|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Cognitive dissonance/Archive1
Linkie[edit]
I thought I'd put this link that appeared on WIGO:blogs here too, as it's related. http://www.badscience.net/2010/05/evidence-based-smear-campaigns/
d hominem 23:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The need for CD?[edit]
"As harmful or restrictive cognitive dissonance can be, it may be a vital function of sentience. Would it be so normal for any person to completely dismiss their current interpretation of reality for another based on a claim then science would be virtually impossible to practice. Better to have stubborn idiots that can slowly change their mind through experience than gullible idiots who won't make a mind to change in the first place."
While this seemed to be going somewhere, in the end I couldn't follow what it means. What does CD have to do with improving or altering one's worldview based on new information? ħuman
22:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the key is in the first and last sentences: CD is good (the paragraph says) because it (a) may be a vital part of the way our minds work and (b) because it's better to be stubborn than wishy-washy. Not sure I agree. Tetronian you're clueless 23:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- As usual, the best solution is probably a combination. While being totally and unyieldingly stubborn isn't helpful, neither is being "open minded". The issue is whether CD is actually a defence mechanism for memetic self-preservation, it would make some sense to put it that way. Certainly an interesting idea. d hominem 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- If only there was a way to quantify being stubborn so that we could get the best mix of both stubbornness and skepticism. Oh wait, there is. (Too bad it's damn near impossible in practice...) Tetronian you're clueless 00:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... "Quantifying Stubbornness" has a familiar ring to it... However, I think you may have confused the terms there, skepticism and stubbornness, in the context we're talking about are the same thing - well, sort of. Stubbornness prevents you from changing your mind, but skepticism keeps out those pesky "new" ideas until they've been proven, thus achieving the same effect (although by different methods). Unless you mean skepticism to automatically include "open minded consideration and thorough appraisal", in which case you may not need to balance it with stubbornness at all and just have skepticism! d hominem 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- *facepalm* Oh dear, I just pulled an Andy without realizing it. I had taken "skepticism" to mean extreme indecisiveness in this case (that is, the opposite of CD-style stubbornness). But yes, the other kind of skepticism is clearly important, haha. Tetronian you're clueless 00:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, I still know what you're talking about. It's a balance between sticking firmly with what you know works, whilst still being willing and eager to dump it when necessary. Bad things happen when you do one or the other for the wrong reason. d hominem 01:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, I still know what you're talking about. It's a balance between sticking firmly with what you know works, whilst still being willing and eager to dump it when necessary. Bad things happen when you do one or the other for the wrong reason.
- *facepalm* Oh dear, I just pulled an Andy without realizing it. I had taken "skepticism" to mean extreme indecisiveness in this case (that is, the opposite of CD-style stubbornness). But yes, the other kind of skepticism is clearly important, haha. Tetronian you're clueless 00:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm... "Quantifying Stubbornness" has a familiar ring to it... However, I think you may have confused the terms there, skepticism and stubbornness, in the context we're talking about are the same thing - well, sort of. Stubbornness prevents you from changing your mind, but skepticism keeps out those pesky "new" ideas until they've been proven, thus achieving the same effect (although by different methods). Unless you mean skepticism to automatically include "open minded consideration and thorough appraisal", in which case you may not need to balance it with stubbornness at all and just have skepticism!
- If only there was a way to quantify being stubborn so that we could get the best mix of both stubbornness and skepticism. Oh wait, there is. (Too bad it's damn near impossible in practice...) Tetronian you're clueless 00:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- As usual, the best solution is probably a combination. While being totally and unyieldingly stubborn isn't helpful, neither is being "open minded". The issue is whether CD is actually a defence mechanism for memetic self-preservation, it would make some sense to put it that way. Certainly an interesting idea.