.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

So, here is Webster’s definition:
· Main Entry: cognitive dissonance
· Function: noun
· Date: 1957
: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously
This definition is too simplistic and vague, so some elaboration is necessary. Let’s use a brief example from history you may be familiar with. Say you were taught that the earth was the center of the universe your entire life. Not only are you taught it as a fact, but it is critical to your spiritual well being too. Your dogma, which you know to be true, says that the earth is indeed the center of the universe. Then some evil man goes and invents something which he calls a “telescope” and uses these complex black arts known as “mathematics” and “proves” to you that this is not the case, but that not only does the earth revolve around the sun, but that it is only a tiny spec in an infinitely vast universe. What do you do now? You are in a state of cognitive dissonance. They cannot both be true. There is discord between both cognitions. One being that the earth is the center of the universe, and the other being that it is not. It must be resolved in order for the dissonance to be relieved. So, what actions are available to take? Well, one is denial. After all, you do know the truth don’t you? You know that your dogma is true because it is vital to so many other aspects of your life. So, deny, ignore, and hey, why not, throw that evil man who espoused such heresy against the truth in prison so he cannot deceive others. He needs to be punished for challenging such a vital and critical truth. The other option is a paradigm shift. Look closely with an open mind, suspending disbelief enough to reason it out, and check out the evidence. If the evidence overwhelmingly shows that your dogma is wrong, then reject your dogma and accept the new paradigm as a higher truth. This is so discomforting for some that they cannot do this, no matter what the price for abandoning reason when approaching the subject.

Really, this is all wrong.

Bob McCue misuses the term "cognitive dissonance" just like everyone else.

To go back to the definition which you dismissed as too simplistic:

psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

Cognitive Dissonance is a state of mind in which conflict exists. Most people who encounter cognitive dissonance do so for very, very short periods of time. What you are talking about is how people resolve their cognitive dissonance, and most people resolve it nearly instantly.

For example, to use an even simpler example, suppose that I am playing with a red ball. And you come and tell me how neat my green ball is. I now have two cognitions that stem from opposing realities.

1: I know that the ball is red. That I know this is a cognition.

2: I know that you have made the claim that the ball is green. That I know this is a cognition.

Now, these two cognitions (the things which I know) stem from opposing facts - the ball cannot be both green and red at the same time.

Now, I am going to resolve this (nearly instantly) in one of many ways. Each way of resolving this will depend on a whole slew of other cognitions. Suppose, for example, that I am red-green colorblind - and I know that I am colorblind. So now I have a third cognition:

3: I know that I am red-green colorblind.

When I weight the first two cognitions in light of the third one, I may realize that what I thought was a red ball is perhaps not really red. So I may change my belief. In this case, cognitive dissonance may have existed, but it is resolved by a new cognition:

4: The ball I thought was red is really green, and I mistook the color of the ball because of my colorblindness.

Going back to the remarks from the OP:

Say you were taught that the earth was the center of the universe your entire life. Not only are you taught it as a fact, but it is critical to your spiritual well being too. Your dogma, which you know to be true, says that the earth is indeed the center of the universe.

This speaks to the weight given to a cognition. Cognitive Dissonance remains a factor when you cannot easily resolve which is right between two competing cognitions. If you can resolve it easily - either because one is weighted much more than other, or because you have additional cognitions which lend weight to one of the competing cognitions, then cognitive dissonance vanishes. Cognitions are things that we know (or believe) not things as they really are.

We can of course deny something - that is, we can develop a third cognition which discounts one of the first two. So:

5: I believe you are lying when you tell me the ball is green.

There may be many reasons why we might develop this new cognition. Perhaps we have had experience with you lying in the past (this would've course be another cognition that we use to give weight to the new cognition we have developed). Perhaps we have a certificate of sale in which the color of the ball we purchased is stated - and we believe this (another cognition). Perhaps we have some reason to believe that you are colorbind (i.e. you are wearing a green sock and a red sock). Whatever the case, if we can develop a cognition with sufficient weight, there is no cognitive dissonance - even if we are in denial of something that is factually accurate.

Other than that, there isn't much to discuss here. You are simply laying out your reasons for disbelief. It may be quite rational to you. On the other hand, I am a believer. And it is quite rational for me. I am well educated, well read, certainly as knowledgeable about the LDS faith as most of the participants here and elsewhere on the internet. And yet, I have not gone to the same place that you have, nor do I suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Now, of course, you will find reasons to explain how I cannot be right - that is part of the process of avoiding cognitive dissonance with this new cognition I have given you.

