82,387
edits
Cognitive dissonance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
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]], [[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. | {{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 [[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. | 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. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
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. | 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. Science - indeed, ''any'' specialist knowledge - is acquired by gaining entry to a heavily fortified citadel of knowledge - a series of ideas and predicates built upon a basic narrative architecture. Entry to the citadel is jealousy guarded by acolytes to ensure members of the fraternity are suitably indoctrinated in those predicates. One cannot reach a position of influence in that narrative architecture - paradigm - without first making a commitment to its precepts so fundamental that to later resile from it would be to sacrifice all credibility. | ||
They have compromising photos, that is to say. | |||
{{Sa}} | |||
*{{br|The Structure of Scientific Revolutions}} - Thomas Kuhn's magical book. | |||