Cognitive dissonance: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}The related phenomena of [[causation]], [[correlation]], | {{g}}The related phenomena of [[causation]], [[correlation]], [[confirmation bias]] come together in the idea of [[cognitive dissonance]] - how one person can hold separate ideas in her head whose underlying values, premises and assumptions contradict each other. | ||
===[[Confirmation bias]]=== | ===[[Confirmation bias]]=== | ||
You will be familiar with the experience of the futile argument with to someone who holds a contrary idea to yours. If you're not, what the hell were you doing at university? The atheist who heckles the born-again preacher - or vice versa - will know this feeling. So will Marxists who engage capitalists, climate deniers who take on eco warriors and anyone who's tried to querying | You will be familiar with the experience of the futile argument with to someone who holds a contrary idea to yours. If you're not, what the hell were you ''doing'' at university? The atheist who heckles the born-again preacher - or vice versa - will know this feeling. So will Marxists who engage capitalists, climate deniers who take on eco warriors and anyone who's tried to querying [[force ranking]] wirh [[HR]]. This kind of arguments is utterly fruitless, but thoroughly entertaining for the protagonists, at least until one pushes one hot button too far, and it's all-out war. | ||
It is fruitless because everyone who holds a view will accept any | It is fruitless to argue across divides because everyone who holds a view will accept as immutable proof any contention, however wan, which seems to support it, and will explain away, dissemble or, at the limit, flat-out ''ignore'' any assertion which tends to contradict it. | ||
We apply a rose-tinted filter, that is to say. Our acceptance of incoming information is biased in favour of what we want to hear - which confirms our existing [[narrative]] - and against information which undermines it. Hence [[confirmation bias]]. | |||
Where defence is even needed (much of the time, ignoring will do just fine), classic approaches include ''[[ad hominem]]'' arguments, ''[[reductio ad absurdam]]s'', analogising to the Third Reich and, if you're really rattled, the old [[correlation does not imply causation]] chestnut, but the most reliable of the lot is just ignoring utterly. | |||
You won't notice you're doing it. You won't even ''believe' you're doing it. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons you should do this. This is how scientific progress works . | You won't notice you're doing it. You won't even ''believe' you're doing it. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons you should do this. This is how scientific progress works . | ||
Revision as of 19:29, 21 October 2019
|
|
The related phenomena of causation, correlation, confirmation bias come together in the idea of cognitive dissonance - how one person can hold separate ideas in her head whose underlying values, premises and assumptions contradict each other.
Confirmation bias
You will be familiar with the experience of the futile argument with to someone who holds a contrary idea to yours. If you're not, what the hell were you doing at university? The atheist who heckles the born-again preacher - or vice versa - will know this feeling. So will Marxists who engage capitalists, climate deniers who take on eco warriors and anyone who's tried to querying force ranking wirh HR. This kind of arguments is utterly fruitless, but thoroughly entertaining for the protagonists, at least until one pushes one hot button too far, and it's all-out war.
It is fruitless to argue across divides because everyone who holds a view will accept as immutable proof any contention, however wan, which seems to support it, and will explain away, dissemble or, at the limit, flat-out ignore any assertion which tends to contradict it.
We apply a rose-tinted filter, that is to say. Our acceptance of incoming information is biased in favour of what we want to hear - which confirms our existing narrative - and against information which undermines it. Hence confirmation bias.
Where defence is even needed (much of the time, ignoring will do just fine), classic approaches include ad hominem arguments, reductio ad absurdams, analogising to the Third Reich and, if you're really rattled, the old correlation does not imply causation chestnut, but the most reliable of the lot is just ignoring utterly.
You won't notice you're doing it. You won't even believe' you're doing it. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons you should do this. This is how scientific progress works .