Ben McGuire

[Anonymous]

.

[_Redefined]

Seeing how this is an issue I find hard to pass up, alas, I too am all "cognifried" out. . . sweet term Ezias! :)

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I disagree with most of what you wrote. I am just simply uninterested in discussing it with you beyond the issue of cognitive dissonance.

Ben M.

[Anonymous]

.

[_emilysmith]

Your point is lost in such a long post. I think you would serve yourself and others better by trying to simplify things.

cult = religious group that values obedience to religious authority over common sense
cognitive dissonance = denial to the point where an individual lacks the ability to even comprehend a point of view in conflict with their own

In general, the Mormon church is not a cult. While some adherents may exhibit cult like behavior on occasion, it is far from the norm. The Saints do not generally abandon reason at their own expense or at the expense of others; and I am not speaking in monetary terms.

Cognitive dissonance is widely misunderstood and written of by many apologists as "pop psychology." The church's official stance on cognitive dissonance is a clear demonstration that it does not comprehend it or is intentionally leading members away from the true definition. Cognitive dissonance is constantly present in all people at all times. It is a mechanism that protects our self-image and our ability to function within our respective cultures. Without cognitive dissonance and faith in certain things, we would not only be ostracized, but would find ourselves paralyzed in thought and action.

You demonstrate that you, yourself, lack the ability to apply the principles of (as much as I hate to type it again) cognitive dissonance. When faced with a contrary point of view, people will disregard or attack. You aren't changing anyone's mind by explaining how they are wrong. You must lead a horse to water, so to speak.

If you want all of us to understand the principle, then you should use real world examples beginning with the less extreme, and working your way up. Find something that everyone can agree on, and work your way from there. Presenting us with hypotheticals and made up stories doesn't help anyone.

Smoking is the perfect example of cognitive dissonance. We all know it is bad for you and it is one of the leading causes of death. Despite smokers knowing these facts, they rationalize away when confronted with these ideas. They can't even comprehend these terrible problems happening to them until it is too late, and then... they KEEP SMOKING.

Really, there is a lot to cognitive dissonance theory, especially with what neuroscience has been able to contribute. Most people who claim to understand it do not, and, in the end, knowledge of it isn't going to be useful in detecting the fallacies of one's own beliefs.

What is useful, is assuming that everything you know is wrong. Seeing something from several completely different point of views is a better way to approximate the reality of any given subject.


You don't seem to follow a logical order in your post because you jump immediately into a worldview that no one understands. It is, essentially, your own personal exploration of an ancient symbol and your psychedelic experiences and how they may apply to your life. The problems you are trying to raise about the LDS are problems that you clearly carry in regards to your own personal beliefs. You have your own personal culture, and your beliefs are as much of an emotional response as any of the Saints. You have outgrown your Mormon faith and replaced it with a new one that is just as unsubstantiated.

I have sure knowledge of this. How do I know this? Well let me ask you this, how do you know that you can see? How do you know that you can hear, smell, taste, feel, etc? It is because you experience it. Yes, skeptics, I know: “but wait a minute, those can be measured and tested, so we are not comparing apples to apples”. Ok, I’ll give you that; it is not a perfect analogy. However, what more proof do you need that you have sight other than the fact that you can see things?

It is more than knowing about sight because we see. It is understanding the basic principles behind sight to understand how and why we see. We can know a great deal more about our own sight in the context of how it evolved and the scientific principles behind light and transduction.

Understanding these principles would allow you to know why electrochemical signals can be translated by machines, but that it, in no way, makes us psychic. Carl Jung, though genius in his powers of deduction, worked backwards from the assumption of a collective unconscious and the idea that there was a "spirit." The soul is a cultural construct that has evolved over the course of human history. Modern science has, basically, eliminated the existence of the soul. We know how sight works and what is required. A soul cannot see. We know that personality is determined by material structures and alteration of those structures alters personality. The soul has contains no aspect of our personality. The acquisition, storage and process of information, again, is determined by biology and can be altered or eliminated by altering that biology.

