Is your conviction unshakable ?

[Neuropteron]

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 ?

 

[Geoff-Allen]

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 ?

Interesting topic.

I think maintaining an open-mind is a key to enjoying life.

Doesn't mean you have to agree all-the time - that never works ...

Here's an article I found recently -

Open-Mindedness | Authentic Happiness

Personally, if people want to say I am away with the fairies or just plain "wrong" I respect their right to feel that way and I endeavour NOT to take it personally - which can be a huge challenge for the ego!

Have i answered your actual post? Or just ranted and raved a little ---

All the best!

Enjoy your day!

 

[Nakosis]

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,

No, I want to be dragged into acceptance by the short hairs.

and coherently give reasons for our opinions ?

Yes, while I may not agree with your views/beliefs, I should coherently be capable of stating why.

 

[nPeace]

I think when a person wants someone to explain why they consider them wrong, it is because the person is honest. Not only do they care if the person considers the point, but they want to examine the facts in relation to the point they make - they are open minded.

Usually a person who is just happy with "you are wrong" probably doesn't take the matter very seriously. In other words, it's not that important whether the person has reason or not, for dismissing the "point", or it doesn't matter much if the person gets the point, and evaluates it.

I'm speaking from my experience of sharing a message I consider life-saving. So when a person just says, "You're wrong" and walks away, I am thinking about them, because I am hoping they think about it, and not dismiss it, simply because it does not appeal to them.
For me, it's never about ego, but it's about being honest with myself and the person I am speaking with.

If I tell someone, "You are wrong", and walk away, I think in my mind, I would be asking, 'What are you afraid of, nPeace?" I would be trying to protect my ego, and being far from honest.

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. Does any of this seem familiar to you ?
2. Have you ever attempted to start a discussion on something you believe in, only to be told “ your wrong buddy, goodbye”.
3. Isn’t the idea of a forum to have extended communication with other people?
4. 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?

My responses:

1. Very.
2. Yes, except that nobody here in RF ever says "buddy" or "goodbye". They just want me to say "Uncle".
3. Let me check my "ignore" list. Hmmm, .. okay. No.
4. I'm not sure, but I think only Santa Claus is keep track of that score.
   • Saying "you're wrong" never proves that I'm right. I only say that when "my buddy" proves that I'm right, except when I didn't think things through sufficiently and I silently admit to myself that I was wrong.
   • An inability to communicate an intelligible reason for my dissenting opinion may be my problem from time to time, but an inability to communicate my dissent never has been.

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

"We" who? I think I'm more than ready most of the time, until or unless I have a reason to believe that no source is going persuade "my buddy" to reconsider their position. The moment I confirm that I and the other person have an irreconcilable difference, further discussion of the matter is usually dead in the water. Showing "that we are not the only one to have" a particular opinion is fraught with difficulty: When do votes in favor and against make a difference?

I cannot count the times I was told that my sources are either stupid or biased.

Whew! Been there more times than I can count.

IOK, I get it, but why are they stupid or bias, that’s what should be discussed.

LOL! My sympathies. I've only met one person who was smart enough and patient enough to take the time to tell me where my reasoning went wrong, and he never told me that I was stupid or biased, ... just confused. And he explained where I was confused and did so in a manner that dispelled my confusion. Unfortunately, he died and I have not met anyone like him since.

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 ?

Seems to me that a willingness to hear someone's objection(s) to our belief or opinion is often advantageous, up to the point that our "buddies" fail to think that our reasons for our beliefs or opinions are intelligible and our "buddies" cease to make sense themselves.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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 ?

Cognitive dissonance isn't so easily controlled as 'keeping an open mind' though.
The level of dissonance required to promote change basically increases the more you invest into a position.

Someone in a cult is therefore generally very invested and requires a lot to reconsider their held position.
But we all do this in all walks of life. It's unavoidable. Being aware of it is important, but an open mind won't prevent it. Because humans.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Yah know, I have a coworker I talk about world events with, and since we spend all day with eachother she really has nowhere to escape to. Philosophically, idiologically, and religiously we are polar opposites. She seemed closed minded to me when I first met her, and that really just made me want to pick her brain, much to her annoyance.

In the beginning, she'd shut down the subjects I'd bring up. I'd leave it alone since I didn't want to upset her and sour the work environment. As time went on, she would speak more and more on the subjects I'd talk about, and I'd get to see more and more of her input. When I ask her a question now, she gives her stance, and when I ask her why she feels the way she does on things she gives me straight forward answers whether or not it's a popular position for her to have, which is ultimately what I value more than anything else.

Then, she started asking me questions and picking my brain. She has me thinking and questioning things I think that I knew for sure when I can't come up with good reasons why I believe what I do. Seems I can be just as stubborn on things I "know" to be true.

I pegged her as someone who was closed minded in the beginning, but she made me realise that maybe I'm not quite as open minded as I'd like to believe. The way we view ourselves doesn't always match reality, and that is cognitive dissonance in action.

 

[danieldemol]

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 ?

It would, but since when are JWs allowed to be open minded without the risk of being shunned if they come to differing conclusions to their JW comrades? In other words your entire post is probably just more JW hypocrisy

 

[PureX]

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 ?

