Defeating Cognitive Dissonance

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Lately I have been suffering from a great deal of cognitive dissonance (when an individual is discomforted by the awareness of two or more psychological constructs that do not co-exist sensibly). I am unable to determine the cause of my cognitive dissonance - does a conflict actually even exist, and am I just refusing to let go of my beliefs? or is my mind simply lacking the right proportions of neurochemical resources (due to lack of sleep and drug use) to resolve the conflict ? Or is the discomfort of cognitive dissonance merely a pre-existing mental sensation caused by an unknown factor, and the conflicting beliefs are just a creation of my own doing to match/reflect this pre-existing mental state?

The further I dig for a solution, the more I uncover truths about my own cognition which incapacitate me. For example, if i were to think that I have reached a conclusion, my mind might not have actually reached a conclusion but instead the sensation of satisfaction caused by reaching a conclusion is actually just a neurological process that has no logical foundation to exist - the firing of the neuronal pathway responsible for satisfaction and understanding in the “reward center” of my brain, which only exist so my mind will find relief in a particular knowledge and not need to endlessly sort through a large amount of irrelevant information.

Although I still do not know the answer (and it is probably a mix of all the possible solutions I’ve come up with), I have still created for myself a logical explanation which defeats cognitive dissonance none the less. This explanation (which I give below) illustrates key principles that effectively eliminate cognitive dissonance, and explains why mental contradiction is acceptable and not necessarily something to loathe.

  • Our mind’s humility is the cornerstone from which our psychological constructs (often manifesting as systems of beliefs) are assembled. Although our humility may be reinforced or even fueled by our belief systems, it is important to acknowledge that our humility exists independently of all belief systems and metaphysics - that is, we should never feel the need to defend a belief system under the impression that our humility is at stake. Even in the absence of all righteousness and virtue, our mind still has the capacity to be humble.

  • We are able to “paint our portrait” through our outward expansion into knowledge and understanding, lead by motivation and willpower. Even if contradictions within our knowledge are present at first, they resolve themselves over time as the “portrait” of understanding nears completion. Because of this, it is not necessary to let the possibility of contradiction weigh oneself down or cause a person to doubt themselves, so long as they are lead with the motivation to reach completion (if the motivation is pure, it will re-angle itself to allow an individual to “come to terms” with a contradiction, if the contradiction actually exists).

  • Contradictions are not as significant as they seem, and the level in which we perceive them might be flawed or overestimated in significance. If we were to let the fear of mental contradiction become the main “executive” factor in making decisions, we would have to endure and endless sea of self-evaluation, that simply for efficiency’s sake is not a practical way of letting our mind operate. Instead, we should (and most of us have) let positive motivation and willpower be the key driving force, as they are not only the most pleasant fuel for mental activity, but the most efficient.

  • Even if a contradiction does exist, and even if that contradiction leads to a situation where multiple belief systems within our own minds conflict with each other, it is completely acceptable for these contradictions and “multiple belief systems” to exist - the ability to consider more than one stance on a particular belief is what defines “open-mindedness”, and it is a positive quality, not a negative quality .

  • Our pleasure and suffering exist independently of our belief systems. The cause of pleasure and suffering is physical, where as our belief systems might stem from a logic of their own, and possibly even be rooted in unconscious deception. In fact, our pleasure and suffering is what originally created our belief systems, and all of our belief systems are ultimately rooted in terms of pleasure and suffering (although the exact connection is likely to have deviated from the scales of pleasure and suffering, and it is possible that this was an intentional deception created by our unconscious minds).

  • Although unconscious deception is inescapable and takes place in the minds of everybody, it is acceptable for these contradictions to exist temporarily whilst acknowledging that these contradictions will be resolved eventually.

  • Unconscious deception must undoubtedly have a “line” between when it is tolerated (due to being so subtle that it can not be accurately known of) and not tolerated (when it is so blatantly obvious that a correction is in order) - but we are not able to confidently say where this “line” should be, as its components are mostly left up to personal preference. There are varying degrees in which contradictions and unconscious deception are present.

