third person cognitive dissonance

[ruminator]

Hi everyone, it is has been a long time since I've been on this forum. I started to miss you all! There aren't many other places with this level of quality conversation. So I'm back

I have noticed that when I notice another person being inconsistent in their beliefs, it bothers me a lot. For example, sometimes a person is against A, but by that logic they should also be against B, but they support B. It really really bothers me, and I absolutely HAVE to ask them about it. I NEED them to resolve it.

If they give me an explanation for why B is different than A, that resolves the inconsistency, I feel so much better. It's like relief.

It feels as if I am feeling the cognitive dissonance over their inconsistency, and I need them to resolve it for me, to bring relief. But this is really weird. Usually, people feel cognitive dissonance over their own inconsistencies. Why would I be feeling it for another person?

Can anyone relate to this at all?

 

[Cognisant]

You're an intellectual, you think about things at length and in great detail, your belief structure is like a bonsai you tend to meticulously.

Most people are somnambulists, they operate on heuristics they call emotions but rarely if ever critically examine these feelings to determine their source and cause.

That's how they're able to hold two contradictory facts as true, my recent thread about immigration is a topic too controversial to discuss in public because most people operate on emotions and word association. Diversity good, therefore immigration good, and even when presented with undeniable facts and logic a lot of them can't see past their feelings, they assume I must be evil and somehow trying to trick them.

It's frustrating.

 

[dr froyd]

not to sound cynical but one better disabuse oneself of the notion that people actually think about what they believe. We don't live in the idealized enlightenment-era world we would like to believe we live in. I don't know whether reality was ever to the contrary, but the modern human uses thoughts and beliefs in a manner very much like the caveman proto-human; outside the domain of directly actionable beliefs, the primary purpose of a belief is its psychological and social function – not its logical consistency or objective veracity.

 

[Black Rose]

one better disabuse oneself of the notion that people actually think about what they believe.

the primary purpose of a belief is its psychological and social function – not its logical consistency or objective veracity.

Unless you have autism you can see why this is important to a comfortable social function.

But as to psychological function, belief is not about comfort.

1) You either block things out because they are too painful.
2) Or you accept them or you become a nervous wreck.

3) 1 and 2 are either about The Truth or they are about Delusions.

4) In a delusion you believe what is not true but if it is because it is painful to believe this means it is likely a Delusion. Paranoia. The lizard people.

5) A happy Delusion is not always the case.

6) That is why people can't be trusted. because it is part of the conspiracy.

7) Most people block out things like Cthulhu because it is too painful to accept.

8) Those that accept Cthulhu either worship it or are destroyed by it.


What I realized is that Cthulhu is not evil.
The is no reason to fear it.
Some things you do fear but not it.
It might not even exist. Not as Lovecraft thought.

 

[ruminator]

Most people are somnambulists, they operate on heuristics they call emotions but rarely if ever critically examine these feelings to determine their source and cause.

not to sound cynical but one better disabuse oneself of the notion that people actually think about what they believe.

Then do you think the reason I get this cognitive dissonance is because I have the belief that other people think about their beliefs, and their inconsistency contradicts that? And if I accept that other people do not think about their beliefs, I would resolve my own dissonance?

 

[Cognisant]

Sure it solves the dissonance but it doesn't solve the problem, they're still blatantly objectively wrong and their wrongness will bother you far more than the inconsistency ever did.

Spoiler

You must vanquish them, with haste and without mercy.

 

[scorpiomover]

Hi everyone, it is has been a long time since I've been on this forum. I started to miss you all! There aren't many other places with this level of quality conversation. So I'm back

I have noticed that when I notice another person being inconsistent in their beliefs, it bothers me a lot. For example, sometimes a person is against A, but by that logic they should also be against B, but they support B. It really really bothers me, and I absolutely HAVE to ask them about it. I NEED them to resolve it.

If they give me an explanation for why B is different than A, that resolves the inconsistency, I feel so much better. It's like relief.

