Cognitive Dissonance

[Jennifer]

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Let's discuss cognitive dissonance.

It's an idea that crystalized for me over much of the past year, I find it a fascinating topic.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas...

Lots of examples abound. An easy example:

A person believes that God will heal a loved one's sickness.
God doesn't.

Now hard questions are raised.
Is God loving?
Is God powerful?
Why didn't God do what they thought he would do?

Maybe one's concept of God was wrong.
But it can't be.
If the concept was wrong, then a lot of things would have to be rethought.

Therefore, there is temptation to come up with other reasons to resolve the difficulty so that the person won't have to change their thinking, and the dichotomy over "God wants to heal my friend" vs "God let my friend die" can be resolved with the least amount of stress and ambiguity.

So....
Maybe the friend sinned and thus was being punished.
Maybe people just didn't have enough faith or God would have pulled through.
Maybe God had some special plan that is even better in the long run than the friend's survival.
Lots of "reasons" are generated so that the original premises/opinion of God and what he should do doesn't have to change.

Or maybe someone thinks that gay marriages are bad for kids and "turns kids gay."
Then studies show the opposite. (Not saying they do, just saying, "What if the CW is wrong?")
Does the opinion change?
Or is it easier to generate reasons that can explain away the study without reconsidering the opinion?
(Perhaps the study was fradulent. Or it was run by gay people, so it must be biased. Or the families in question had other factors making them good. Or... whatever?)


So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?

What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?

Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?

Who pays the expense of the unwillingness to change?

I don't even have a particular idea in mind in terms of direction of the conversation, I'm just curious to see what others have to say about the topic and how it plays out in daily life and common society.

[Victor]

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Let's discuss cognitive dissonance.

It's an idea that crystalized for me over much of the past year, I find it a fascinating topic.



Lots of examples abound. An easy example:

A person believes that God will heal a loved one's sickness.
God doesn't.

Now hard questions are raised.
Is God loving?
Is God powerful?
Why didn't God do what they thought he would do?

Maybe one's concept of God was wrong.
But it can't be.
If the concept was wrong, then a lot of things would have to be rethought.

Therefore, there is temptation to come up with other reasons to resolve the difficulty so that the person won't have to change their thinking, and the dichotomy over "God wants to heal my friend" vs "God let my friend die" can be resolved with the least amount of stress and ambiguity.

So....
Maybe the friend sinned and thus was being punished.
Maybe people just didn't have enough faith or God would have pulled through.
Maybe God had some special plan that is even better in the long run than the friend's survival.
Lots of "reasons" are generated so that the original premises/opinion of God and what he should do doesn't have to change.

Or maybe someone thinks that gay marriages are bad for kids and "turns kids gay."
Then studies show the opposite. (Not saying they do, just saying, "What if the CW is wrong?")
Does the opinion change?
Or is it easier to generate reasons that can explain away the study without reconsidering the opinion?
(Perhaps the study was fradulent. Or it was run by gay people, so it must be biased. Or the families in question had other factors making them good. Or... whatever?)


So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?

What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?

Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?

Who pays the expense of the unwillingness to change?

I don't even have a particular idea in mind in terms of direction of the conversation, I'm just curious to see what others have to say about the topic and how it plays out in daily life and common society.

Why not discuss cognitive dissonance within MBTI. It's right here and right now - it is germane - it is pertinent.

Or is it too close to the bone?

[Jennifer]

Why not discuss cognitive dissonance within MBTI. It's right here and right now - it is germane - it is pertinent. Or is it too close to the bone?

My only guideline would be to discuss things in ways that ultimately keep the conversation about cognitive dissonance rather than diverging into an argument about particular happenings elsewhere.

[Anja]

Here's one I deal with:

I like to believe that everyone has positive intentions. . .

[Didums]

So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?

What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?

Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?

Who pays the expense of the unwillingness to change?

I don't even have a particular idea in mind in terms of direction of the conversation, I'm just curious to see what others have to say about the topic and how it plays out in daily life and common society.

The human brain is rather inflexible once one's views are set in stone. People have some sort of irrational negative view of Change. For some reason, staying the same in one's ways has some sort of positive result in their brains, it doesn't want to have to radically change its wiring.

Also, if this is relevant in any way (the title of the vid is):

*NSFW - language*

Also, the thumbnail is deceiving, attention grabber, the vid is actually very interesting.

Cognitive Dissonance - TheAmazingAtheist from Youtube

[Xander]

"The reduction in cognitive dissonance" sounds like a title for an INTPs memoirs to me...

[cafe]

I don't understand why someone would believe God will heal their loved one, I guess. I see little evidence in the Bible or in life that God singles people out to exempt them from normal human suffering. Everybody dies. Often there is no apparent rhyme or reason to when and how they do. I believe the Spirit of God can comfort and guide us through life's difficulties, but I don't believe that he shields us from most of them.

[PinkPiranha]

I don't understand why someone would believe God will heal their loved one, I guess. I see little evidence in the Bible or in life that God singles people out to exempt them from normal human suffering. Everybody dies. Often there is no apparent rhyme or reason to when and how they do. I believe the Spirit of God can comfort and guide us through life's difficulties, but I don't believe that he shields us from most of them.

I'm afraid I've felt very misled by stories of healing in the Bible. I think that's what makes people want to believe in modern day reprieve, 11th hour rescues when all hope is gone. :(

[Anja]

I'm thinking, Pink, that the Bible addresses that specifically because that's how people instinctively like to think when all hope is gone.

People who are desperate are easy to motivate. . .

(You look so particularly muscle-y today, my dear.)

Might even go so far as to say you look "gluteus."

[cafe]

I'm afraid I've felt very misled by stories of healing in the Bible. I think that's what makes people want to believe in modern day reprieve, 11th hour rescues when all hope is gone. :(
*sigh* Yeah. Wanting to believe, hoping, and praying are good and I do believe that God still heals people, but I don't see any kind of pattern for it. It's kind of like winning the lottery.

IMO, a lot of the Evangelical faith healing/prosperity teachers have done a great deal of wrong in some of the ideas they have promoted. They only tend to focus on the good, but not the hardships. They speak as though it is a sign of faith to be healed, and it can be, but to me, it takes much more faith to trust in and serve God despite not being healed.

I wish there was more more balance in the things that get taught. Job was a good man, and God restored much of what he lost, but his older children were not resurrected. Ezekiel did not get his wife back. Most of Jesus' disciples are believe to have been murdered. Horrible things sometimes happen to wonderful people and sometimes wonderful things happen to horrible people. There some families where it's impossible to imagine how so much hardship seems to be piled upon them and others where they just seem to breeze through life with straight, white smiles and picket fences never disturbed.

[Ilah]

In my mind there are different types of cognative dissonance.

The two examples in the post are both examples of values v. logic. Or F v. T.

It is also possible to have values v. values dissonance. To merge your two examples: Say you believe strongly in gay rights, but you also believe strongly in your faith (as defined by your church) and your church says being gay is a sin. Which value do you go with?

Another type is logic v. logic. There are studies that say soy is great for our health and we should eat more of it. There are studies that say soy is bad and we should not eat it at all. Both arguments are presented logically and have scientific studies, which one do you choose?

The first type, in my mind is hardest because it forces you to choose between values and logic. Strong T/weak F would just abandon "illogical" values. Example: athiests who gave up their faith because it was not logical. Strong F/weak T would just ignore any logic or scientific evedence that contradicted their faith. This seems common in fundamentalist Christians. If your T and F are reasonably close, then you would work with the situation, adjusting values or logic or both till they fit. You might try out many different adjustments searching for something that is acceptable to you. It may be possible that you cannot make them both fit and have to give up one, but it is more of a last resort.

The second type can be a very angst ridden choice but it is more straighforward. Which of the two do you value the highest. You keep the one you value highest. The other one you either get rid or modify. In the above example, you might switch to a more liberal church, modifying your beliefs, but not abandoning them altogther.

The choice between two types of logic is not as emotional as a values choice. It can still be very distressing though, since unlike values, there is an expectation that truth is objective and therefor logical things should be compatible. Both agreements would be looked at logically and objectively to see which one is more likely to be true. There is more of a tendancy to completely reject one agrument than adjust them to accomidate both, although sometimes you can find something that works. For example you might conclude soy is good up to a certain amount, but bad in extreme high levels.

[Jennifer]

... it takes much more faith to trust in and serve God despite not being healed.

:)

That's what I believe too.

...Horrible things sometimes happen to wonderful people and sometimes wonderful things happen to horrible people. ...

My 13-year-old and I talked for some time over the weekend about abortion and capital punishment and religious beliefs trying to be implemented as law in our country, and that was one of the things I told him.... that essentially bad things still happen to good people and vice versa.

I could see him wrestling with that.
He has not had the experience yet, he's young.
But he will.

How does it get resolved in one's mind?
Can it be?

The human brain is rather inflexible once one's views are set in stone. People have some sort of irrational negative view of Change. For some reason, staying the same in one's ways has some sort of positive result in their brains, it doesn't want to have to radically change its wiring.

So you're saying it could have a neurological basis -- that some people simply do not form new connections/patterns neurologically in their brain / lay them down as quickly as others, or perhaps the process is not as psychologically painful (or perhaps there is a neurotransmitter REWARD for laying down new configurations or changing configurations for these people)? So that's why some persist and others do not? There could be physical reasons that drive the emotional ones?

(Rather like basic assembly code speaking straight to the hardware versus a high-level language like VB that operates on an abstracted level from the actual hardware, the latter being a frame that equates to a purely psychological explanation?)

Here's one I deal with:
I like to believe that everyone has positive intentions. . .

Did you say that for a good reason? :)

In any case, how do you determine when someone's intentions are not positive?

[Jennifer]

Various strategies can be associated with cognitive dissonance.

One such strategy is hostility, where the anxiety/tension of being faced with contradictory thoughts is displaced on someone else who can then be "destroyed" and thus in a way destroying one of the dichotomous ideas.

