because you believe your friend to be an honest and good person. Then one day you observe your friend telling you something which you know to be a lie; according to the theory your habitual reaction will be to deny this and perhaps think you misheard or misunderstood. The reason is the consequence of discovering you friend is a liar will completely undermine your relationship with them that is built on the premise they are an honest person.

[Davis]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it is a very relevant conversation to have

> in today's climate of fact denial (climate

> change), conspiracy theories (9/11 'truthers'),

> and an extended us of 'whataboutery' by just about

> everybody, including those who govern us. On less

> clear cut ideas/ beliefs, such as those based

> around philosophical/ moral arguments, it becomes

> tricky though. These are social constructs and

> learned. Religion is a perfect example of that.

> The existence of a God or gods is not proven, yet

> so many are convinced they exist. That confidence

> of belief in something as true. without hard

> evidence, fascinates me more.

I agree with you that it is a relevant conversation to have in today?s climate especially with the increase of extremely divisive politics becoming the standard in the UK. I believe the issue of Brexit has changed the political and social climate to resemble one of the 1970?s and 1980?s in terms of attitudes towards race and immigration. However, you have conflated many different issues in the examples you gave. It could be easily argued that a rejection of information which is contrary to, for example, the official narrative of the 9/11 attacks is a form of cognitive dissonance. The key is to identify the basis of a belief. How much of the belief relies on an adherence to social norms (blind following) and how much is based on objective quantifiable information.

When you discuss religion, do you include atheism? When you talk about ?God? and ?gods? what definition do you adhere to? There is a tendency in relation to these topics to limit the definitions of religion, ?God? and ?gods? to the post Enlightenment European gaze. However, from other perspectives every ideology is a religion and a ?god? is anything which is given certain attributes. For example, the concept of a ?big bang? can be considered to be a ?god? because it is ascribed the ability to create life. Likewise, the notion of evolution stemming from Darwinism can be considered to be a ?god? as it is assumed this mystical mechanism (evolution) bought about humans and other forms of life.

It also fascinates me greatly that people can accept crucial beliefs without evidence yet claim they are critical thinkers. It may be the case that you have not been convinced on the basis of evidence of the existence of a ?God?, but on what grounds can you then claim others have not? I would argue there is evidence proofing a Creator exists. However, as you raised this subject so confidently what I wish to understand is what is your belief regarding how life came about? Do you believe in Darwinism, if so, please share your honest account why?

This is an area I have researched greatly and what I find extremely interesting is that the period Darwin?s theory emerged the notion of racial hierarchy was the basis for many ideas and theories stemming from post Enlightenment Europe. A core part of the belief of racial hierarchy was that the European was racially superior and as a consequence anything which contradicted their subjective social norms was viewed as barbaric. In short, their social norms were assumed to be universal, an objective truth and functioned as a criterion to distinguish between humanity and barbarism. For example, the very observation of cannibalism was used to reinforce notions of European superiority and the inferiority of other races. A case in point, Charles Darwin after giving an account of cannibalism practiced by the Fuegians concluded in his log dated the 25th December 1832 that,

?Viewing such men, one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow-creatures, and inhabitants of the same world. It is a common subject of conjecture what pleasure in life some of the lower animals can enjoy: how much more reasonably the same question may be asked of these barbarians! (Darwin 1997 pg 203-204)?.

It is important to note that Darwin?s assertions regarding the Fuegians occurred 27 years before he published the ?Origin of Species?. Meaning, he was already analysing data from a position of racial and ethical superiority which predated arguments of racial superiority based on evolution theory. His claim that the Fuegians who practiced cannibalism were subhuman, is ideologically consistent with his later theory that the European was more evolved than the other ?savage races?. Darwin asserts that,

?At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races... The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (Darwin 1871 pg 193)?.

The point I wish to make is that Darwinism and European universalism are inseparable from racial of hierarchy. This is extremely problematic because even though the notion of supremacy based on race is currently rejected in Europe the very ideas and beliefs (e.g. Darwinism) which stemmed from it still have currency.

[TE44]

Seeing things through the eyes of others can

often be difficult depending on the subject, but there can often be some common ground if you

can enquire and listen without judgement or without advocating your own views to the point you are deaf to others. Hard facts through whatever method plays a big part in our evolution and may somehow had an effect on our thinking.certainty and hard facts do not often go together.if explaining how a pram works, yes the basis of how it works stays the same,it is a simple fact. The more complex and overlapping issues become it is often difficult to hold only an acknowledgement of hard facts alongside personal experience, intuition or whatever beliefs you hold. Things are forever changing, that can sit comfortably with the feeling of nothings goin to change. I agree blah blah I think it is relevant in todays climate to be looking for solutions and understand through conversation hopefully sterilising the breeding ground of hatred.