The reason DMT, psilocybin, LSD, mescaline and MDMA work the way they do, is because they bind to serotonin receptors. These drugs cause a chain reaction in the brain that is similar to the process that occurs during a religious experience. The amygdala is inhibited, and this inhibition pours into the next portion of the brain that regulates spatial awareness, which pours into the next portion of the brain... etc. The result is that your sense of spatial and temporal awareness, along with your sense of self is "inhibited," so you feel outside of time and more closely connected with your surroundings. Obviously, there are variations on this theme and things can go terribly wrong while on drugs. In a normal meditative state, or in a normal religious experience, your mind can snap back to normal when you perceive a threat or feel anxiety... it interrupts the process. On these types of drugs, certain emotions can result in a traumatic experience.

The conclusions of Dr. Strassman are enlightening in that they clearly demonstrate a connection between transcendent experiences and chemical reactions in the brain. They are all similar reactions with our biology that produce similar experiences according to perception. While people feel a greater inner peace (usually) and a greater sense of connectedness to their fellow man after these experiences, rarely do these feelings last once they enter back into their normal routines.

I can certainly understand you have beliefs based on some profound experiences, but doesn't that make you just like the people of every other faith? Are you not still under the spell of cognitive dissonance?

How do we know whose experience is more valid? A person who is exposed to DMT via meditation? Near death experience? Intramuscular injection?

Like LDS, you face the problem of inconsistent revelation. Other people have done drugs and had profound transcendent experiences, and many of them don't draw the same conclusions that you do. Other people have religious experiences, and they draw different conclusions about what is true and what is not.

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

.

[_emilysmith]

Again, the Mormon Church is not a cult. Perhaps it was in its early stages, and perhaps there are members today who fit that role, but not very many LDS are going to drink cyanide-laced grape Flavor Aid if so commanded by Church Authorities. Certainly, I understand your disdain for their practices and intentional deceit, but it is no different than any other mainstream religion, at this point.

Cognitive dissonance is going in on all people all the time. Sometimes, it is greater than others, but we are constantly building and assessing our reality. It is a subconscious tool that everyone has in order to protect public image. Essentially, our self image is how we view our public image. Self awareness evolved out of the ability to perceive, understand, and predict the behavior of other individuals. We protect ourselves the same way we protect friends and what we perceive to be authority.

The main point is that knowing all about cognitive dissonance doesn't help you overcome its effects. It is useless as a tool of debate. It is useless to explain cognitive dissonance to someone and then tell them they are wrong because of it. If anything, the result is that the are unable to even comprehend cognitive dissonance because you have now tried to tie it to how their beliefs are wrong.

The Galileo example is horrible because it is how a group of people are acting and not what is going on the mind subconscious mind of an individual. You also fail to mention that Galileo was actually wrong. Celestial bodies are not perfect spheres and they do not orbit in circles. The earth is a spheroid and orbits are actually elliptical. The conflict was about more than just geocentricity.

If you want more detail on cognitive dissonance, then read the studies and look at real world examples. Don't be afraid to venture beyond Wikipedia. Either way, there is more to rationalizing beliefs than this one theory. All one really needs to know is that when people come into contact with contrary evidence they often are unable to even comprehend it. What results is deflection, hostility, or even restatement of beliefs without engaging the evidence.

Sight may be testable, but the problem is the interpretation of that sight. Your mind is what is interpreting what you see. ESP is testable, as well, and it has been tested and proven to be non-existent. You are not psychic and you do not have ESP. I promise.

That is not an ad hominum, either. Neither was the last one. I am addressing the ideas you are presenting. I addressed the presentation because, as I said, your point is lost on, pretty much, everyone. I am trying to help you become better for next time. It was constructive criticism.

The validity of your interpretation has nothing to do with the reality of anything. It is belief... opinion. There are plenty of simple images that could be superimposed in this way. I could just as easily use the koru to make some of your same assertions. Neither are anything like E = MC^2. You have placed this symbol along with your unsubstantiated claims on a higher level than they really deserve. E = MC^2 isn't metaphysics, it is physics, pure and simple. Certainly, higher order transformation of hypergeometric function or Cesàro summation could be just as meaningful. It certainly transcends physics and deals with the infinite.

Personally, I would consider Einstein's idea of the cosmological constant, Λ, to be far more meaningful, since that is where one would find what is holding it all together. Even though he considered it to be a great failure, we now use dark matter and dark energy to explain what he was guessing at. It appears as though his greatest failure was actually his greatest insight. There was just no confirmation of it in his time.

You also can test the information gained from sight to understand if it is valid. There is no other scientific knowledge or even philosophical knowledge beyond that required to establish the validity of sight. I see ESP as the same. To me it is as verified and proven subjectively as sight is.