There is no degree of evidence or reason that will convince a person who is determined not to be convinced. And demanding sources, and sources for sources, just becomes another bottomless rabbit hole to chase down when you're dealing with someone else's unwillingness to consider an alternative point of view. Their agenda is not communication, it's to shore up their own sense of self-righteousness. So if your agenda is communication, and you find that you are trying to converse with someone with a different agenda, I think the best thing to do is to simply stop trying, and move on.

 

[Jedster]

There is no degree of evidence or reason that will convince a person who is determined not to be convinced. And demanding sources, and sources for sources, just becomes another bottomless rabbit hole to chase down when you're dealing with someone else's unwillingness to consider an alternative point of view. Their agenda is not communication, it's to shore up their own sense of self-righteousness. So if your agenda is communication, and you find that you are trying to converse with someone with a different agenda, I think the best thing to do is to simply stop trying, and move on.

Well said.
Having been of of those people who was so convinced by my 'rightness', I would take on anybody of any belief. The arguments, which I always won, would only deeper my illusion and feed my (spiritual)ego.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't have any unshakable convictions. Provide the evidence and I might believe whatever if it seems to correlate with reality. I am rather suspicious of religious texts and what they seemingly encompass, since I do have a little knowledge of human behaviour and if we look further back in time nothing suggests we were better at anything in particular than now - apart from gullibility perhaps - but plenty of those still around today so perhaps the numbers have just diminuished. I suspect that many of the religious, for example, live in a bubble of their own creation, by accepting so much without the necessary impartial evidence to support whatever they believe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, my conviction is not unshakable. This is a claim that I make freely band proudly, and absolutely nothing is likely to change my mind on the matter.

 

[syo]

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.”

It works both sides. So, who is right???

 

[oldbadger]

My beliefs, opinions, ideas and experience are all open to adjustment when new info is presented, subject to scrutiny.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I don't have any unshakable convictions.

That's not an unshakable conviction, is it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

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 ?

While it is good to keep an open mind (science has not solved all problems), no sense in keeping mind open to patently silly ideas as six day creation or someone being engendered by a God or being chosen by a God as his messenger/prophet/manifestation/mahdi.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's not an unshakable conviction, is it?

Correct - it is a description of the range of beliefs I hold, with few at hardly believing and none at unshakable, such that most are variable in nature.

 

[PureX]

Well said.
Having been of of those people who was so convinced by my 'rightness', I would take on anybody of any belief. The arguments, which I always won, would only deeper my illusion and feed my (spiritual)ego.

I appreciate your having found the courage to change that habit. Turns out that being open-minded isn't really anything to fear. Or even being wrong about things. It's the only way we can learn. And we don't really even have to change our minds to learn about how other people can and do see things differently, without their having to be "wrong". Turns out there are a lot of different ways to see and understand the world because the world is a very big and complicated experience, and we are just one perspective on it.

 

[Neuropteron]

My responses:

1. Very.
2. Yes, except that nobody here in RF ever says "buddy" or "goodbye". They just want me to say "Uncle".
3. Let me check my "ignore" list. Hmmm, .. okay. No.
4. I'm not sure, but I think only Santa Claus is keep track of that score.
   • Saying "you're wrong" never proves that I'm right. I only say that when "my buddy" proves that I'm right, except when I didn't think things through sufficiently and I silently admit to myself that I was wrong.
   • An inability to communicate an intelligible reason for my dissenting opinion may be my problem from time to time, but an inability to communicate my dissent never has been.

"We" who? I think I'm more than ready most of the time, until or unless I have a reason to believe that no source is going persuade "my buddy" to reconsider their position. The moment I confirm that I and the other person have an irreconcilable difference, further discussion of the matter is usually dead in the water. Showing "that we are not the only one to have" a particular opinion is fraught with difficulty: When do votes in favor and against make a difference?



Whew! Been there more times than I can count.



LOL! My sympathies. I've only met one person who was smart enough and patient enough to take the time to tell me where my reasoning went wrong, and he never told me that I was stupid or biased, ... just confused. And he explained where I was confused and did so in a manner that dispelled my confusion. Unfortunately, he died and I have not met anyone like him since.



Seems to me that a willingness to hear someone's objection(s) to our belief or opinion is often advantageous, up to the point that our "buddies" fail to think that our reasons for our beliefs or opinions are intelligible and our "buddies" cease to make sense themselves.

Thank you for your insighfull comments

 

[Neuropteron]

Yah know, I have a coworker I talk about world events with, and since we spend all day with eachother she really has nowhere to escape to. Philosophically, idiologically, and religiously we are polar opposites. She seemed closed minded to me when I first met her, and that really just made me want to pick her brain, much to her annoyance.

In the beginning, she'd shut down the subjects I'd bring up. I'd leave it alone since I didn't want to upset her and sour the work environment. As time went on, she would speak more and more on the subjects I'd talk about, and I'd get to see more and more of her input. When I ask her a question now, she gives her stance, and when I ask her why she feels the way she does on things she gives me straight forward answers whether or not it's a popular position for her to have, which is ultimately what I value more than anything else.

Then, she started asking me questions and picking my brain. She has me thinking and questioning things I think that I knew for sure when I can't come up with good reasons why I believe what I do. Seems I can be just as stubborn on things I "know" to be true.

I pegged her as someone who was closed minded in the beginning, but she made me realise that maybe I'm not quite as open minded as I'd like to believe. The way we view ourselves doesn't always match reality, and that is cognitive dissonance in action.

Thank You, good example