This has happened with race relations (if the black person is attacked and/or destroyed, then they are no longer around to provide tangible evidence of that race being equal to white people).

Same thing with homosexuals and the "gay bashing" phenomena, preemptively or post. Displacing anger on the target group prevents any sort of relationship from occurring where the cognitive dissonance comes into play, potentially forcing a change. (Otherwise known as, "Hey, I know a gay person, and they're actually just like me! Now what do I do?") To protect the original idea from being challenged, the communication/relationship is circumvented up front.

[Ilah]

I changed my spiritual beliefs at around age 30. It was a really difficult, traumatic, angst ridden process.

On the other hand, I heard of people who have mid life religious converstions and potray the process very angst free - no doubts, no uncertainties, very comfortable with their new life, etc.

:)

So you're saying it could have a neurological basis -- that some people simply do not form new connections/patterns neurologically in their brain / lay them down as quickly as others, or perhaps the process is not as psychologically painful (or perhaps there is a neurotransmitter REWARD for laying down new configurations or changing configurations for these people)? So that's why some persist and others do not? There could be physical reasons that drive the emotional ones?

(Rather like basic assembly code speaking straight to the hardware versus a high-level language like VB that operates on an abstracted level from the actual hardware, the latter being a frame that equates to a purely psychological explanation?)

[Anja]

:)...In any case, how do you determine when someone's intentions are not positive?

Thanks for asking, Jennifer. After posting, I thought it was interesting that that was the first thought about cognitive disonance which came to mind as I read. Perhaps no coincidence?

The answer to your question is that I cannot always determine that.

I like to believe, say in the case of child abuse, that parents are trying to do the best they can to raise a well-adjusted child, but they don't have the tools.

This gives me comfort because my homelife was wretched at times and it made it easier for me to heal from some of the things that happened to believe that my parents were doing the best they could.

Then I may read of an incident so diabolically sadistic that it shakes my belief that all are trying to do their best. But I still want to hang on to my generosity of spirit so there I sit wondering what to do with that clash between what I want to believe and what seems obviously opposite.

It's an existential dilemma. The ancient good/evil dichotomy. I prefer to use the words health and dis-ease.

Since I see that cafe reads the Bible, which I also do on occasion, I will borrow from it the best answer to your question I can manage. I often cannot tell what someone's intentions are but "by their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:16

I equate health with growth/internal order and disease with decay/internal and external chaos. So it's often after the fact that I can determine what is positive and what is negative. What consistently follows in the path of a person?

And, drat. Thinking as I type, you have truly created for me a question which throws me into cognitive disonance!

Perhaps the word "intention" is the hang-up. Because good intentions don't always produce good results.

I'm going to have to think further on this before I say more. Because I surely don't believe that mistakes are evil.

I do think it is in observation of a personal pattern than I determine what a person's intentions are.

__________________________________________________ __________

You say that one response to cognitive dissonance is hostility. May I swat you now? :cheese:

[Edahn]

Various strategies can be associated with cognitive dissonance.

One such strategy is hostility, where the anxiety/tension of being faced with contradictory thoughts is displaced on someone else who can then be "destroyed" and thus in a way destroying one of the dichotomous ideas.

Reducing cognitive dissonance might be a side effect of destroying the person (and destroying the evidence of contradiction) but really, I don't think that's why people do battle with each other. They fight because they're territorial and afraid of what will happen to them if they let their guard down.

[Victor]

No astronomer believes in astrology.

All astronomers know that astrology is untrue.

Yet hundreds of millions look up their horoscope every day.

This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Or is it?

In fact the hundreds of millions do not experience cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is painful, while reading your horoscope is pleasurable.

How can this possibly be explained?

Easy - cognitive dissonance is not experienced when the cognitive faculties are asleep.

And the cognitive faculties are asleep when you are in a trance.

So those who believe in astrology are in a trance.

And even an astronomer can't wake them up.

[Edahn]

No astronomer believes in astrology.

All astronomers know that astrology is untrue.

Yet hundreds of millions look up their horoscope every day.

This is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

Or is it?

Is it even true?

In fact the hundreds of millions do not experience cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is painful, while reading your horoscope is pleasurable.

How can this possibly be explained?

Easy - cognitive dissonance is not experienced when the cognitive faculties are asleep.

And the cognitive faculties are asleep when you are in a trance.

So those who believe in astrology are in a trance.

I don't believe in astrology either, but your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises, and if you think it does, then I'd like to see how, from those premises.

Second, what you're saying is still problematic, because even if what you're saying is true, the astronomers would "wake up" from their trace when they were not thinking about astrology. At that point, assuming they still believed in astrology, they would experience cognitive dissonance. The alternative, which is interesting, is that when they're back to work, they don't hold astrology in the same regard. It raises the possibility/theory that ideas are maintained in relation to their environment, in other words, when I'm at work, I stop believing in this and believe strongly in that, and when I leave work, I suspend belief in that and embrace this. That actually makes some sense to me.

[Jennifer]

In fact the hundreds of millions do not experience cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is painful, while reading your horoscope is pleasurable.

I'm not sure that everyone reads horoscopes because they actually believe tangibly it's true.

What seems to occur is that people use their daily read more as a focal point -- an arbitrary angle by which to view the world for that day, much as someone else would read a Bible passage or an inspirational quote.

So when I pick a fortune at random here from my little wall mount (let's say, "He who seeks will find"), that thought is now consciously in my mind until my next horoscope, and today I will look at the world in terms of seeking and finding. Tomorrow I will focus on something else. It's not an actual prediction to be potentially falsified or not, it's just a way of seeing the world for a time.

Now I will qualify what I just said -- it's probably not that clear-cut, most people seem to be a mix of both the practical that I just described as well as wishful (sort of like when you play the lottery and HOPE that you'll win, although you know damn well you are not going to... yet you trick yourself consciously into doing it just because you want to). Horoscopes seem to be similar -- there's still a little hope that the fortune you got will come true, even if you know it's not going to happen... because it makes you feel like something good can happen to you even if it's unlikely, and there's some purpose to things.

So I don't tend to see horoscopes in terms of cognitive dissonance, except for the rabid astrologers who, like those who believe in UFOs, or some sort of inevitable "wait on the mountain top" second coming of a religion figure, have their expectations publicly and severely dashed and now have to deal with the incongruity.

Reducing cognitive dissonance might be a side effect of destroying the person (and destroying the evidence of contradiction) but really, I don't think that's why people do battle with each other. They fight because they're territorial and afraid of what will happen to them if they let their guard down.

You're right in that what you suggest is probably of more direct import -- pure survival and wanting to avoid harm. What I described is just layered into it.

[Jennifer]

I changed my spiritual beliefs at around age 30. It was a really difficult, traumatic, angst ridden process.

So why did you feel your spiritual beliefs had to change? (If you want to talk about it.)

If it was painful, you must have felt like you had good reason to make that modification in order for you to proceed.

On the other hand, I heard of people who have mid life religious conversions and portray the process very angst free - no doubts, no uncertainties, very comfortable with their new life, etc.

Some of them seem to be more impulsive, but I've heard of others who just flipped like a switch. I wonder what happened internally. Was there really dissonance there? Or what is more like an expansion of what they already believed at some level, and the religious thought merely fleshed it out or added to it in some way?

(I think that happens, where people run into a religion or see an old religion in a new way that they immediately recognize as an extension/expansion/clarification of what they already believe... so there is nothing to change and it's like "going home.")

[Victor]

What is even more interesting is this -

Just as no astronomer believes in astrology, no psychometrician believes in MBTI.

One would think that this would cause cognitive dissonance in the members of MBTIc. But it doesn't.

[Jennifer]

What is even more interesting is this -

Just as no astronomer believes in astrology, no psychometrician believes in MBTI.

One would think that this would cause cognitive dissonance in the members of MBTIc. But it doesn't.

Why is that interesting?
And why are you equating that to cognitive dissonance?
Praytell, explain. :)

[Ilah]

So why did you feel your spiritual beliefs had to change? (If you want to talk about it.)

If it was painful, you must have felt like you had good reason to make that modification in order for you to proceed.





There were lots of different factors involved that make it difficult to assign anyone thing to the cause. Some of the things I once thought of as causes were perhaps just triggers for something that was already there. For example, I had encounters with some bad church politics. It really hurt my faith to see that some of the church leadership, those I expected to have a strong embodiment of Christian ideals, were behaving very unChristian-like. I realize that no one is without sin, etc., but these people were acting like :censored: and not exactly repentant about it. However, if there was no internal challange to my faith, these negative experiences would probably only cause a spiritual slump which I would recover from.

However, there was something, actually a lot of things buried/repressed that came to light during the time my convention faith was challanged by this. First off is that for quite a while I was drawn - very strongly - to metaphysics and various New Age/alternative spirituality ideals. All of this was more or less repressed, partly because I percieved it as not acceptable, but mostly because it went againt Christian teachings. Also repressed: some of the values and ideals I held did not seem compatible to the Christian faith, at least not how it seems to be presented currently. Sometimes I think my faith may have been reconcilled if there was an extremely liberal church in my area. I would occasionally feel a spiritual presence and this occured with both Christianity and other faiths which kind of put me at odds with the whole "one true God" doctrine. The reverse was an issue as well, some of the Christain churches I did not sense the presence of God.

So once all this repressed stuff came back light, there was no stuffing it back. It was like I had pulled the stone that triggered an avalanche. The mountain might be peaceful for years even though it has the potential for avalanche. Once the avalanche strarts you can't stop it by putting the stone back.

Ilah

[Ilah]

What is even more interesting is this -

Just as no astronomer believes in astrology, no psychometrician believes in MBTI.

One would think that this would cause cognitive dissonance in the members of MBTIc. But it doesn't.

If I hold two (seemingly) contradictory beliefs, that is cognitive dissonance. If you do not agree with my beliefs, that is not congative dissonance.