Again, you are not psychic. You do not have ESP. What I mentioned about sight is important because, despite our personal experiences regarding sight, we can understand the processes of sight. We cannot understand the processes of ESP because it does not exist... it is just a result of perception.

The soul/spirit cannot see the way the body does because the way you see now requires a biological structure. Until you can explain how the soul/spirit interacts with biology, you don't really have a leg to stand on. That is the problem with Jung. The mechanics are important. you cannot just call something transcendent, beyond testability, and then claim it is part of proof of anything. In Jung's time and place, his conclusions made perfect sense. They even made perfect sense to me when I was 14. "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections" made a huge impact on me.

The problem is, modern neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary psychology, etc. have all uncovered information and ideas that better explain instinctual knowledge and unconscious processes. Beyond that, the electrochemical reactions in the brain do not operate on a scale smaller than the exchange of valence electrons. We are talking high school chemistry, here. Atoms and molecules aren't being affected and what is going on in the brain operates according to scientific principles that are well understood. Until you can prove that there are processes that transcend constant laws of chemistry, you don't really have a leg to stand on in regards to ESP.

Perception and thought occur according to machinations of these biological structures. You can remove pieces of the "machines" to alter or render inoperable any aspects of personality, memory, sight, taste, smell, etc. Whatever aspects of yourself that you relegate to the operations of the soul can be explained in biological terms. So, yes, the soul, even for you is gone. Unless, of course, you can explain how it interacts with biology to elicit or alter thought, emotion, or perception.

You claim that these psychedelic experiences produce knowledge that can be brought back and is useful, but you are wrong. No one is coming back from any religious experience with E = MC^2. They are coming back with an inner peace and a feeling of interconnectedness. If you had read Strassman's book, you would know that he clearly explains that the effects did not last on any of his subjects. They walked away with meaningful experiences, but they were still themselves. They didn't go start new religions or join a cult of psychonauts. A few of his disturbed subjects even had horrible experiences that did not improve their situation. So, you are dead wrong when you throw the Hopkins link at me because you don't understand the implications.

I get it, they are meaningful experiences. However, plenty of bad people do mushrooms are still bad people. They aren't going out and changing their lives. They all had their serotonin channels reorganized a bit, but neural plasticity only goes so far.

For now you can join the happy condescending crowd who so loves to disregard such anomalous experiences as simply "hallucinations". However, if you do, you have no way to support this view.

The experiences are not anomalous. They are well understood, you just don't understand them. You didn't even know that these hallucinogens mimic serotonin and I doubt you even know what serotonin does or how a neuron works or how one neuron communicates with another. I supported this view by explaining the processes involved in a religious experience... an explanation, really, that came from someone with an education in neurological science who knows a great deal more about hallucinogenic drugs than you or me.

Why should I believe you over him? In reality, I chose not to believe anyone, but tried to confirm both sides for myself. ESP = 0 Neurological Science = 1 no matter how you look at it.

I am not saying these experiences aren't meaningful. If anything, they are far more potent spiritual experiences than anything the average Mormon will ever experience. However, it is still a religious experience. It isn't any more magical than someone who hears the Holy Ghost.

Yes yes, but you miss how much I stress that all I offer is my view and my own experiences of trying to align my actions with my heart. This is what is the most important in my opinion, regardless of what you actually believe reality to be. Follow the reality that is in your heart. Perhaps God put it there.

See, it is the cognitive dissonance talking again. What you missed is that I am trying to point out that your view... your heart... your new God... they are exactly as reliable as the God of Abraham. All religious people feel that they are following their heart, and yet it is secular morality that has provided the most fair and evolved system of ethics.

You are convinced you have ESP without evidence beyond your own personal experience. A Mormon is convinced they have communication with the Holy Ghost without evidence beyond their own personal experience. It goes for everyone of every religion and the only view that makes sense is the one that simultaneously explains all of the other contradictory points of view.

People are following their heart and perpetuating war, condemning homosexuals, and imposing their heart onto others whose hearts feel differently. This is the main problem with any religion, and, despite escaping the Mormon church, you are still in the grasp of this very basic contradiction.

If you are going to tell people they are wrong based on your religious experiences, then they can tell you that you are wrong based on THEIR religious experiences. Each of you will always claim that your experience is more valid than the other. You will never gain ground with this approach.

[Anonymous]

.