JVH say (Login JVH) Sufi Posted Apr 3, 2012 10:12 AM
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance postulates that individuals, when presented with evidence contrary to their worldview or situations in which they must behave contrary to their worldview, experience "cognitive dissonance." Dissonance is generally defined as "an unpleasant state of tension."
Individuals will try to relieve this dissonance in one of two ways:
1) Increase the number of consistent cognitions - In order to assimilate inconsistent information to their worldview, individuals experiencing dissonance will increase the number of consistent cognitions, thereby abating the dissonance. This often involves rationalizing...i.e. myopic focus on facts, logic, or experience which reinforces an existing worldview.
In most instances, the offending inconsistent cognitions are dismissed altogether as a result of this myopic focus on extant consistent cognitions. This is called "rationalizing" because the individual seeks out semi-logical conclusions using extant cognitions and newly created consistent cognitions in order to find a way to invalidate the inconsistent cognitions.
2) Decrease the number of inconsistent cognitions - Individuals change their attitudes to compensate for inconsistent cognitions. Instead of rationalizing, the individual excises the inconsistent cognitions from their worldview. This is more consistent with rational thinking when presented with logic or facts inconsistent with their worldview.
There is a connection between emotional thinking and cognitive dissonance. Emotionally based thinking is much more susceptible to facts and logic which contradict the justification for that thinking or emotional worldview. Factually or logically inconsistent cognitions are countered not with consistent factual/logical cognitions, but with emotional cognitions.
For the emotional thinker, the universe is not a matter of logic and fact, it is a matter of emotion, and when presented with logic or facts that contradict a strongly held emotion, they respond not with a logical/factual refutation of that contradiction, but with an emotional refutation.
The emotional thinkerthen, refutes emotionally, not logically. This is why one cannot debate or discuss logic and facts with emotional thinkers. Any reasoned discussion or debate is met with emotional discussion or debate. It is like trying to debate with a child...they simply "don't hear" you.
Use emotio for inspirations, ratio to find answers
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability - it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true everything else ... mere BS -