In conclusion, unconscious deception is something which does exist, but the cognitive dissonance resulting from our awareness of it is unnecessary. This is because the resolution of these contradictions intertwines with knowledge that we are not yet aware of, and the discomfort of cognitive dissonance can be mitigated with a mere acknowledgment of the fact that a resolution does exist - the resolution is merely beyond the grasp of our short-term awareness.

2

I’m pretty sure I fully agree with you Peachy. Contradictions should be noted, but the obsessive compulsive drive to rid oneself of all contradictions is a fool’s quest. Rather, once identified, they should even be prized, for they are sure evidence that one must continue to think and create. The idea that we must achieve an endpoint in thought which involves the cessation of thinking is, in my opinion, deluded.

3

Read Maimonides and his Guide for the Perplexed. A unity underlies all levels and graduations of contradiction. If you can discover that underlying unity, all contradiction vanishes. The Buddhists say equally: imagine all of the ten thousand questions were really formulations and re-formulations of a single question. If you could answer that one question, all other questions would suddenly vanish.

4

The way i understand things, humility is a virtue. It would be difficult in the presence of righteousness to remain humble, not in its absence.

The idea that we build our psychological complexes from our humility is interesting but slightly vague. If by humility you mean our self criticisms or our least favorable yet valid perception of ourselves (the opposite of pride), then i would agree that we build ourselves upward.

But if what you say is true, that we build ourselves starting with our humble sensibilities, then the only thing which could cause you cognitive dissonance concerning your understanding of yourself is something which casts you in an overly arrogant or perhaps overly negative light which makes you no longer satisfied with what is apparently realistically humble.

Let’s say for example you find out that your rich uncle has been buying favors for you for the last 20 years which has allowed you to come up as a successful business man, and your humble idea of hard work and luck suddenly seems a sham.

If your last defense is breached i guess you feel pain…

I would recommend that we heed contradiction on the basis of how much pain it would cause (or how much pleasure a resolution could give), and i also agree that it makes no sense to obsess over something which cannot be resolved (better to accept and remain humble i guess).

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by humility being the cornerstone of psychological constructs?

Specifically how it relates to pain and pleasure as what also gives rise to belief systems…

(so far it seems you posit that pain and pleasure lead us to humility (for pleasures sake in the face of pain), and that this humility provides a base on which we build ourselves.

Perhaps you advocate defeating cognitive dissonance by furthering humility?

5

Contradictions do indeed have varying degrees of relevance. Obsessing over everything is obviously foolish.

However it’s not always time wasted in furthering understanding; the deeper we go toward that one understanding, the more questions vanish.

6

Such notions of “all questions vanishing” are of course just silly. Underlying questions and answers ground every question and answer we have, yet knowing answers or identifying questions to “bigger” or “deeper” aspects, even ones with ontological, logical or metaphysical importance to a broader or more specific question, does not actually answer that broader or more specific question itself. “What is a car?” is not answered by “What is matter?”, or “What is reality?” because what it is to be a car is defined within the concept of a car itself, and does not need to boil down to fundamental essentials. Mischaracterizing the Buddhist Koans and their effective use as mental deconstructors and re-evaluating, mind-opening tools in this way just confuses people, and is wrong.

The OP is good here, but a bit unnecessary. Cognitive dissonance is an emotional matter, as well as structural. No matter how much you choose to RATIONALIZE cognitive dissonance, you cannot rationalize it away. All that you might accomplish is adding additional layers of self-deception onto prior conditionings, further obscuring your awareness of yourself and your motives. Almost everything in the OP is correct, and insightful, with the exception that cognitive dissonance can be “thought away” or “made useful”. If you personally have difficult experiences with cognitive dissonance, you have three options to “resolve” it: you can either 1) change your belief, 2) change your circumstances [or the other belief, in the case of belief vs. belief conflict as opposed to belief vs. circumstances], or 3) create a denial or rationalization to cover up the dissonance feeling and experience of contradiction. This OP here is advocating the third option.

