Why are we always right...

[Asta Kask]

...and everyone else always wrong?

And why do they think the same?

Carol Tavris knows. (http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs23-carol-tavris-on-everybody-making-mistakes-except-us.html)

[TSGames]

Carol Tavris knows. (http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/show/rs23-carol-tavris-on-everybody-making-mistakes-except-us.html)
Holy cow. I'm going to buy that book.

After reading almost everything the APA has ever put out on cognitive dissonance, I've found myself rather underwhelmed. The theory's been around since the late fifties, there should have been more ground breaking, or at least creative, research by now. While I hardly expect the book to go into the level of detail that I would like, there are very few dissonance experiments which are not inherently interesting and I would very much like to see how they have gathered their data. From the description, it sounds like they adhere to the self-image theory of cognitive dissonance, which is also the theory that I, personally, support. I have no expectation of learning anything new from it, but I would like to see the research that they used; if nothing else, it could possibly be a good book to recommend to people who are unfamiliar with dissonance theory. I'll check it out when I have some time in a couple of weeks.

[EDIT]
SQUEEEE!!!!

It's coauthored by Elliot Aronson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Aronson)! I know that means nothing to most of you, but he was one of Leon Festinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger)'s students, and tested a version of the induced-compliance paradigm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#The_Induced-Compliance_Paradigm) I don't really have a favorite psychologist, but he'd definitely be in the running. This book may be more interesting than I thought, the inclusion of Dr. Aronson adds a whole new dimension of credibility and relevance that I couldn't have expected out of Dr. Tavris. I'm trying not to be optimistic, but I now think I can expect to read about some interesting developments in cognitive dissonance theory.

[Hazyshade]

Cognitive dissonance experiments leave me a bit depressed. I guess because the more I'm reminded of how "I" don't have control over certain actions and beliefs, the more I have to confront the fact that there's not really an "I" that could have control, and that the determinists are right about free will. I may in effect be objecting to the whole of cogpsych here, but I just feel that c.d. is particular a bleak area - it never seems to work out in my favour.

Does having an understanding of c.d. appeal to you because you'll be better equipped to defend against psychological manipulation? Can you show me some research into c.d. that makes me feel more optimistic about humanity's chances of reaching collective agreement on important topics? I'm very keen to hear another point of view.

[Asta Kask]

According to Carol Travis, once you know about your biases, it is possible to work around them. Her example is Lincoln, who deliberately put some of his political enemies into his War Cabinet precisely because he knew they were going to tell him what he didn't want to hear. And there are other things you can do along the same lines.

To a degree, that's what the scientific method is about - challenging your own biases. That's why peer-review and the open nature of scientific discussion is so vital. And that is why, as Jonathan Haidt has argued, the current homogeneity of the scientists on certain value issues is so potentially damaging. We don't get our ideas challenged nearly as often as we should.

[Quincunx]

Remember, thou art mortal. Remember, thou art mortal. Remember, thou art mortal. Remember, thou art mortal--

Unfortunately, Mel Brooks was correct about the predicted retort in nearly 100% of the cases. Overcoming bias is not easy.

[Hazyshade]

Asta Cask - you're referring to confirmation bias, right? Do we class that as a special case of cognitive dissonance? The way I would define them, confirmation bias is a means by which our brains preclude the possibility of cognitive dissonance before it happens, by throwing out the observation that otherwise wouldn't fit with our worldview. I could be talking nonsense here - is cognitive dissonance always resolved automatically by the brain along the path of least resistance? I'm thinking of the stable kind of cognitive dissonance, if such a thing exists.

You're saying peer review is a force for good, but homogeneity is bad? Doesn't the homogeneity assert itself partly by suppressing maverick theories at the peer-review stage? Look at Millikan's experiment to find the charge of an electron - he came up with an incorrect value that was accepted by consensus, and that was revised very gradually, experiment by experiment, in the direction of the true value. No-one came out with the true value straight away, because it would have been unacceptable to contradict Millikan to that extent. Scientists know this story and are ashamed of it, but how would you work around that sort of systemic bias?

[Asta Kask]

You can't get rid of all the biases via peer-review, etc., but you can get rid of a lot. A perfect system is probably beyond humans.

[Prime32]

Cognitive dissonance experiments leave me a bit depressed. I guess because the more I'm reminded of how "I" don't have control over certain actions and beliefs, the more I have to confront the fact that there's not really an "I" that could have control, and that the determinists are right about free will.Eh, it's not like knowledge of whether free will exists could affect your decisions in any way, so it's pointless to worry about it.

In other words, the answer to that question is not "yes" or "no" but "mu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29)". :smallwink: