Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 1 (4 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   3 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
Life Arts

Soothing Those Vexing Psychic Splinters

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (24 fans)
- Advertisement -
A woman is relaxing at home on the veranda with her husband when she suddenly says, "I love you." 

After a moment he asks, "Is that you or the wine talking?" 

She replies, "It's me ... talking to the wine."  

Cognitive dissonance is mental discomfort caused by discordant thoughts or perceptions.  It can arise from the clash of beliefs with knowledge, of preference with science, of desire with law, of expectation with reality--the grist of conflict is infinite.  Cognitive dissonance is a thorn in the psyche.  Its presence causes pain in the guise of guilt, embarrassment, frustration, shame, or anger.  Its discomfort is also a prompt.  To relieve its sting, one or both of the conflicting perceptions must change. 

Above, the man voices his skepticism and in one smooth redirect of meaning his wife regains the high ground (no pun intended). 


DysDog by jdial

As we progress through life we change along with our surroundings, and more often than not this change brings conflict. 

A woman refuses to dye her hair, citing the damage of the chemicals and the departure from 'natural' that dyed hair compels.  Then she encounters henna, which while conditioning hair endows it with an auburn sheen.  "Henna is natural", she tells herself.  "It is a 'good' chemical that conditions hair.  It doesn't really dye but instead 'uncovers' the red highlights in my hair."  Thus she settles to her satisfaction the conflict.  

To take the discord out of cognitive dissonance is natural and necessary.  It relieves our minds.  

Are we always honest when we seek to salve our cognitive dissonance? 

- Advertisement -

Despite scientific consensus of its unhealthful aspects, a man continues to smoke cigarettes.  He has heard the evidence but discounts it because of personal history.  He used to get chest colds, one after the other, until in his 20s he started smoking.  Now, in his 40s, he insists that the smoke he draws into his lungs not only dries up the phlegm but kills the germs that once assailed him.  Far from threatening his health, he is protecting it!  (I did not conjure this example.) 

Recognizing the discomfiture of cognitive dissonance takes effort, and undertaking to resolve it even more so.  Do we continually deal with contradictions in our belief systems, or do we sometimes peacefully coexist with what to others seem blithering discrepancies? 

It is always much easier to perceive these discrepancies in others.    

A man who wants hand-carved wooden stanchions for his mantel hires for ten dollars an hour Mexican men who, um, probably lack green cards, and is delighted with the result of their labors.  Yet this same man vehemently disparages illegal immigration and supports strong measures to combat it. 

How can this man hold such strikingly conflicting opinions? 

Maybe he applies different rules of logic.  The laborers are available, their work is excellent, and certainly they can use the money (magnitudes lower than what a union-qualified carpenter would charge).  As for the border, patrol it! 

How can these disparities occupy one mind?   

- Advertisement -

Maybe he literally cannot see the inconsistency.   Maybe he builds walls between discrepant opinions and neatly separates them, and so sees only constancy in each little enclave.  Just as in dealing with discrepancies this would take effort, but few people, I think, would be aware of constructing psychic fences.   Such efforts would tend to remain safely subliminal.   

As to cognitive dissonance, therefore, we can recognize and work with it--really what that means is changing our mind, with all that the phrase implies--or we can quarantine it, applying different rules to each chamber.  

One last example. 

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://medicalink.com

Dr. Dial is a psychologist and medical illustrator who for well over a decade has worked as a freelance medical and science writer and editor. She is an editor for OpEdNews, having contributed a number of articles about hydraulic fracturing, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Seeds of destruction: It's NOT just about food

Who Turned Scientific American?

Who the Frack's Really in Charge?

Why Barack Obama Does Not Disappoint Some Folks

Fracking: Water Issues--Colorado-centric, but applicable to all

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Fracking but Should Be Afraid to Ask

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
" "So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable ... by Rob Kall on Tuesday, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:50:21 AM
a very  dangerous trend. Rationalism is one o... by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:10:25 AM
... is a universal (along with Chance), the path t... by Bud Martin on Tuesday, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:45:14 PM