Which is perfectly fine, if all you are worried about is function or mental/emotional peace of mind. Certainly such deliberate use of denial and self-deception will have longer-term negative consequences for you. Much better to face head-on the beliefs that we have, and adjust counter-beliefs or our external circumstances to match accordingly. Or there is always the fourth option, which is just to live with the dissonance. In this case you will eventually become desenstitized to the feeling, and will become numb to its power to make you feel bad. You will at this point lost most of your ability to introspect and discern where your inherent or deeper beliefs are in conflict with other beliefs or with your life circumstances. This is also not desirable, of course.

Much better to be honest with ourselves, face ourselves head-on as if in battle (and it is a battle), and go from there. Keep your integrity, dont try to rationalize or make excuses for the way that you FEEL. You will never be able to countermand or truly overcome a FEELING by THINKING; the best you will accomplish is to push the feeling deeper inside, where all sorts of nasty negative psychological and physiological effects start to happen as a result.

7

I think you’re misinterpreting things slightly.

There is the question “what is a car” and then the question “how does a car work”, which answers the first ans d “deeper” but this i feel is a poor example.

First of all we only ask a genuine question if we lack understanding. presumably understanding the entirety of existence in the simplest way possible would eliminate the need for any questions. It is this unified big picture view which i believe is the answer to the alleged “one question”.

but from our perspective such an achievement is nonsensical, and so as it applies to us, this tenant you call wrong merely tries to help guide people to solutions for multiple problems by furthering overall understanding.

For example, when we look at physical obstacles, for example how to construct buildings with rocks, how to build bridges, or how to blow up a city, an understanding of physics (as we call it) enables us to do all of these things. It is a deeper understanding which can solve numerous problems.

When confronting complex social obstacles like corrupt politicans for example, or perhaps confronting a bully, or trying to reach out to a depressed individual, an understanding of people on a deeper level can further the success of the “truth” you are working toward.

When it comes to personal problems i think the universal stance is “understand yourself”, nuff said.

I wouldn’t be so quick to accuse random insights, relevant or not, of being misleading or wrong…

which would of course be foolish.

In my mind cognitive can be thought away. changing a belief is a temporary fix if it’s not based on something. covering it up will only compound the problem later.

Option one is the only solution, so what you do is think about the belief from both perspectives (probably harder than it sounds) and try to find out which one is more logical.

testing your ideas by debating other people is a great way to reduce cognitive dissonance. If you have two contradictory ideas or stances in life, one of them is, at the very least, more right or valid than the other, and so one of them has to go.

The idea that there is a conflict means something is being impeded from progressing (or perhaps two things), and so to nurture the superior thing, logically the other thing must be abandoned. It comes down to which is the truth, or which truth do you prefer.

I don’t think the OP really advocates self delusion, instead it posits that one day when we come to greater and fuller understandings, the contradictions which exist now will be resolved (like with the deeper understanding comment)

Feeling alone is simple, very malleable. Thinking is what amplifies feeling and often is what creates negative feelings.

What you say would be to have an emotional battle against yourself, and let your emotions find their own balance.

Thinking is what enables us to keep our subconscious and our emotions in check. By recognizing and internalizing ideas we build ourselves from the ground up. Emotions function as a measure and an alarm, but failing to deal with these emotions by interpreting them rationally and letting them guide you is as futile as following a compass in a magnet factory.

8

With “logic” and “truth” as the sole motives of philosophical thought, everyone should be trapped in cognitive dissonance - no exceptions. There is no solution for resolving the deeper core of cognitive dissonance.
Such arguments that are impossible to defeat logically include the solipsist argument - from which we can only derive a skepticism in determining “what might be true” and nothing can be determined beyond that.
With the solipsist argument aside, there still exist other mentally incapacitating arguments concerning morality and reason.
Morality vs Immorality
Altruism vs Selfishness
Truth vs Self Deception