Jump to content

"Cognitive Dissonance"


Beast
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd share this with everyone. Shows that there's a science behind why people will stick to their views in the face of all contradictory evidence. :)

"Biased Views Could All Be A Bad Case Of Cognitive Dissonance" by Robert Matthews, a Visiting Reader in Science at Aston University, Birmingham, UK.

Have you ever suffered from an attack of cognitive dissonance? Don't worry, lots of people have - me included. It's perfectly okay to talk about it; indeed, its something everyone should look out for.

An attack can strike at any moment. One distinguished profeesor came down with it recently just as I was talking with him on the phone. The symptoms were all there: copious use of bad language and an inability to hear what the other person is saying.

First identified almost 50 years ago by the Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance strikes when people are told something that really challenges their view of reality. And the key words here are 'their view', for people are quite capable of suffering an attack of CD when faced with evidence that most other people would cheerfully accept.

For example, even back in Festinger's day, it became clear that smoking was linked to lung cancer....while 29 per cent of non-smokers were convinced by the medical evidence of the cancer link, only 7 per cent of heavy smokers were....this showed that the heavy smokers were in the grip of cognitive dissonance. They loved smoking, and so really didn't want to hear evidence that it was potentially lethal.

...

This, of course, is how scientists should deal with an attack of CD. They should demand hard scientific evidence, rather than just counterintuitive ideas out of hand.

...

[sometimes] visceral responses have sometimes held back scientific progress for decades. Continental drift, cancer viruses, antisepsis, comet impacts, even the existence of atoms - all were derided in tha past, but are now accepted wisdom.

...

Max Planck said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventualy die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it"

Source: Focus #135 Feb 2004

I think its clearfor everyone to see how this can be related to Sikhi.

We all seem to fiercily argue our corner over certain issues; be they meat, cannabis, eggs, raag, khalistan, keski , etc., etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good information.

We all seem to fiercily argue our corner over certain issues; be they meat, cannabis, eggs, raag, khalistan, keski , etc., etc.

As far as we argue with objective knowledge and go against subjective propaganda we are not doing anything wrong. This is our duty to bring awareness about what Gurus have preached to us.

Internet has become ocean of knowledge now in that ocean there is a part where Sikhism is being preached and we need to become coast guards and make sure those people are not misleading because at the end we are defending our religion and practices started by our Gurus so in that case its not our corner but Gurus court and fort which we defend.

It's same as we fight Dharam Yudh in physical world but here sword is our knowledge, which we use to defend our Gurus words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...