The term cognitive dissonance describes a mental condition in which newly acquired information which opposes one’s belief system, or holding contradictory beliefs leads to psychological discomfort. The level and type of psychological discomfort varies by individual, and manifestations and reactions to cognitive dissonance can range from mild depression to irrational neuroses and nervous tics, to severe psychosis.
The psychological discomfort occurs as a result of acknowledging that changes in one’s thinking, lifestyle, habits, or associations may have to occur in order to reconcile their beliefs and the newly acquired information. In order to avoid the discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance, some kind of reconciliation of one’s belief system must occur.
There are generally two ways to reconcile a belief system:
The first is to change – to incorporate the new information into the one’s beliefs, and make the necessary life adjustments in order to live in accordance with them. This is arguably the more difficult path, as people tend to resist change, especially if they are accustomed to habits, schedules, and repetition. If the newly assimilated information makes the clear the necessity for major life changes – a career change, change in diet, a change of social associations – then the journey could be difficult indeed, but could also lead to positive results for the individual.
Another alternative is to remain static – to reject the new information out of hand, even if credible, in total defense of the belief. Should the new information continue to present itself, one may be compelled to attack the information or its source in order to protect the belief and legitimize the worldview on which it is based. The problem with this all too common reaction is that once the information is known, it cannot be unknown – the cognitive dissonance persists, and with it the psychological discomfort and its effects.
The importance of understanding cognitive dissonance and its impact on the psyche lies only partially in recognizing its detrimental effects or potential benefit for the individual. Consideration must also be given to the factors which are the ultimate cause of cognitive dissonance – beliefs and information.
The way in which one consumes and digests new information, as well as how firmly beliefs are held are the factors which lead to cognitive dissonance, but they are variable. Though beliefs can be modified to suit one’s preference, they are usually static, and raw information is usually presented as concretely black and white.
When presented with new information, one must make a value consideration based on that information. How will this new information affect my life? If I accept this new information, what impact will it have on my job, my family, my income, my future? Consideration must also be given to the veracity of the information, and whether it is fact based, or subjective.
As a simple example, what if I walked up to you and told you that your favorite band sucks? You would have to consider the information, determine whether it was based in fact or opinion, decide what impact this new information has on your life, and then choose how or whether to react.
As most people’s favorite band falls into the category of firmly held belief, the normal response is to skip the consideration process entirely and react with immediate contempt for the information which challenges the worldview. One might contest that this example is a poor one, that challenging the awesomeness of one’s favorite band is a purely subjective and opinionated move, and makes no point to the idea that real information can affect one’s psychological disposition.
I challenge you to try it. Go out and call into question people’s worldview by telling them that their favorite band sucks and consider the reactions you get. Then consider that they haven’t considered that you don’t even know who their favorite band is! The reactions outline the importance of how we process (or don’t process) new information. It is easy to rationalize the scenario and understand that unknowingly insulting Twisted Sister has no net effect on anyone’s life, but reconcile that with the negative reactions encountered when challenging one’s trivial, yet cherished beliefs. If one stopped to truly consider the nature of the information, “Your favorite band sucks,” it could just be passed off as words without relevance or context and ignored, but most often that is not the case.
Similar scenarios play out in life on a daily basis, and proves that the thought process can, to some extent, be bypassed by manipulating the emotions associated with belief. This concept, actively employed on a massive scale with malicious intent, can, and I believe is, being used to direct the masses to a common destination of thought.
There is a great caveat in this purely human, reactionary compulsion to defend firmly held belief. It can now be understood as a means to circumvent the thought process – to deliberately cause a prescribed reaction, even if the information on which the reaction is based is subjective, or even patently untrue. The nature of the information is irrelevant when it will never be thoroughly considered.
Information is power, and with the control and timing of information, one can control how, or even whether people think. The tracks upon which the trains of thought ride are made only from the material available – the content provided by those who own the information. The general direction of the tracks, and the destinations (or conclusions to be made) along the way can also be determined by he who controls the information, but only to the extent that one is intimately connected to the information by their beliefs.
Someone once said, “Believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear.” Good advice for anyone living in this modern era.
The Truther Store 