[TE44]

Davis I have not read any of darwins theory but what you say resonates with me. There is an undercurrent of past ideas that are part of so many systems we rely on. Words like resonates

Can be part of a belief system which differs from hard facts, in that it is the blending of facts

With how I feel intuitively along with other things I feel to be true. I also believe past history has an impact on how you are looked upon

If you use intuition.Davis you have we my appetite for a book on Darwinism by Julian Huxley, been in my attic for years.

[Blah Blah]

There is too much for me to respond to right now, but just on Darwin's theory of evolution, which has since been proven by DNA and genetic science, no, I do not equate that to the idea of a God, as a creator, as expressed by religion (although I take the point about some of his understanding of his theorie being shaped by the culture he himself was exposed to).

I prefer hard science to philosophical ideas around evolution and the beginning, whenever that was. I think one the flaws of our species and intellect is to think we are the center of everything, when in fact, we are just one life form, that followed other life form and are likely to extinct ourselves prematurely the way we are going.

Why it all exists is impossible to know. There is no evidence beyond the science that we do exist that tells us why either, just as there is no evidence of the existence of a 'creator'. There is just science, physics, biology. 'God' is a human construct, passed down from parent to child, and it came out of the inability to understand how the world around us works. The first god is a sun god, because the sun makes food grow, and we need food to live....etc etc

[Davis]

I would argue that you are mistaken in many of your assertions and incorrect in your claim that DNA and genetic science have proven evolution theory. Where are all the uncountable number of transitional forms? Also, what is the evidence that the first god worshiped was the sun? Can you cite a source to support your claim?

The belief in a Creator is based on hard science; meaning, it is based on what is objectively observable and provable whereas the Big Bang theory and Darwinism are based on ideas that contradict what is objectively observable and provable. Thus, it is the theory of the Big Bang and Darwinism which are based on philosophy as they both require the suspension of the observable laws that govern the universe.

You say you prefer hard science so I will ask you the following question: Do you agree that all which can be observed and measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has not always existed and at a certain point in time came into existence)?

[TE44]

Science has made amazing discoveries and affects most of the systems we rely on today. Unfortunately the downside has been a seperation and disregard for nature. What is natural, we as

People have become disconnected. I agree blah blah there is a superiority among us, that has evolved in history, to believe we have or must find answers to the mysteries of life. I personally don't care what people believe where the start was, that may also or probably not be finite either. We are where we are now through what has been learned. For my children and there children I want to have nature as a choice.

[Blah Blah]

You can argue it Davis, but you seem to have little understanding of the science around DNA. We may not have all the links for every species and their evolution, but the principle is correct. And creationists and all the other religious detractors to that out there, are cranks.

The Sun God was an an example of the form that the evolution of god theories took. There are plenty of written examples of pagan civilisations and their supernatural beliefs, and polytheism like the early Romans and Greeks, so we do know a fair amount about why these beliefs existed. It is also why transitions from that to monotheism have made absolutely no difference to anything whatsoever. The sun still rises, the wind still blows a gale sometimes, and sometimes crops still fail.

I think everything that genuinely exists can be measured yes, because we can already measure so much and the history of science is in part the history of debunking previously held beliefs and theories that were based on no real science whatsoever.

Science does not claim to know for certain there was a big bang, nor of what existed before. But people far cleverer than you and I have got us to the level of understanding that we do have, about what we are, and what the universe is around us. We know for example that this solar system will cease to exist at some point as the Sun expands and swallows us up (we will be long gone before then). Only the arrogance of human philosophy thinks we are any more important than that. I certainly won't be entertaining fantasy theories around God or creators as fact, unless someone provides scientific evidence of such, and think it perfectly sensible to hold that approach.

TE44, I tend to agree with you. I just get annoyed at anyone saying certain ideas exist in a measurable way, when they absolutely don't, and Gods/ creators are an example of that. There is a big difference between saying, I think God exists, and saying I know God exists. Knowing something that is not proven (or disproved even), is kind of where this conversation began anyway.

[KidKruger]

At this advanced (in some respects only, obvs) stage of human development there is still a huge proportion of civilisation believing in a big Ju-Ju man in the sky.

Astounding.

And regressive.

[Davis]

Kidkruger, I do not believe in a ?big ju-ju man? in the sky. Who does? Or is this your attempt to ridicule me? It would be a better show of character to engage the discussion with evidence and reason rather than mockery which I condemn and reject.