Let me give an extended example using astrology.

For this example, I assume I believe in astrology. (I don't really.)

If you give me a study with convincing proof that astrology is not true and I immediately stop believing in astrology, there is no cognative dissonance.

If I immediately reject your study, there is no cognative dissonance. I could say you are lying, you are mistaken, the study was flawed, you have an obvoius anti-New Age bias, it was a government conspiracy against psychics. It doesn't matter if my reasoning is sound, if I can completely convince myself to disregard the evidence there is no congnative dissonance. However if you have managed to instill some doubt in me, then there is some level of cognative dissonance.

However, if I believe that the study is sound and true by also still feel that astrology is true, then there is cognative dissonance. I will feel mentally, emotionly, or psychologically uneasy till I have discarded one of the beliefs or modified one of them so they don't contradict each other.

As far as problems with MBTI: I would be willing to discuss with you, but I need to have some more details before I could respond. For example, what aspects of MBTI do you feel are not valid and why? It isn't helpful to say all of it. I am not persuaded by simply hearing that other people don't believe in it - I need to hear for myself the reasoning as to why they don't believe. And no circular logic like "they don't believe it because it isn't valid." Also I am not persuaded by guilt by association, i.e. the Nazi argument.

As for specific examples of MBTI problems, I posted something earlier today about the forced choice we have for our auxilary function. To summarize, based on our dominant function we only have two option we can choose for our auxilary function, but one of the other functions might actually be our second strongest. So far it has 22 views but no responses.

[Anja]

*Drags out her largest edition of OAD and swats Jennifer with it.*

;)

[Jennifer]

*Drags out her largest edition of OAD and swats Jennifer with it.* ;)

Hey! What did I do to get that level of incongruence!?

:(





:smile:

[Anja]

Can you spell "disingenous," Rascally Jennifer?

[lowtech redneck]

"The reduction in cognitive dissonance" sounds like a title for an INTPs memoirs to me...

Agreed, I think this is what ultimately sets INTPs apart from other types; we experience more pain from this phenomenon than other types while at the same type noticing such apparant contradictions more readily than other types. Consequently, we spend a great deal of time reconciling these contradictions in an attempt to reduce the unpleasant sensation of cognitive dissonance

I should mention that this is not necessarily something for us to brag about; our beliefs often conflict because one or the other is simply wrong (possibly because of faulty reasoning), forcing us to constantly acknowledge our moral and intellectual shortcomings. This in turn often leads to chronic self-esteem and motivation issues, which subsequently influences everything about our lives. In short, by trying to avoid being wrong about anything, we often lack the ability to be (mostly) right about anything.

[Victor]

If I hold two (seemingly) contradictory beliefs, that is cognitive dissonance. If you do not agree with my beliefs, that is not congative dissonance.

Let me give an extended example using astrology.

For this example, I assume I believe in astrology. (I don't really.)

If you give me a study with convincing proof that astrology is not true and I immediately stop believing in astrology, there is no cognative dissonance.

If I immediately reject your study, there is no cognative dissonance. I could say you are lying, you are mistaken, the study was flawed, you have an obvoius anti-New Age bias, it was a government conspiracy against psychics. It doesn't matter if my reasoning is sound, if I can completely convince myself to disregard the evidence there is no congnative dissonance. However if you have managed to instill some doubt in me, then there is some level of cognative dissonance.

However, if I believe that the study is sound and true by also still feel that astrology is true, then there is cognative dissonance. I will feel mentally, emotionly, or psychologically uneasy till I have discarded one of the beliefs or modified one of them so they don't contradict each other.

As far as problems with MBTI: I would be willing to discuss with you, but I need to have some more details before I could respond. For example, what aspects of MBTI do you feel are not valid and why? It isn't helpful to say all of it. I am not persuaded by simply hearing that other people don't believe in it - I need to hear for myself the reasoning as to why they don't believe. And no circular logic like "they don't believe it because it isn't valid." Also I am not persuaded by guilt by association, i.e. the Nazi argument.

As for specific examples of MBTI problems, I posted something earlier today about the forced choice we have for our auxilary function. To summarize, based on our dominant function we only have two option we can choose for our auxilary function, but one of the other functions might actually be our second strongest. So far it has 22 views but no responses.

I think you are rationalizing but you do it very well.

But the fact is that those who design personality tests are called psychometricians. They are trained in Universities.

So far all qualified psychometricians say that, as personality test, MBTI is invalid and unreliable.

They go further and say, MBTI has the same truth value as astrology.

You can confirm this yourself by ringing the Psychology Department of your local University.

Oddly enough you believe astronomers when they say that astrology has no truth value, but not qualified psychometricians when they say that MBTI has no truth value.

[Enyo]

Here's one I deal with:

I like to believe that everyone has positive intentions. . .

Heh. Now, see, I believe that *most* people have positive intentions. Some people, though, are just @ssholes.:devil:

[Jennifer]

I should mention that this is not necessarily something for us to brag about; our beliefs often conflict because one or the other is simply wrong (possibly because of faulty reasoning), forcing us to constantly acknowledge our moral and intellectual shortcomings. This in turn often leads to chronic self-esteem and motivation issues, which subsequently influences everything about our lives. In short, by trying to avoid being wrong about anything, we often lack the ability to be (mostly) right about anything.

That sounds about right, and is why people with those personality traits tend not to be as effective in life as they could be until they get past the need to resolve those sorts of dissonances in order to act.

(I do not want to call it the "the hell with it" strategy, but in general at some point, you just learn to make choices rather than waiting too long or shooting yourself in the foot over whether you might potentially make an error.)

I'll respond to other stuff later (including that dear woman who keeps beating me in the head for ignoring her... ;) ), I'm beat tonight.

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I suffer a lot of cognitive dissonance trying to make sense of politics. I go to a conservative website and the consensus is that liberals are ignorant and have all the facts wrong. I go to a liberal leaning website and they say the same thing about conservatives. I have to wonder if these two groups are even on the same planet sometimes.

I think what drives me nuts is that I see very little agreement about facts. I can understand people can form different opinions from the same facts, but these two groups can't even agree on the facts. How can a person expect to make an informed opinion if there is so much doubt about what is the correct information?

[Ilah]

Victor,

I am not disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. All I am saying is that in order to debate something with you I need to have details. If I don't have details I don't have anything to craft an argument aaround.

For example, why is it concidered invalid and unreliable? I don't want any circular logic. By that I mean things like "it is concidered unreliable because it is unreliable." These are statements that don't really explain or add any more information.

I get the impression you hold your beliefs based on what qualified psychometricains believe (or don't believe). What I want to know is why they feel it is unreliable and invalid. Something more that "because it is." Surely the must have good reasons for believing this, but so far you haven't given us any.

What specifically is wrong with it? Is it the idea that everyone fits into one of 16 categories? Is it the idea that personality is constant? The choice of function? The descriptions of the functions? The way the functions alternate between i and e? Is it the test itself (rather than the personality type theory) you find flawed? All of the above? Something else?

And for the parts you object to, I want to see the "why" behind it, was is the reasoning? Is it based on logic, personal experience, ideals, something else?

An aside about astrology: I don't believe in astrology, but that decision was not based on astronomers not believing in it. I am simply agreeing with them, not believing something because they convinced me.

Ilah



I think you are rationalizing but you do it very well.

But the fact is that those who design personality tests are called psychometricians. They are trained in Universities.

So far all qualified psychometricians say that, as personality test, MBTI is invalid and unreliable.

They go further and say, MBTI has the same truth value as astrology.

You can confirm this yourself by ringing the Psychology Department of your local University.

Oddly enough you believe astronomers when they say that astrology has no truth value, but not qualified psychometricians when they say that MBTI has no truth value.

[Victor]

Victor,

I am not disagreeing (or agreeing) with you. All I am saying is that in order to debate something with you I need to have details. If I don't have details I don't have anything to craft an argument aaround.

For example, why is it concidered invalid and unreliable? I don't want any circular logic. By that I mean things like "it is concidered unreliable because it is unreliable." These are statements that don't really explain or add any more information.

I get the impression you hold your beliefs based on what qualified psychometricains believe (or don't believe). What I want to know is why they feel it is unreliable and invalid. Something more that "because it is." Surely the must have good reasons for believing this, but so far you haven't given us any.

What specifically is wrong with it? Is it the idea that everyone fits into one of 16 categories? Is it the idea that personality is constant? The choice of function? The descriptions of the functions? The way the functions alternate between i and e? Is it the test itself (rather than the personality type theory) you find flawed? All of the above? Something else?

And for the parts you object to, I want to see the "why" behind it, was is the reasoning? Is it based on logic, personal experience, ideals, something else?

An aside about astrology: I don't believe in astrology, but that decision was not based on astronomers not believing in it. I am simply agreeing with them, not believing something because they convinced me.

Ilah

I try to base my beliefs on the evidence - what do you do?

For instance, just now, an extensive test of astrology has been published. And found there is no connection between star sign and compatibility.

Psychometricians write personality tests that rigourously follow the principles of validity and reliability. Then they rigourously test them against the evidence.

MBTI was written without any concern for validity and reliability and was not tested against the evidence.

Unfortunately when you or I compare MBTI against our personal experience we get false positives. And we take this as evidence when it is merely anecdotal.

This is exactly what happens with astrology - we compare astrological predictions against our own experience and get false positives - this is very reinforcing so we keep coming back again and again, like millions of others, to astrology. But astrology is simply a confidence trick like MBTI.

When we keep getting false positives, we intuitively feel them to be true just as for 200,000 years we believed the earth was flat because our senses gave us false positives.

But with the Enlightenment we started to ask for evidence for belief. This has been deeply unsettling for intuitive belief. And so a reaction set in called the Romantic Movement and the New Age Movement is part of the Romantic Movement.