It feels as if I am feeling the cognitive dissonance over their inconsistency, and I need them to resolve it for me, to bring relief. But this is really weird. Usually, people feel cognitive dissonance over their own inconsistencies. Why would I be feeling it for another person?

Can anyone relate to this at all?

Yes.

The following is all necessary. But it seems long. Posters here dislike my long posts. So I put my answer and explanations in a spoiler.

"Read or do not read. There is no try" (Paraphrasing Yoda).

Spoiler: My answer

You sound like you are Ti-dominant. Ti HATES inconsistency.

1) Establishing consistent systems of real life is how Ti gets things done, by first figuring out consistent systems, and then using those systems to rely on to achieve the Ti-dom's objectives, because since those systems are consistent, whatever can be expected of the system in theory, would also usually produce the same results.

However, in real life, we cannot get answers for everything right away. Even when we do, we then are able to develop other ideas from those answers, that lead to further contradictions (See Gödel's incompleteness theorems for a proof of this).

2) So it's important to develop a tolerance of uncertainty.

That is, that even when because we haven't resolved every question and every inconsistency, the world hasn't completely fallen apart, and more importantly, we still have been able to get a lot of things done, especially due to the fact that we have already resolved some prior answers and already resolved some prior inconsistencies.

So it's more of a case of "perfection is a road, not a destination". Even though we haven't reached the end goal, we have still picked up a lot along the way that enables us and gives us enough skills to make our way despite our imperfections.

In other words, even though you still see some inconsistencies in the world, you still have developed enough skills to handle much of life, and so it's not the end of the world if you haven't resolved the inconsistency facing you.

3) That being said, since we know that by developing consistent systems, Ti-doms are able to achieve a huge amount that astound most people, it's worth making the effort to resolve those inconsistencies. It's just that it's much reasonable and more optimal to resolve those inconsistencies over time, by making some effort every day, that erodes the problems over time, rather than in one big splurge.

4) Now for the final piece of the puzzle: most people actually ARE consistent, with their OWN RULES that they live by. However, those rules don't always match what they say. But what they say is consistent with their own rules.

E.G. some people get by, by pretending they are the best at everything. Sometimes, they fail miserably at something, so badly they cannot get away with pretending they are good at it, and then say things like "Oh, but it's impossible", or "Oh, but no-one would want to do that anyway". They try to suggest that it wouldn't make sense to even try that thing, and thus failure in that area, is not a failure.

This is of course contradictory to their prior claim that they are good at those things and are bound to succeed.

But it's completely consistent with their Will to Power, i.e. their way of navigating the world, achieving their personal goals and handling problems along the way, which is to pretend to be brilliant at everything so they always appear successful, both to themselves and to others, so that they can always forge ahead and so gain a significant measure of success by achieving some of those things that they attempt.

5) If you wish to understand people's consistency, look for the things they ARE consistent in, to understand their general principles of living. THEN try to understand the anomalies in terms of how those anomalies support and benefit their general principles.

 

[scorpiomover]

not to sound cynical but one better disabuse oneself of the notion that people actually think about what they believe. We don't live in the idealized enlightenment-era world we would like to believe we live in. I don't know whether reality was ever to the contrary, but the modern human uses thoughts and beliefs in a manner very much like the caveman proto-human; outside the domain of directly actionable beliefs, the primary purpose of a belief is its psychological and social function – not its logical consistency or objective veracity.

In those words, you've basically summed up Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of the Will to Truth.

 

[Niclmaki]

You're an intellectual, you think about things at length and in great detail, your belief structure is like a bonsai you tend to meticulously.

Most people are somnambulists, they operate on heuristics they call emotions but rarely if ever critically examine these feelings to determine their source and cause.

That's how they're able to hold two contradictory facts as true, my recent thread about immigration is a topic too controversial to discuss in public because most people operate on emotions and word association. Diversity good, therefore immigration good, and even when presented with undeniable facts and logic a lot of them can't see past their feelings, they assume I must be evil and somehow trying to trick them.

It's frustrating.