What do you believe in, can you support it with evidence and reason? Do believe in Darwinism? If so I should make it clear I find it quite regressive to believe in an ideology based on racial hierarchy and one that posits human existence is the result of an elaborate accident. It is an ideology based on a belief that contradicts what is observable and measurable. When was the last time you saw a half human half primate in the museum? It should not be hard to find them as there should be an unaccountable amount of these transnational forms.

You said ?at this advanced ( in some respects only, obvious) stage?, which social and political respects do you consider to be advanced? The growing economic inequality, the fact that one in five women are sexually harassed in the UK, the continued destruction of the planet, or is it the many European wars fought for greed and exploitation?

Moreover, you should know that there is nothing advanced in your patronizing tone, rather it is astoundingly regressive.

[dbboy]

Davis, from what you've said my understanding id that you don't believe their is a God or greater power, (apart from the power of nature itself) and that we didn't evolve from creatures in the sea or apes or chimpanzee?

[Davis]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can argue it Davis, but you seem to have

> little understanding of the science around DNA. We

> may not have all the links for every species and

> their evolution, but the principle is correct. And

> creationists and all the other religious

> detractors to that out there, are cranks.

>

> The Sun God was an an example of the form that the

> evolution of god theories took. There are plenty

> of written examples of pagan civilisations and

> their supernatural beliefs, and polytheism like

> the early Romans and Greeks, so we do know a fair

> amount about why these beliefs existed. It is also

> why transitions from that to monotheism have made

> absolutely no difference to anything whatsoever.

> The sun still rises, the wind still blows a gale

> sometimes, and sometimes crops still fail.

>

> I think everything that genuinely exists can be

> measured yes, because we can already measure so

> much and the history of science is in part the

> history of debunking previously held beliefs and

> theories that were based on no real science

> whatsoever.

>

> Science does not claim to know for certain there

> was a big bang, nor of what existed before. But

> people far cleverer than you and I have got us to

> the level of understanding that we do have, about

> what we are, and what the universe is around us.

> We know for example that this solar system will

> cease to exist at some point as the Sun expands

> and swallows us up (we will be long gone before

> then). Only the arrogance of human philosophy

> thinks we are any more important than that. I

> certainly won't be entertaining fantasy theories

> around God or creators as fact, unless someone

> provides scientific evidence of such, and think it

> perfectly sensible to hold that approach.

>

> TE44, I tend to agree with you. I just get annoyed

> at anyone saying certain ideas exist in a

> measurable way, when they absolutely don't, and

> Gods/ creators are an example of that. There is a

> big difference between saying, I think God exists,

> and saying I know God exists. Knowing something

> that is not proven (or disproved even), is kind of

> where this conversation began anyway.

Blah Blah there are many inaccuracies in your above post and fundamentally you failed to answer the foundational question I posed. However, I admit, on reflection, I did present many questions and you may have missed it; also it is unrealistic to think you would have the time to address all my questions. Likewise, I do not have the time to address every error in your previous post but I will repost the same foundational question again in the hope we can have a measured and scientific discussion on the topic stemming from this question.

Do you agree that all which can be observed and measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has not always existed and at a certain point in time came into existence)?

[Davis]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Davis, from what you've said my understanding id

> that you don't believe their is a God or greater

> power, (apart from the power of nature itself) and

> that we didn't evolve from creatures in the sea or

> apes or chimpanzee?

dbboy, I believe in a God, a Creator, who brought the universe into existence with purpose and wisdom. My belief is based on 'hard science' and objectively quantifiable evidence.

dbboy, look into the mirror and look deep into your eyes and contemplate. Do you think that your eyes which are far more complex and beautiful than any camera, came about by accident? What is your belief in how they came about?

[dbboy]

Human kind has eyes, I have eyes, you have eyes, , animals on land and in the sea have eyes, we all have eyes. But what you see with your eyes is what matters.

[Davis]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Human kind has eyes, I have eyes, you have eyes, ,

> animals on land and in the sea have eyes, we all

> have eyes. But what you see with your eyes is what

> matters.

You never really answered the question, but nevertheless it is relevant to add what we see is affected by ideology i.e. what we perceive can be very different than what is in front of our eyes. Perhaps there may be truth in the play of words that real eyes realize real lies.

[KidKruger]

No, not trying to ridicule anyone.

But I won?t encourage belief in religion by sugar-coating my responses when discussing it.

I find it very hard to tolerate religion, not because I?m not tolerant but because it?s bullshit.

There is no obligation on me to humour such bullshit and all the problems it causes.

The sooner people realise it is bullshit, the sooner we can move on to something more productive.

Same with unicorns, although I?ll allow kids the belief.

