Neuropteron
Active Member
According to prof. Leon Festinger, If a very strong opinion is met with contradictory evidence, it creates an uncomfortable internal inconsistency.
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.
In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.
Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.
Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”
Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.
We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?
Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?
He called this “cognitive dissonance” and reasoned that the only way to overcome this discomfort is to somehow make the belief and the evidence consistent.
In a famous study called the “Oak Park Study” he along with his colleagues at the University of Minnesota studied a cult that claimed to have received a message from aliens to the effect that a flood would end the world on December the 21st of 1964 and that only they would be rescued by flying saucers.
Common sense would lead us to expect that the subsequent failure of their prediction would lead them to abandon their belief, ...the opposite occurred.
They (cult members) received another message from the aliens stating that the world would be spared because of their dedication and fervent belief. The result was that they became even stronger believers.
Prof. Festinger had anticipated this reaction and explained that to accept contradictory evidence would set up an even greater dissonance between past belief and present denial.
This effect is even greater if reputation, jobs and financial reason are implicated.
He concluded that “cognitive dissonance” makes a person of strong conviction unlikely to change his opinion in the face of contradiction. Thus he becomes immune to evidence and rational arguments.
Festinger explains :
“Tell him you disagree and he turns away.
Show him facts of figures and he questions your source.
Appeal to logic and he fails to see you point.”
Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
Is someone keeping score on how often I decide another member is wrong, or does saying “your wrong” prove that I’m right? Or rather does it show inability to communicate to others a dissenting opinion?
I suggest we go beyond the communication skills we acquired in grade 4 and discuss the reasons we think we are right and others are wrong.
We are expected to give our sources to demonstrate why we believe in something or perhaps show that we are not the only one to have this opinion. I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased. OK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.
What message does attacking a source without addressing the main issue convey? Would you not agree that it displays an inability to verbalize our opinions ?
Considering the above, do you think that it would be advantageous for us all to keep an open mind when confronted with ideas that contradict our beliefs, and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?