One of the interesting puzzles I encounter on a regular basis is this: In casual conversations I find an unusual number of people who seem to hold conflicting thoughts inside their headspace. For instance . . .
“My Body My Choice” is a slogan that makes sense for abortion. “My Body My Choice” is not a slogan that should be used when speaking about vaccination.
“Trust the Science” is a slogan that helps us accept the reality of Climate Change. The Scientific Method should not be trusted because it is based on asking questions and conducting unbiased research – both of which imply denial of currently accepted scientific truths.
Eating non-processed foods is a way for us to safeguard our health because it keeps harmful chemicals and genetically modified substances out of our bodies. Government-approved (or mandated) chemicals and genetically modified substances are beneficial to our health.
Corporations are greedy, sinister organizations. To stop them we need to petition a different Corporation, called Government.
I can’t help but wonder about all this. How is it that people can reckon and resolve such fundamentally incompatible views?
In hopes of solving this mystery, I’ve posed this question many times to friends and loved ones. But I’ve never received a clear answer.
Then, last Tuesday, my friend, A.J., cleared it all up for me.
A.J. Weighs In
After engaging in about an hour’s worth of stimulating conversation – including the usual catch-up topics (A.J. and I hadn’t spoken in a while), the farcical U.S. presidential election spool-up, the orchestrated (Marxist) agitation of society, and so on – our chat shifted to the topic of cognitive dissonance.
For those not familiar with the term, here’s the low-down: Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People tend to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict typically causes unpleasant feelings of unease or discomfort.
Since I had A.J.’s ear bent for the moment, I took the opportunity to pose my usual question: “How is it that people can reckon and resolve such fundamentally incompatible views?” I asked. I threw in a modifier too, for clarification: “It seems to me that people don’t even feel uneasy about it – like they’re perfectly OK with it, like they’re impervious to any logical light being shined upon any obvious contradictions in their world view, or on their mental maps.”
I didn’t really expect an answer, as experience has taught me that such questions usually end up sounding hypothetical, maybe even rhetorical.
But, without batting an eye, A.J. answered, “It’s impossible to hold opposing views in your head. For example, you can’t simultaneously love something and hate something. So, there are only two possible answers as to how someone can do that. Either they don’t actually believe one of those things – wherein they’re knowingly lying to themselves and others – but would probably never admit it. Or, they are mentally ill – I mean, their brain is not able to process information because of a neurochemical disorder or something.”
I thought to myself, yeah, that’s exactly right! I shared my sentiments with A.J. and thanked him for his insight, saying, “Wow. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, man. I’m gonna be thinking about that pretty hard going forward.”
And I have been.
Mind Melt
In the traditional definition of cognitive dissonance, as described above, it’s interesting to me that the outcome of conflict-infused thoughts is described as “mental discomfort” or as “unpleasant feelings of unease or discomfort.”
Based on this, it seems to me that naming a new condition might be in order, since Cognitive Dissonance doesn’t quite cover what I’m encountering. What I’m wondering is if we should consider giving a name to a condition describing a mental disorder wherein people are actually comforted by holding onto conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes, and do not desire to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions.
Maybe it could be called Cognitive Something. But cognitive what?
Perhaps “Complex Cognitive Dissonance” or something along those lines?
I’m not entirely sure.
There are plenty of online resources if you’re interested in digging into classic cognitive dissonance. I figure that’s a pretty good starting place for understanding a potential variant. Thus far I’ve only begun to scratch the surface.
But I’ll share something interesting that got my wheels turning a bit. In a small, but noteworthy, 2015 article published in Scientific American, researchers described using Functional MRI (fMRI) scans – scans that can track blood flow to “see” brain activity – to identify key brain regions linked to cognitive dissonance.
They found that the posterior region of the medial frontal cortex (pMFC) – which is known to play an important role in people’s avoidance of negative outcomes – is strongly tied to cognitive dissonance. This brain region “lights up” when people knowingly engage in lying, or, more specifically, engage in tasks that put their actions and beliefs into conflict. And here’s a real zinger: They also found that pMFC activity can be suppressed using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).
Similarly, they found that zapping the brain’s dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) with embedded electrodes reduces the extent to which people try to rationalize beliefs following a cognitive dissonance “event.”
I won’t get into any speculation about the weird human experiments that must have been conducted to arrive at these findings. I’ll only note that it appears that specific techniques involving electrical and magnetic stimulation have been discovered – techniques that can reduce the usual stress associated with people holding contradictory thoughts in their heads.
Phil’s Two Cents
I’m not suggesting that the brains of people with Complex Something (Complex Cognitive Dissonance?) have all been zapped beyond repair.
But it does make me wonder how so many brains have come to be so scrambled.
My friend, A.J., suggests that people who calmly adhere to conflicting ideas are either lying to themselves and others |or| suffering from a neurochemical disruption. I’m going to assume that most cases (for now) are the former rather than the latter.
That gives me way more hope than the alternative.
– “Phil”
Be First to Comment