Regarding which areas of human advancement have been achieved, if you want to think I mean that includes sexual exploitation or destruction of the environment that?s up to you. But I suggest that wouldn?t be a sensible assumption.

You?re just trying to pick holes and find fault.

There is no God.

You?ve been told.

Davis Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Kidkruger, I do not believe in a ?big ju-ju man?

> in the sky. Who does? Or is this your attempt to

> ridicule me? It would be a better show of

> character to engage the discussion with evidence

> and reason rather than mockery which I condemn and

> reject.

>

> What do you believe in, can you support it with

> evidence and reason? Do believe in Darwinism? If

> so I should make it clear I find it quite

> regressive to believe in an ideology based on

> racial hierarchy and one that posits human

> existence is the result of an elaborate accident.

> It is an ideology based on a belief that

> contradicts what is observable and measurable.

> When was the last time you saw a half human half

> primate in the museum? It should not be hard to

> find them as there should be an unaccountable

> amount of these transnational forms.

>

> You said ?at this advanced ( in some respects

> only, obvious) stage?, which social and political

> respects do you consider to be advanced? The

> growing economic inequality, the fact that one in

> five women are sexually harassed in the UK, the

> continued destruction of the planet, or is it the

> many European wars fought for greed and

> exploitation?

>

> Moreover, you should know that there is nothing

> advanced in your patronizing tone, rather it is

> astoundingly regressive.

[KidKruger]

And what is really really sad is people pissing their lives away believing in this bullshit.

[Davis]

Kidkugger I reject what you have said. You talk about religion but are too arrogant to acknowledge you indeed have a religion. You seem to be filled with hate and unhappiness and project this here by favoring insults over an intellectual discussion. Perhaps you hate yourself. You are rude and arrogant and I do not wish to discuss with you any further.

[TE44]

Davis, Do you believe observations and measurements are always accurate? Something may appear to have come into existence because it has changed form, maybe from something we have no understanding of. Transformation, change is constant.

[Davis]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Davis, Do you believe observations and

> measurements are always accurate? Something may

> appear to have come into existence because it has

> changed form, maybe from something we have no

> understanding of. Transformation, change is

> constant.

TE44, no I do not believe observations and measurements are always accurate. However, I do believe, based on what is provable, that constants exist. For example, Newton's first law essentially states an object does not move unless an external force moves it and an object does not stop unless an external force stops it. This is a constant. If a person denies this their known reality will collapse and they will enter into philosophy. But, the problem is you cannot apply this type of philosophy to life.

Let me give you an example. You come home from work and on your dinner table is a meal which you or anyone you know did not prepare. The meal is still hot and appears to be cooked to perfection. Also, the plate the meal is on is not yours. Out of curiosity you taste the meal and confirm it is delicious.

You are confused by this occurrence and explain it to a friend. Your friend tells you perhaps all the base elements of the meal and the plate just appeared on your table and then they started moving about which caused heat and reactions and after a while these reactions became the meal and the plate on your table. Would you ever accept this explanation?

Regardless, this explanation is impossible based on Newton's first law. Moreover, Newton's first law is provable through the observation of our reality. To deny it would cause reality to collapse and lead us into a philosophy which is not applicable to life.

According to the big bang theory elements and extreme temperatures appeared and started moving and this caused reactions which lead to the universe. Besides other things this contradicts Newton's first law. How did these elements appear and then start moving without an external force ( an agent of change)? To believe this is to deny what is observable. Moreover, if you believe this you must also, by logic, believe that it is possible for a meal to appear on your table without anything causing it.

[TE44]

Davis, I understand constars exists, however although it is necessary, I believe this need to prove ( which again may be necessary) has led to an acceptance of truths that may be incomplete.

Lets say we look at how a washing machine works. We can say its constant. As a singular manmade peice of equipment. If one part was taking from the workings it most probaly wouldnt work.if looking at this part seperately it would have no attatchment with the job it does in the machine.of course putting it back in the proper position or not,would determine whether it would work.

When studying things to prove there existence it would only be observable looking at the bigger picture, which is forever changing.

I do not have any set belief as how the universe started, I learnt at school,very briefly, as in the ape to man picture, as a young child, I saw it only as a may be. I've never been inclined to look at the science,around this issue, and believe an intolerance to different view has been bred from this desire to be right. This feels restrictive and also is often only understandable to people who have a certain education. This has disconnected many people from having or s,peaking there views. In a way not that dis similiar from how you say Darwin viewed native people.

[Davis]

I understand what you are saying; however, just because we do not know everything it then does not mean we have to deny what we do know.

It is illogical to deny what is known based on what is unknown. Would you ever apply this principal to your daily life? I guess not, so why apply it to your core belief?