And it is nice and comfortable and even exciting to be Romantic but it is not scientific - anymore than MBTI is scientific.

I understand this is unsettling for you, particularly as you have found MBTI to be personally helpful.

I don't like to unsettle you. But Galileo was unsettling by looking through his telescope and concluding the earth went round the sun. Pasteur was unsettling with his discovery of germs. The discovery of the periodic table was unsettling. Darwin's discovery of the origin of species was extremely unsettling. Einstein unsettled our whole view of the universe. And we can be further expected to be unsettled by the evidence as it is discovered.

Adam Smith completely unsettled our view of economics. Politics was completely unsettled by liberal democracy and the limitation of power. Why, our own Germaine Greer unsettled our gender relations. Our relations with children have been unsettled by the discovery of the damage to the sense of self by child sexual abuse. And so it goes on.

We don't like to be unsettled because it brings cognitive dissonance which is painful - and we intuitively avoid pain and seek pleasure and comfort. We are human after all.

But the price we pay for comfort is blindness.

[Ilah]

MBTI was written without any concern for validity and reliability and was not tested against the evidence.



So are you saying it has been tested and found false? And if so I would like to see the test. This is not a matter of not wanting to let go of MBTI specifically. Rather this is just the way my brain works. Anything is concidered possible, till proven otherwise. And I need to see the proof myself, a study or at least an excerpt from it. Saying that you have seen the study is not sufficient for me. This does not mean I believe in everything. Short of proof, I use a combination of logic and intuition to determine whether I believe and/or find the information usable.

And if your complaint is that there was no study, then I have no proof that it is true, but also not proof that it is not true.

You see my mind works in strange ways, I am a bit like the opposite of a skeptic. I need something very firm to make be give up the belief in the possibility of something. Again this is not about MBTI specifically. I would do the same tactic if you were trying to prove that God is dead or that low carb diets are bad.

Now short of hard proof, I am willing to debate the likelihood of something being true on the basis of logic. I am not sure if it possible to debate something based on intuition.

You also speak of being true v. useful for me, i.e. the possibility that something could false, but still be useful for me. How do you define true in that sense. Hypothetically, say the theory only fits half the population but I am one of the half it fits. [Not saying I believe it only applies to half the population, just giving an example to illustrate my reasoning.] Doesn't that mean that the theory is true for me? In this case it would not be right to apply it to other people, but could still be a useful tool for self understanding.

By the way: maybe this skipped your notice the previous times I mentioned it, but I am a New Ager, so talking about Jung being New Age doesn't exactly make me less likely to accept his theories.

Ilah

[Jennifer]

I like to believe, say in the case of child abuse, that parents are trying to do the best they can to raise a well-adjusted child, but they don't have the tools.

This gives me comfort because my homelife was wretched at times and it made it easier for me to heal from some of the things that happened to believe that my parents were doing the best they could.

Then I may read of an incident so diabolically sadistic that it shakes my belief that all are trying to do their best. But I still want to hang on to my generosity of spirit so there I sit wondering what to do with that clash between what I want to believe and what seems obviously opposite.

Yes, the dichotomy is in wanting to believe that people would be kind/giving to others if they only knew how... and yet viewing acts of emotional and physical violence so strong that they cause visceral repulsion inside when we view them.

Can we maintain a positive view of someone who simultaneously sickens us? Some people seem better at that; others seem worse and have to "change the facts" a bit or put up blinders in order to lessen one of the two feelings.

Why is that? Is it merely personality? Choice? Upbringing? What makes it easier for some to hold two seemingly opposing ideas in their heads at once?

Do Eastern cultures have it easier than Western?

It's an existential dilemma. The ancient good/evil dichotomy. I prefer to use the words health and dis-ease.

Does that make it easier for you to accept/mesh together the discordant ideas? :)

(Actually, I really like the health/dis-ease model as well.)

Since I see that cafe reads the Bible, which I also do on occasion, I will borrow from it the best answer to your question I can manage. I often cannot tell what someone's intentions are but "by their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:16

So if there is a disjunct between observable behavior and expectation, then you propose to resolve by laying aside current observation and looking at the end result of the actions in question? (i.e., postponing evaluation of the opposing ideas until perhaps the discord can be justified by a convergence of end result?)

I equate health with growth/internal order and disease with decay/internal and external chaos. So it's often after the fact that I can determine what is positive and what is negative. What consistently follows in the path of a person?

So that seems to be one effective coping strategy for avoiding cognitive dissonance?

Perhaps the word "intention" is the hang-up. Because good intentions don't always produce good results.

Yeah. Another dissonance there. :)

I'm going to have to think further on this before I say more. Because I surely don't believe that mistakes are evil.

Evil to me implies intent. Mistake implies accident.

I do think it is in observation of a personal pattern that I determine what a person's intentions are.

As an aside, I think that's what I do too. I recognize patterns in behavior, having witnessed many of them before, couple them with 'result of choices' and the person's pre-awareness of those outcomes, and use a lot of those factors to triangulate intent.

This discussion isn't just interesting from an abstract POV but a personal one -- I'm getting a better idea of myself and how I think through these things as well. I'm realizing I can pretty easily accept opposing viewpoints without disbelieving either... but only because I've considered them and perceive their internal consistencies and don't give one more credibility than the other if they're equal... regardless of whether or not they conflict. To me, "reality" doesn't exclude dissonance, it embraces it as necessity. Therefore I can accept dissonance when it occurs without fretting much like I did before... and much of the only reason I fretted in the past was because of the religious beliefs I was brought up in that put pressure on me to not accept dissonance.

[Victor]

Anything is considered possible, till proven otherwise.
Ilah

Well then, why not believe in Unicorns?

Why not believe in Zeus?

It is not possible to prove a negative, so you have a free hand.

What we can do, though, is falsify a positive. This is what scientific enquiry does.

Much of the New Age can't be falsified.

And so you think it is true - you might as well believe that God controls the weather or that prayers are answered or that we deserve our own karma.

None of these beliefs can be falsified, but it doesn't make them true.

You can, as you say, believe anything is possible until proven otherwise - but this doesn't make any of your beliefs true.

Look, I love the imagination because you can imagine anything is possible - it is delightful and comforting.

But it is still just imagination - and wishing doesn't make it true.

You have a wonderful imagination - and I think it was Einstein who said imagination is more important than knowledge.

The whole world of poetry and art is based on imagination - and if you believe Einstein, so is science.

You can, of course, imagine anything about me but it is more satisfying to find if it is true.

[Jennifer]

I suffer a lot of cognitive dissonance trying to make sense of politics. I go to a conservative website and the consensus is that liberals are ignorant and have all the facts wrong. I go to a liberal leaning website and they say the same thing about conservatives. I have to wonder if these two groups are even on the same planet sometimes.

That drives me batty too.

I still haven't quite figured out why the disparity exists. Because I'm not knowledgeable enough to know ALL the facts and see where they're each deriving their set of facts from.

Although I suppose we could look at models here online. I don't want to debate the qualitative nature of last weekend event's with Zerg, but we see it even in that thread. People disagree about what the "facts" are, whether it's the contents of the PM, or the true context of the contents of the PM, or the people's personalities who were mentioned in the PM... lots of various collections of "facts" that all put a shading on one's perspective of what happened. We each have a subset of facts, and weigh them accordingly, and then draw conclusions. Even the personalities of the evaluators impact the conclusions that are drawn, although all are drawn from subsets of the full set of "facts."

Then we get a lot of cognitive dissonance. "This <behavior> is evil... but I know <this person> to be good. How could they do this? Did they do what I thought? Did I misinterpret? Did I just not know them before? Where is the flaw in perception that is creating these competing ideas?" And everyone needs to resolve things at some level.

I think what drives me nuts is that I see very little agreement about facts. I can understand people can form different opinions from the same facts, but these two groups can't even agree on the facts. How can a person expect to make an informed opinion if there is so much doubt about what is the correct information?

That's probably why I don't bother much with detailed arguments in politics anymore. I can't speak intelligently, there's too much I don't know and have no way to figure out. :(

[Victor]

To me, "reality" doesn't exclude dissonance, it embraces it as necessity. Therefore I can accept dissonance when it occurs without fretting much like I did before... and much of the only reason I fretted in the past was because of the religious beliefs I was brought up in that put pressure on me to not accept dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is an absolutely essential part of the intellectual life.

Cognitive dissonance is sign that we are learning something new.

And we tolerate the mental pain of cognitive dissonance for the satisfaction of learning something new.

Most rarely, if ever, have the satisfaction of learning something new, and so very naturally they avoid the pain of cognitive dissonance.

So it is very difficult to lead anyone into cognitive dissonance when all they feel is the pain.

I have tried to lead MBTIc into cognitive dissonance and you can see the understandable resistance I receive.

How can I, how can I seduce you into the satisfaction of learning something new?

I use all the rhetoric at my disposal - but it is like trying to get my pony, Trixy, to cross a wooden bridge to the grass on the other side - she can't see the grass, only feel her fear of the bridge.

[Ilah]

Victor,

Most of life cannot be proved true or untrue, so we are free to believe or not believe.

I have no proof of truth; you have no proof of falsehood. So we are both free to make our own choices.

I take the most satisfaction at being open to the infinate possibilities of the universe.

[Victor]

Victor,

Most of life cannot be proved true or untrue, so we are free to believe or not believe.

I have no proof of truth; you have no proof of falsehood. So we are both free to make our own choices.

I take the most satisfaction at being open to the infinate possibilities of the universe.

Perhaps you believe you can fly, so let's go and stand on the top edge of a tall building and see if you jump.

Of course I would grab you at the last moment and save you.

I would not only be saving you from gravity but I would be saving a free spirit.

[Anja]

Jeniffer, you've given my simplification thoughtful and intelligent consideration and, yes, it is plain to me that you've understood my thoughts regarding cognitive disonance.

Your post was carefully and clearly expressed and provides, from my perspective, a healthy way to deal with this discomfort of c.d.