Hah, I like that bonsai analogy. My dad is also similarly intellectual and does the same thing. However, he gets annoyed when learning about new fundamental things and adopting new principles.

He describes it as basically rebuilding a worldview from the ground up again. Maybe not exactly that drastic.

But to continue your analogy it is like having to re-prune an entire branch from near the base. One belief change has a ripple effect that requires a lot of rumination to straighten out and get your thoughts in a logical structure again.

Not everyone enjoys or even wants to do this. It is easier to just clip the one belief you disliked and encourage another. Even if they cannot share the same branch.

Every now and then I will go back and try activities (or food) I historically disliked to see if I need updating. So far it rather feels like a wasted effort. 9 times out of 10 my original conclusions hold true. Fun to consider though.

 

[dr froyd]

Then do you think the reason I get this cognitive dissonance is because I have the belief that other people think about their beliefs, and their inconsistency contradicts that? And if I accept that other people do not think about their beliefs, I would resolve my own dissonance?

I think that for someone who likes to think about things but also has the misfortune of having to interact with a lot of non-thinking people, the only remedy to this cognitive dissonance is to think about why people think certain things - from a psychological perspective - as opposed to analyzing their reasoning itself.

at least that's how I get through the day

 

[Daddy]

It feels as if I am feeling the cognitive dissonance over their inconsistency, and I need them to resolve it for me, to bring relief. But this is really weird. Usually, people feel cognitive dissonance over their own inconsistencies. Why would I be feeling it for another person?

Can anyone relate to this at all?

Yes. For some reason most people don't care about their contradictions. If you bring it up, you're the asshole, not them.

not to sound cynical but one better disabuse oneself of the notion that people actually think about what they believe. We don't live in the idealized enlightenment-era world we would like to believe we live in. I don't know whether reality was ever to the contrary, but the modern human uses thoughts and beliefs in a manner very much like the caveman proto-human; outside the domain of directly actionable beliefs, the primary purpose of a belief is its psychological and social function – not its logical consistency or objective veracity.

And this actually seems to be why...

 

[ruminator]

Sure it solves the dissonance but it doesn't solve the problem, they're still blatantly objectively wrong and their wrongness will bother you far more than the inconsistency ever did.

You must vanquish them, with haste and without mercy.

I just wonder why someone else's wrongness would bother me when their wrongness has nothing to do with me. Like that picture of the wrong tile - I've seen those "mildly infuriating" posts on the internet and people get so bothered by one thing being out of place. But it doesn't make sense why we are so bothered about it.

Then do you think the reason I get this cognitive dissonance is because I have the belief that other people think about their beliefs, and their inconsistency contradicts that? And if I accept that other people do not think about their beliefs, I would resolve my own dissonance?

I think that for someone who likes to think about things but also has the misfortune of having to interact with a lot of non-thinking people, the only remedy to this cognitive dissonance is to think about why people think certain things - from a psychological perspective - as opposed to analyzing their reasoning itself.

at least that's how I get through the day

lol. what do you mean by from a psychological perspective? and do you know why one would even feel cognitive dissonance for someone elses contradiction? Is it even possible? I thought cognitive dissonance is a term used for how we feel about our own contradictions, specifically.

It feels as if I am feeling the cognitive dissonance over their inconsistency, and I need them to resolve it for me, to bring relief. But this is really weird. Usually, people feel cognitive dissonance over their own inconsistencies. Why would I be feeling it for another person?

Can anyone relate to this at all?

Yes. For some reason most people don't care about their contradictions. If you bring it up, you're the asshole, not them.

not to sound cynical but one better disabuse oneself of the notion that people actually think about what they believe. We don't live in the idealized enlightenment-era world we would like to believe we live in. I don't know whether reality was ever to the contrary, but the modern human uses thoughts and beliefs in a manner very much like the caveman proto-human; outside the domain of directly actionable beliefs, the primary purpose of a belief is its psychological and social function – not its logical consistency or objective veracity.

And this actually seems to be why...

Yes it's very annoying that it's impossible to even point it out because it would make you the asshole, so we're just stuck tolerating it.