Sometimes a good conk on the head produces miracles! :doh:

[Ilah]

Perhaps you believe you can fly, so let's go and stand on the top edge of a tall building and see if you jump.

Of course I would grab you at the last moment and save you.

I would not only be saving you from gravity but I would be saving a free spirit.

But we can easily have proof that I cannot fly.

And I would not test it from a large building, but rather in a controlled environment.

And I am scared of hights so I wouldn't test it all. I would not even go to the roof of a tall building unless forced to.

And my intuition and logics tells me it is not true. As I said before, I don't automatically believe in everything that cannot be proven false.

[Jennifer]

...Sometimes a good conk on the head produces miracles! :doh:

although i'll just say that if you start conking me on the head alot, I'll have to start suspecting you LIKE conking me and aren't just doing it for my intellectual edification. ;)

[Anja]

Would it be meta-cognitively disonant to say that I merely conk you because I like you?

(My mom told me that when I was in kindergarden and you know what they say about everything you ever needed to know. . .)

[Anja]

If I keep prattling on like this maybe I can reach the finish line soon and dismiss my inferior status as a simple member and become - voila! - a simple Senior member.)

[Jennifer]

Would it be meta-cognitively disonant to say that I merely conk you because I like you?

Just don't mess with the hair, okay? :smile:

If I keep prattling on like this maybe I can reach the finish line soon and dismiss my inferior status as a simple member and become - voila! - a simple Senior member.)

What? you're just using me to up your post count?!

[Victor]

But we can easily have proof that I cannot fly.

And I would not test it from a large building, but rather in a controlled environment.

And I am scared of hights so I wouldn't test it all. I would not even go to the roof of a tall building unless forced to.

And my intuition and logics tells me it is not true. As I said before, I don't automatically believe in everything that cannot be proven false.

Of course you can't fly in the real wold, but perhaps you might like to join me in the imaginary world.

When I go for a walk llke Colmena in the real world, I enter a light trance and sometimes I feel like dancing. So at first I imagined I was dancing as I was walking along the street. I imagined I was dancing on the pavement, in the roadway and around people.

To everybody else I looked as though I was just walking along the street, but I was also dancing in my imagination.

Then I realised I could not only imagine dancing as I walked but I could also imagine dancing and flying as I walked. This is very exciting and satisfying.

So I danced on the tree tops, on the bonnets of moving cars and on the waters of the lake. All the time appearing as a normal walker.

It is the combination of the real world with the imaginary at the same time that is freeing, liberating and satisfying.

Of course remembering that I was in a light trance and some of my cognitve faculties were asleep, I was very careful to keep myself safe - I was particularly careful in crossing the road.

So I discovered a delightful piece of magic that I could perform while out in public - I didn't frighten the horses and had the time of my life.

When I go to the movies, I notice Spiderman swings through the streets of New York. But he is far too serious, and let's face it, he doesn't dance.

So one day I expect he will meet the Joker who will ask, "Why so serious?".

But neither Spiderman nor the Joker dance. So they probably won't come flying and dancing with me through the streets.

And that leaves Ilah, who has trained her imagination in the New Age and is just about ready to dance and fly.

[Anja]

Just don't mess with the hair, okay? :smile:

Hey. As long as it's wantonly blowing in the breeze it's fair game. . .

What? you're just using me to up your post count?!

Yup. :yes:

Actually I'd like to hear you say more about "a coping mechanism for avoiding cognitive disonance."

Do you think it's possible to avoid?
Do you see ways that my method for the good guy/bad guy thing could be applied to other examples?

[Anja]

That's 98.

[Victor]

Yup. :yes:

Actually I'd like to hear you say more about "a coping mechanism for avoiding cognitive disonance."

Do you think it's possible to avoid?
Do you see ways that my method for the good guy/bad guy thing could be applied to other examples?

For heavens sake, don't avoid cognitive dissonance, seek it out.

For instance, you can experience the cognitive dissonance between your imagination and reality.

You could join Ilah and myself as we walk along the street imagining we are dancing and flying.

This will be disconcerting at first. And you may feel some initial fear. And it is important to keep yourself safe, particularly crossing the road.

And once you discover the delights of cognitive dissonance, you can even apply it here, like Jennifer, who can almost hear me padding after her on silent paws.

And then you will be tempted to apply it to the intellectual life. You will pass through a moment of fear into the sunny uplands of cognitive dissonance; and who knows what you may discover.

Captain James Cook took his cognitive dissonance into the unknown and discovered Australia - just as you are doing now.

Join James, Victor, Ilah and Jennifer in the dance of cognitive dissonance. We might even make up a little song about cognitive dissonance.

I can hear it in the distance now.

[Victor]

On one hand we have the most prominent symbol of the Enlightenment called the Statue of Liberty.

On the other hand we have a putative Vice-President who wants to teach Creationism in biology class.

This is an example of cognitive dissonance.

And because cognitive dissonance is mentally painful, we try to remove the contradiction - we try to remove one side or the other of the cognitive dissonance.

This means either removing the Statue of Liberty or the Vice-President. Fortunately neither is possible - so we are stuck with our cognitive dissonance.

And this is a blessing in disguise - for cognitive dissonance means we are learning something new - but what is it?

[LostInNerSpace]

If it was painful, you must have felt like you had good reason to make that modification in order for you to proceed.


It's all really about relative pain. Which is the more painful of the two competing options. When Cognitive Dissonance is a problem the relative pain of the two options is in balance. Resolving Cognitive Dissonance is a powerful way to influence a person. There are many strategies to influence people. A good one that worked on me recently was to show how and why another people resolved their own Cognitive Dissonance when faced with a similar internal conflict to that of my own.

[Victor]

The purpose of cognitive dissonance is to baffle the logical part of the mind. And being baffled, it turns off or crashes, leaving the way open for the creative mind to come out to play.

The logical part can't handle two contradictory statements at the same time so it turns off. This is the opportunity for revelation and discovery to occur.

Your computer will crash when there is a logical contradiction, but your computer has no creative back up.

But like you computer, your logical mind will turn back on by itself - but you have tucked away in your rucksack your latest revelation.

We find of course, revelation in the Bible. But revelation is only as far from us as our next cognitive dissonance.

[Nocapszy]

So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?

What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?

Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?


I'm glad this is come up. If I weren't so intoxicated I'd likely post something a bit more substantial but we'll have to do with the tools currently available.

Laziness is something I've struggled to beat out of people for years.
I lash out against submission. This inevitably results in further attacks, as, they've either done what I tell them, and therefore submitted, or they haven't, in which case they've also submitted.

That's mostly irrelevant. Just a funny thing I noticed.


Anyway, I think it's it's about ease. Laziness. Most logicians are.
Even as complicated as re-designing the walls might be -- digging and pouring a new foundation is infinitely harder.

That requires actual observation. Indiscriminate observation is very difficult. Having a life philosophy helps keep us 'on track' specifically for maintaining the status quo.

Keeping with the establishment is historically easier -- not only psychologically, not only socioeconomically. I suspect stability in these two arenas is from the same psychological mechanism
Fear, and laziness.

Because if the ground we stand on is not firm, how can we move ourselves to live the way we do? How can we justify showing up to that job every day?
If survival isn't important, then the job isn't.

It's hard to assume you're fundamentally wrong. People prefer their perception, to actual reality.

It's probably got something to do with what I call the "Turtle factor."

Turtles are slow because they're saving energy (of course...). People are slow witted and lazy with their thinking because they're saving energy, just in case a bear comes along and we need to run up a tree, or maybe someone starts a fire and we have to run out of the abode in a frenzy.

I'm unsure as to specifically whether you were searching for a biological reason for why psychologic is nested this way or... what?

[Nocapszy]

Hey how about Cognitive Harmony?

I usually think that I probably have the wrong idea about everything, but it just still always works out.

Without getting into waves and acoustics, by analogy I suppose my perception is perhaps a fifth above tonic, and someone with cognitive dissonance tried to play a second when they meant to hit the third?
Or maybe they did one of those dreadful tri-tones and now they're playing it off as deliberate. My ideas would just always make a power chord.

I don't...
I think I probably lost any potential audience...

[ptgatsby]

(I like this thread topic. And having recently thought about it... an adapted diary post!)


So what is it in people (what psychological constructs exist) that drives these resolutions of cognitive dissonace?


(Rephrased questions: What psychological constructs cause cognitive dissonance? What is it in people that moves cognitive dissonance to resolution?)


The constructs are best expressed as the interlinking "filters" that make up the structures used to process and bring meaning to our present. Filters, meaning the heuristics that we use to organize the data we gather... but in this case, heuristics includes thought/mind as a whole. Cognitive dissonance suddenly changes and destabilizes our filtering processes (ie: groupings, conceptual underpinnings, etc), which results in confusion, stress and anxiety. The mind attempts to return to equilibrium (ie: a functional state). We rebuild our structure (reframe), remove the influence (denial), or fragment our constructs (double standards).

I say this in extremely general terms. Forms of dissonance come from this interplay, and range from childhood training, self-justification for actions and group identification. And an infinite more, probably.

The resolution is simply the rewiring of our mind to accept (avoid) disharmony. To ask what is done is to ask how the mind wires itself. The best analogy is to use 'burn back' from negative feedback. When you get a "1+1=3" answer, it triggers negative feedback. This burns back to the origin - the groupings and the data not fitting properly in sets. The result is a rewiring of the group, or the rejection of the data (in reality, a new filter to *omit* that data from consideration).

It isn't a unique thing - we experience it constantly. It's an important part of the mind... but we aren't often aware of it. Constructs can be extremely subtle. If you can afford something but chose not to get it, you soon find yourself believing that you never really wanted it (otherwise you would of gotten it!) If you could of hooked up with someone, but didn't, you didn't really want to. Coherency here is important, and it becomes more important the more you need to justify your actions. That is, the more you wanted something and the less you acted (without anything else to blame), the more you will rewire yourself. Using the same analogy, when you don't buy something, you get negative feedback along the "desire", rewiring it until you don't.

The subtle effect also happens when we start dealing with self identity. From this board, there is huge dissonance between identifying self-worth (deep down!) with intelligence, and the universal approach of intelligence as a metric for a peron's value. The first step in burning back is the moral stance - rejecting IQ tests, or the ability to measure intelligence in any meaningful way. It would be much harder to burn all the way back to self-identity (ie: it remains safe so long as we can reject quantifying it).

And I probably don't need to say anything about group identity. The kind of dissonance brought on that way, and the methods use to overcome it, is amazing. True for religion, social groups, companies, clubs... Same for Mensa as it is for Nation states.


What is feared here? What is trying to be avoided by the convolutions of thought?


The mind does not like losing coherency. The most common form of dissonance comes from groupings, such as "this religion is good, but my good friend quit", "my kid is good, but misbehaved", "nerds are like 'this' and this cool guy is into the same things".

The mind does not want to lose coherency, but when the logical structures break down, it ceases to be able to process until new paths are carved in.

It's like having a calculator put out the wrong answer, and so you take a hammer to it. The calculator would rather like you to stop doing that, and so it starts putting out the right answer.


Why is it hard to allow one's worldview to shift... or to embrace ambiguity?


Ambiguity isn't a problem. Ambiguity is a weak logical statement that is easily adaptable - if a concept is not solid, then it offers very little resistance to change. Worldview is just a phrase used to express coherency. To lose coherency is difficult and makes us non-functional and so we have resistance against losing coherency.

It is rather like saying "I don't know" as compared to "I was wrong".

It is also more/less difficult depending on the strength of existing structures, and the need to rationalize behaviour.


Who pays the expense of the unwillingness to change?


Different expenses for different people in different situation. Humans respect the unwillingness to change a lot, so there are many benefits to be non-adaptive. However, adaptability can also help you adjust to new situations - but not many of us are faced with consistently new situations in which benefits could emerge.

For example, in a tribe, everyone is good. Outsiders are bad. If you are placed in another tribe, you suddenly realize they are just like you. However, very few people will ever be in that situation. And it scales up too - nation states have the same effect.

A good example is also in religion. There is no particular loss by rejecting a friend because they changed groups. If anything, solidifying your belief in the group has more benefits than rejecting the strength of the group and keeping the friend.

On the other hand, harmful behavior can be protected by the unwillingness to change, but normally harmful behavior is not kept in check by dissonance.

Using MBTI stereotypes, the dissonance causing change doesn't have to be intuitive. NTs, for example, may be willing to reject an idea they have formed if challenged/perceived as not being 'rational' (assuming they have identified it). One example being the rejection of faith items (acceptance would cause dissonance, and it would be burned and blocked).


Do Eastern cultures have it easier than Western?


Dissonance, and its brothers denial and rationalization, are omni-present in Eastern cultures. Social conformity and all that lead to a shocking amount of beliefs and actions that are maintained through identification with them. I figure it comes from a more institutionalized hierarchy, but I have no idea.

[Xander]

Dissonance, and its brothers denial and rationalization, are omni-present in Eastern cultures. Social conformity and all that lead to a shocking amount of beliefs and actions that are maintained through identification with them. I figure it comes from a more institutionalized hierarchy, but I have no idea.
The proscribed solution often comes with that nice shrink wrap packaging which looks so alluring on the shelf ;)

Nice to see you back pt

[ptgatsby]

This was indirectly related to dissonance, so I thought I'd throw it in here. Probably could be its own thread, but...

The Power of Political Misinformation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html)

[Xander]

This was indirectly related to dissonance, so I thought I'd throw it in here. Probably could be its own thread, but...

The Power of Political Misinformation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html)
I'm a little perturbed by that article. Sure I intuitively think it's got a point but the proofs they use just don't follow. The whole Koran flushing part, just because the percentage remains 10% elevated does not mean it's due to the misinformation, that's just not logical.

[Victor]

Cognitive dissonance is the dissonance between ideas.

While positive disintegration is the disintegration of emotion.

An example of cognitive dissonance is between a belief in MBTI and knowing that MBTI is Invalid and Unreliable.

And an example of positive disintegration is between delight and fear. As it is not usually possible or desirable to feel delight and fear at the same time, it then becomes impossible to feel and we start to disintegrate.

And in the same way, as it is not usually possible or even desirable to entertain two contradictory ideas at the same time, we lose our ability to think.

So cognitive dissonance leads us to lose our ability to think; and positive disintegration leads us to lose our ability to feel.

Fortunately when we lose our ability to think and feel, we are cast back onto our deeper selves - and if we are prepared to work with our dissonance and disintegration, we will often discover a new thought or a new feeling.

Unfortunately dissonance and disintegration are painful and disorientating, so we are inclined to avoid them.

Pity.

For dissonance and disintegration are the University of Life. And when you experience them, you are experiencing the University Orientation Week - a hiatus to prepare you for the changes ahead.

So to experience dissonance or disintegration fully and fruitfully, you really need to take a week off - you are like a pupa in a chrysalis - and you will emerge as a butterfly.

[evan]

Can you define MBTI please?

[Xander]

And in the same way, as it is not usually possible or even desirable to entertain two contradictory ideas at the same time, we lose our ability to think.
< Doing the impossible since 1977.

;)

Impossible is nothing.


:D

[Victor]

Can you define MBTI please?

Well, it's the well known Myers Briggs Type Indicator, copied from the book, "Personality Types", written by the NAZI collaborator, Carl Jung, who failed his analysis with Freud and became a New Age Guru.

Imagine if the NAZIS had won the war. Jung would have been their prize Aryan.

Jung would have finally achieved the power that he felt had been stolen from him by his father, and then stolen by Freud, his analyst, and then finally stolen by his suicidal Fuehrer.

Jung saw himself, and he was betrayed, by his father, Freud and finally and unforgivably by his Fuehrer. And so quite naturally Jung betrayed all his followers.

Jung was betrayed and was a betrayer. And he was unable to understand this in therapy.

And never being able to individuate from his father and feel his own power, he set himself up with the bogus power of a Guru.

And surely we all know now that Gurus are the problem, not the solution.

And now MBTI is a world wide problem.

[Victor]

< Doing the impossible since 1977.

;)

Impossible is nothing.


:D

Believe five impossible things before breakfast and have MBTI for lunch.

[Xander]

...Carl Jung, who failed his analysis with Freud...
I'd call that a qualification.

[LostInNerSpace]

This was indirectly related to dissonance, so I thought I'd throw it in here. Probably could be its own thread, but...

The Power of Political Misinformation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html)

Interesting. Peoples likes and dislikes are emotional. The disinformation is just a convenient rationalization that lends weight and strengthens the negative emotion. This seems to show that the emotion is not dependent on the rationalization. The emotion remains when the rationalization is taken away.

[Victor]

I'd call that a qualification.

Because you are a humourous Romantic for whom analysis is anathema.

[Xander]

Because you are a humourous Romantic for whom analysis is anathema.
:rofl1: Me thinks you'd have one of those impossible circumstances in your head were you to look beyond the surface.

[Victor]

And never being able to individuate from his father and feel his own power, he set himself up with the bogus power of a Guru.


And this is exactly what attracts so many followers to Jung and MBTI.

Many have had their potency stolen by their own parents, so they seek the bogus power of a Guru - they become little gurus - they even use exactly the same words as their Guru - so after a while they all speak the same jargon.

And having their power, or sense of self, stolen by their own parents, they seek to steal the potency of others using the magic incantation of four magic letters.

And the way out is to feel the pain and suffering caused by your own parents, and then you will be less likely to foist the same pain and suffering on others, particularly your own children.

The alternative is to remain part of the cycle of abuse - all under the Fuehrer, Jung.

[ptgatsby]

I'm a little perturbed by that article. Sure I intuitively think it's got a point but the proofs they use just don't follow. The whole Koran flushing part, just because the percentage remains 10% elevated does not mean it's due to the misinformation, that's just not logical.

How do you interpret the gap, then?

Interesting. Peoples likes and dislikes are emotional. The disinformation is just a convenient rationalization that lends weight and strengthens the negative emotion. This seems to show that the emotion is not dependent on the rationalization. The emotion remains when the rationalization is taken away.

Indeed. I think the point I took away is that the evaluation of information is not rational. To actually seperate yourself, your feelings and evaluate with only the tangible information... We just don't do that. Even when we try, we don't.

I think of it as the conclusion being 'sticky' - very much like cognitive dissonance. Even if we remove the evidence, the conclusion wants to stick with us. Likewise, when opposing information is introduced, our defense mechanism strengthens the conclusion rather than re-evaluate.

[Xander]

How do you interpret the gap, then?
Well for starters how do you define the difference between those who are moved by the words fasly, as in they are still affected by it, and those who were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion and in that process changed their opinion and kept to the new decision? They are assuming that any change in opinion is due to the propoganda where as it's never that simple.

If I were advising someone on their public image and those circumstances arose then my advice would be to look for other factors which may be still pressing upon people. You can't remove the past, which is the point the article makes, but similarly you can't predict what influences people. A million and one things could occur to someone in the time between the first issue of the initial propoganda to the retraction and those factors just aren't accounted for.

As always there's lies, damn lies and statistics.

[ptgatsby]

Well for starters how do you define the difference between those who are moved by the words fasly, as in they are still affected by it, and those who were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion and in that process changed their opinion and kept to the new decision? They are assuming that any change in opinion is due to the propoganda where as it's never that simple.



I'm not sure I understand.

People reach a particular conclusion based on what they know. They are introduced new information, and are asked what they think. Some people become swayed by the new information. Then they are told that the information was actually false.

What is being shown is that the removal of evidence does not cause a shift back to the previous state - that disinformation causes a permanent shift in beliefs.

I don't see the difference between "moved by false information" and "prompted to re-evaluate their opinion". It comes down to the same thing - the 2nd being the rationalisation for the change. You could rewrite it to say "they were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion by introducing false information, but upon finding out the information was false, fewer people chose to re-evaluate down to their original conclusion."

[Xander]

I'm not sure I understand.

People reach a particular conclusion based on what they know. They are introduced new information, and are asked what they think. Some people become swayed by the new information. Then they are told that the information was actually false.

What is being shown is that the removal of evidence does not cause a shift back to the previous state - that disinformation causes a permanent shift in beliefs.

I don't see the difference between "moved by false information" and "prompted to re-evaluate their opinion". It comes down to the same thing - the 2nd being the rationalisation for the change. You could rewrite it to say "they were prompted to re-evaluate their opinion by introducing false information, but upon finding out the information was false, fewer people chose to re-evaluate down to their original conclusion."
Okay I obviously missed that the test was one where people were seperated off from all other stimulae. Still the factor remains that if someone thinks you are 51% a nice guy and 49% a complete arse then it ain't going to take much for them to believe that you are an arse and (in this cynical world we live in) it'll take more than you rescinding what was said or done to actually remove the shift.

Why not check the same idea but with positive propoganda and make sure to pick a good variety of people (also something not mentioned but presumed).

The tests are non scientific, the results sketchy at best. The conclusion? Declared a certainty through the medium of statistics. I'm afraid it'd take more than someone reading through a bunch of stats to convince me.

"88.2% of Statistics are made up on the spot" Vic Reeves.

[ptgatsby]

The tests are non scientific, the results sketchy at best. The conclusion? Declared a certainty through the medium of statistics. I'm afraid it'd take more than someone reading through a bunch of stats to convince me.


Just to be clear, this isn't from one study. Multiple studies were mentioned in the article - I haven't read them yet (some are not yet published), so I agree that some caution is required.

However, I wouldn't agree that they can be rejected yet - multiple studies have shown the same behaviour, tested in more than one way. It is highly suggestive, and unless each of them is fundamentally flawed, it likely indicates something of note.

[Xander]

Just to be clear, this isn't from one study. Multiple studies were mentioned in the article - I haven't read them yet (some are not yet published), so I agree that some caution is required.

However, I wouldn't agree that they can be rejected yet - multiple studies have shown the same behaviour, tested in more than one way. It is highly suggestive, and unless each of them is fundamentally flawed, it likely indicates something of note.
I already said that my intuitive understanding of the concept was that it does work that way but I was merely disagreeing with the whole 10% and the certainty put forward.

What you were reading was propoganda about propoganda.

[ptgatsby]

What you were reading was propoganda about propoganda.

I'm pretty sure that I was reading a newspaper article highlighting conclusions from a couple of papers. But, if you prefer the dry part of it more, you can conclude the validity from these two papers mentioned in the article, if you wish.

Bullock, J. G. , 2006-03-17 "The Enduring Importance of False Political Beliefs" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2008-09-13 from The Enduring Importance of False Political Beliefs (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p97459_index.html)

http://www.duke.edu/~bjn3/nyhan-reifler.pdf (PDF Warning)

[evan]

Well, it's the well known Myers Briggs Type Indicator, copied from the book, "Personality Types", written by the NAZI collaborator, Carl Jung, who failed his analysis with Freud and became a New Age Guru.

blah blah blah...

You haven't defined anything, you just said who created it. Then you added some irrelevant information about the creators.

You are resolving your own cognitive dissonance, Victor. You detest Jung, so you don't want to believe that his theory has any merit, because if it did, you'd have to change your opinion of him. It's easier to just throw out every single thing he's ever done, and that's exactly what you're doing.

There are a few people on this forum that have actually thought out these theories for themselves and picked parts out that made sense to them. Using MBTI does not mean blindly following Jung (although, in the case of many people on this forum, it means blindly following Myers and Briggs).

I guess I could call my understanding of MBTI 'ETI', or Evan's Type Indicator.

[Victor]

You haven't defined anything, you just said who created it. Then you added some irrelevant information about the creators.


I think you would like me to justify MBTI a priori.

My father liked to argue like that and had a very old book called, "First Principles".

And for him empirical evidence fell outside his argument.

You couldn't quote history at him because he would always argue a priori from first principles.

A priori gives a certain seductive certainty.

And it was this certainty that fed his vanity.

And whatever you feed, grows.

[Jennifer]

An example of cognitive dissonance is between a belief in MBTI and knowing that MBTI is Invalid and Unreliable.

You could also hold a qualified belief, I'm not sure why you are polarizing the extremes as if one cannot see general merit in the ideas.

(This is one horn you've leaned on ever since you've gotten here... rather amusing, considering you're posting on an MBTI site.)

In any case, the best example of living with cognitive dissonance in my own life that I can come up with is the fact that I believe in [a permutation of the Christian] God and yet I truly doubt God's existence. For years, I kept trying to reduce it to one or the other... but that just hamstrung me, and realized that I no longer can. So I actually hold both beliefs at once -- which results in basically my living the way I believe God would have me live without apology, without needing to know whether God is factually real.

(Reference Donaldson's "Thomas Covenant Chronicles" for a good example of living within the embrace of belief and doubt simultaneously.)

And an example of positive disintegration is between delight and fear. As it is not usually possible or desirable to feel delight and fear at the same time, it then becomes impossible to feel and we start to disintegrate.

Are you defining this as per the theory of Dabrowski, or have you formulated your own definition here?



and positive disintegration leads us to lose our ability to feel.

I usually just refer to this state as one of "bittersweetness" -- because I feel both at once, and since I define it as "one emotion," I have no need to toss either or both out. It hurts good and pleasures bad.

Are you saying most people can't/don't do this? :huh:

For dissonance and disintegration are the University of Life. And when you experience them, you are experiencing the University Orientation Week - a hiatus to prepare you for the changes ahead.

I think they're both essential as well, but not everyone has the same capacity for either or both as some others do. I'm not sure how to judge that without inflicting my own subjective standard of good upon it.

[evan]

I think you would like me to justify MBTI a priori.

My father liked to argue like that and had a very old book called, "First Principles".

And for him empirical evidence fell outside his argument.

You couldn't quote history at him because he would always argue a priori from first principles.

A priori gives a certain seductive certainty.

And it was this certainty that fed his vanity.

And whatever you feed, grows.

Dude what are you talking about? You're doing exactly what your father was doing. You're so vain that you aren't questioning your own beliefs -- "And it was this certainty that fed his vanity. And whatever you feed, grows."

A priori or a posteriori, who cares? I'd just like to hear you justify your dismissal of MBTI in any sense at all.

You keep dodging the question.

[Victor]

I'd just like to hear you justify your dismissal of MBTI in any sense at all.

You keep dodging the question.

I reject MBTI on two grounds.

1. Any qualified psychometrician will tell you that MBTI is invalid and unreliable.

2. The person responsible for MBTI freely chose those who came very close to absolute evil.

[ptgatsby]

I reject MBTI on two grounds.

1. Any qualified psychometrician will tell you that MBTI is invalid and unreliable.

2. The person responsible for MBTI freely chose those who came very close to absolute evil.

As much as I'm enjoying this, really, I have to point out that

#1 - Appeal to Authority
#2 - I have no idea what you are talking about, but know that it has nothing to do with the theory (neither Jung, or MB, nor CAPT)

First up, MBTI has been validated, within itself, as a testing instrument. It had loads of research behind it. You need tangible reasons on why it isn't valid.

[Victor]

As much as I'm enjoying this, really, I have to point out that

#1 - Appeal to Authority
#2 - I have no idea what you are talking about, but know that it has nothing to do with the theory (neither Jung, or MB, nor CAPT)

First up, MBTI has been validated, within itself, as a testing instrument. It had loads of research behind it. You need tangible reasons on why it isn't valid.

How extraordinary!

All you have to do it pick up your telephone and ring the Psychology Department of your local University and ask to speak to a qualified psychometrician and simply ask them.

But you won't do this - you prefer the policy of don't ask, don't know.

And it is a matter of public record that Jung freely chose to be a NAZI collaborator.

It is plain MBTI is wrong and immoral. So the only interesting question is why is there a global cult of MBTI?

And the answer partly lies in history. As MBTI is part of the very wide spread and profitable New Age cult.

And an even more interesting question is, why are there so many lost people, so many spiritually homeless people, so attracted to a narcissistic cult?

[Anja]

I usually just refer to this state as one of "bittersweetness" -- because I feel both at once, and since I define it as "one emotion," I have no need to toss either or both out. It hurts good and pleasures bad.

This statement could be considered irrational but it is very close to the essence of acceptance that sometimes things appear contradictory while still appearing to be true! A sort of fourth dimension of feeling.

"Bittersweet" is a perfect word for some feeling states I experience. Neither poles but a blend of apparent opposites - sweet and sour.

[ptgatsby]

All you have to do it pick up your telephone and ring the Psychology Department of your local University and ask to speak to a qualified psychometrician and simply ask them.

MBTI is covered in many university courses now, FYI. They also administer the test in many cases.


But you won't do this - you prefer the policy of don't ask, don't know.


I suspect that I know... uhhh... policies? a bit better than you think.


And it is a matter of public record that Jung freely chose to be a NAZI collaborator.


Not relevant to the point at hand.


It is plain MBTI is wrong and immoral. So the only interesting question is why is there a global cult of MBTI?


By association, or is there a reason?


And the answer partly lies in history. As MBTI is part of the very wide spread and profitable New Age cult.


Unsubstantiated inference.


And an even more interesting question is, why are there so many lost people, so many spiritually homeless people, so attracted to a narcissistic cult?

Begging the question.

[Victor]

MBTI is covered in many university courses now, FYI. They also administer the test in many cases.


You don't seem to be taking this matter seriously.

I know of no Psychology Department in any accredited University that says that MBTI is Valid and Reliable.

If you know of any such University, please give me their name and address, email and phone number, and I will personally contact them and report back to MBTI Central.

It does seem to me that the narcissistic expression of opinion is seen as equivalent to the ascertainable facts.

And narcissism seems inseparable from shallowness and boredom.

[evan]

So instead of thinking for yourself, you blindly trust "psychmetricians", whoever they are? That doesn't seem contrary to your entire philosophy to you?

You advocate blindly following some, and you tell us that our thinking for ourselves is invalid?

Huh?

This is the extreme case of cognitive dissonance. You would rather believe these people because it's easier than thinking for yourself. You've backed this view so much, and each time you do, it makes you less likely to see what you're actually doing.

[Victor]

This statement could be considered irrational but it is very close to the essence of acceptance that sometimes things appear contradictory while still appearing to be true! A sort of fourth dimension of feeling.

"Bittersweet" is a perfect word for some feeling states I experience. Neither poles but a blend of apparent opposites - sweet and sour.

Unfortunately this is the easy way out.

In a contradiction, both statements can be false, or one or the other true and the other false, but both statements cannot be true at the same time.

So you are taking a metaphor which implies or says that both parts of a contradiction can be true at the same time.

This is the kind of pseudo thinking that makes Romanticism, the New Age and MBTI possible.

Of course the advantage of pseudo thinking is that it makes you feel good and it facilitates the conning of others - while it manages to avoid the empirical facts.

And what is amazing is that pseudo thinking is presented with a straight face.

But I guess when you can fake sincerity, you've got is made.

[Victor]

So instead of thinking for yourself, you blindly trust "psychmetricians", whoever they are? That doesn't seem contrary to your entire philosophy to you?

You advocate blindly following some, and you tell us that our thinking for ourselves is invalid?

Huh?

This is the extreme case of cognitive dissonance. You would rather believe these people because it's easier than thinking for yourself. You've backed this view so much, and each time you do, it makes you less likely to see what you're actually doing.

My dear Dissonance,

This is silly.

I trust qualified Psychometricians in the same way I trust qualified Astronomers.

I am not a qualifed Psychometrician nor a qualified Astronomer, but when every Astronomer tells me that astrology has no truth value, I read their article to see if I am persuaded by their empirical evidence and logic.

And when every qualified Psychometrican tells me that MBTI is neither Valid nor Reliable, I read their articles to see if I am persuaded by their empirical evidence and logic.

I certainly do not rely on the cult of astrology to tell me whether it is true, any more than I rely on the cult of MBTI to tell me it is true.

I seek corroborative evidence - and there is none.

[Victor]

But look, the title of this thread is Cognitive Dissonance.

So we can reasonably do two things - we can talk about cognitive dissonance or we can demonstrate cognitive dissonance.

I am demonstrating cognitive dissonance.

And naturally this causes actual cognitive dissonance in your mind - and cognitive dissonance is mentally painful - so the temptation is to blame me.

This is quite natural but of course cheap.

It is the cognitive dissonance, not I, that is causing your mental pain.

And your pain is trying to tell you something.

It is telling you not to do something.

Pain, even mental pain, is a warning that something is wrong.

[Anja]

Unfortunately this is the easy way out.

In a contradiction, both statements can be false, or one or the other true and the other false, but both statements cannot be true at the same time.

So you are taking a metaphor which implies or says that both parts of a contradiction can be true at the same time.

This is the kind of pseudo thinking that makes Romanticism, the New Age and MBTI possible.

Of course the advantage of pseudo thinking is that it makes you feel good and it facilitates the conning of others - while it manages to avoid the empirical facts.

And what is amazing is that pseudo thinking is presented with a straight face.

But I guess when you can fake sincerity, you've got is made.


Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's odd to me that someone with well-developed thinking skills can't comprehend it. So there we have it, and "ne'er the twain shall meet."

You don't really think faking sincerity is possible do you?

[Victor]

You don't really think faking sincerity is possible do you?

This is a saying within the United States of America.

And it is a pregnant saying for the US makes the distinction between fakery and sincerity.

In the US it is compliment to be called sincere and an insult to be called a fake.

And the US is a constant struggle beween fakery and the sincere - and fakery often wins - and phoniness has been raised to a high art.

So everyone tries to appear sincere in the eyes of others but there is the constant, ever present, temptation to fake it for personal advantage.

And this temptation is so common that it has given rise to the truism or saying, "In America when you can fake sincerity, you've got it made".

[Xander]

Victor, would it surprise you to learn that I do know of someone who uses the MBTI and is qualified as a psychologist. This person is self employed and has a good reputation. I have met some of the people he has "handled" in his time and all of them, without exception, support his use of the MBTI.

Now either he's great at persuading people or there's something to this MBTI thing. So it can't be validated by current thinking in psychometry... so what? After you move from observation all patterns become prescriptive instead of descriptive anyway.. why is the MBTI any different?

[Victor]

Victor, would it surprise you to learn that I do know of someone who uses the MBTI and is qualified as a psychologist. This person is self employed and has a good reputation. I have met some of the people he has "handled" in his time and all of them, without exception, support his use of the MBTI.

Now either he's great at persuading people or there's something to this MBTI thing. So it can't be validated by current thinking in psychometry... so what? After you move from observation all patterns become prescriptive instead of descriptive anyway.. why is the MBTI any different?

Because MBTI is global. It is used by many, many people in many different circumstances.

It is not as big as astrology but it is moving in that direction.

And just as we ask Astronomers whether there is any truth value in astrology, we ask is there any truth value in MBTI.

But MBTI looks just like a cult. It has its own jargon. It has its own Guru. It is impervious to evidence.

And cults are in a cleft stick. As the evidence piles up against them, they answer it with nastiness. And sometimes it can get very nasty.

But the worst of it is that MBTI meets an underlying need. It meets the needs of those who are lost and are trying to find themselves and each other.

And it is this need that makes us gullible.

But the really awful thing about MBTI is that once we have been taken in, once our intellectual integrity has been corrupted, we seek to corrupt others.

[Jack Flak]

It's valid because with it, some of us are better at:

Understanding people,

and as a result of this understanding, better at accepting intrinsic personality differences,

and as a result of recognizing and accepting differences, better at communicating with people than if we used the same method with every person.

[Jack Flak]

Because MBTI is global....

It is not as big as astrology but it is moving in that direction...

But the really awful thing about MBTI is that once we have been taken in, once our intellectual integrity has been corrupted, we seek to corrupt others.
Victor, I'm about the last person on Earth who's going to believe some hokum crap because it makes me feel good to do so. Astrology is exactly that, and I physically laugh at people when they tell me it has merit in person.

MBTI is not equitable, because if done the way I think is proper, it's based on observable behavior.

I do agree with you that it is used as a crutch by the emotionally needy, but so are thousands of other things in life.

[Victor]

It's valid because with it, some of us are better at:

Understanding people,

and as a result of this understanding, better at accepting intrinsic personality differences,

and as a result of recognizing and accepting differences, better at communicating with people than if we used the same method with every person.

Sure, and all these are worthwhile things to do.

And you could say the same thing for astrology.

But I know and probably you know that no Astronomer believes in astrology. But this doesn't stop astrology for being useful in understanding oneself and others.

But when you look into it, astrology only looks as though it is useful in understanding.

Here is a simple demonstration of astrology -

YouTube - James Randi on Astrology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp2Zqk8vHw)

and it demonstrates astrology is a confidence trick. The same test with the same results could be applied to MBTI.

And a very long term and comprehensive study has been recently published on astrology and showed it had no truth value at all. But every women's magazine has between one and five pages of astrology and many newspapers have an astrology section.

MBTI, like astrology, gives the appearance of being helpful because it produces false positives.

But what is important to keep in mind as you read this thread called Cognitive Dissonance, is that not only is it about cognitive dissonance, it demonstrates cognitive dissonance in regard to, what else, MBTI.

[Xander]

Victor,

Cognative dissonance in reference to the MBTI as you're quoting it doesn't really work. Only when people decide to use the MBTI system as a system of rules and boxes does it then not compare to what we know is true. Used as suggestions and as a framework to compare experiences to it does work quite well and observably so.

Do you hold the colour wheel in equal contempt as the MBTI? Do you really think that what you see as yellow is yellow or is that merely an agreed standard? Should we now persue all those who claim to see yellow and re-educate them to prevent the spreading of this mental decay?

[Jack Flak]

...and it demonstrates astrology is a confidence trick. The same test with the same results could be applied to MBTI.

And a very long term and comprehensive study has been recently published on astrology and showed it had no truth value at all. But every women's magazine has between one and five pages of astrology and many newspapers have an astrology section.

MBTI, like astrology, gives the appearance of being helpful because it produces false positives.
I think we agree on the fundamentals more than is obvious. Perhaps you fail to notice or admit that there are different ways of handling the 16-type systems.

If you've read many of my posts here, for example, you would be aware that I do not approve of the way...probably most people use 16-type and especially MBTI itself.

When people who fail to perceive what I see as the true nature of a system nevertheless adopt it, spread it, and preach their understanding of it, it irritates me to no end.

[Jennifer]

This statement could be considered irrational but it is very close to the essence of acceptance that sometimes things appear contradictory while still appearing to be true! A sort of fourth dimension of feeling.

Yes. My rationality moved from the binary either/or sort into a sense that in an ambiguous world some things SEEM to overlap. Whether they truly do, or whether the overlap itself is fabricated because it's all truly one individual entity, or whether it's merely the inadequacies of the human perception system (or even the human cognitive process) at work here is still debatable.

"Bittersweet" is a perfect word for some feeling states I experience. Neither poles but a blend of apparent opposites - sweet and sour.

Sweet and sour (asian food), sweet and salty (chocolate covered pretzels), etc... big yums. :) But I know some people don't like the combination of seemingly opposing tastes.