Manipulations of Our Heart and Mind

Examining Ourselves - Cognitive Dissonance, Biases and More

Picture this: you scroll down your Instagram or Facebook feed and you are presented with facts or new information that challenge your fundamental beliefs, be it abortion, gun control or anything that you are passionate about. More often than not, we find ourselves rationalising that these contradicting beliefs are “fake news” or ‘wrong’ simply because the belief stems from someone or a source you dislike, or perhaps completely undermines what you believe in. Yet, you might feel this minute sense of discomfort knowing that perhaps this “information” might just contain an element of truth.

These “contradictory” attitudes that co-exist in your mind give rise to “discomfort”, falling under an umbrella term of “cognitive dissonance”. The theory, developed by Leon Festinger (1957) posits that “human beings strive for internal psychological consistency”. As a result, behaviour and conflicting schemas may be adjusted, rationalized or dissipated to “realign” the consistency of the mind in attempts to resolve said “dissonance”.

Cognitive dissonance permeates into every aspect of our lives, from minute day-to-day interactions, purchases, all the way to issues of a national scale. A very common example would be the act of smoking. One might be aware of the detrimental effects of smoking, bombarded by exhortations not to smoke, in addition to an array of negative statistics, yet individuals continue to smoke. Why is this the case? In this situation, two attitudes co-exist: 1) one is aware of the detrimental effects of smoking and 2) this person wants to continue smoking. These contradictory attitudes generate a certain “discomfort” -- conscious or subconscious -- and in reducing such dissonance arising from these two ‘schemas’, one may either seek to change their behaviour or, alternatively, change the very beliefs surrounding said behaviour. According to Festinger (1957), one would choose to take the path of least resistance, taking the latter option. As a result, this individual would rationalise the act of smoking e.g. enumerating the marginal positive benefits whilst attenuating the harmfulness of smoking in a mental cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, in order to justify the continuance of such behaviour, a possible rationalisation would be that “I do not smoke much anyways’’; “everyone dies” or perhaps that “it improves my concentration” - spurious rationalisations are given credence even in the face of professional advice. This phenomenon is every-apparent on social media, exemplified through how opposing, “uncomfortable” beliefs are rationalised in some manner to reduce “dissonance” -- regardless of the information's source or reasonability. This, of course, is emblematic of the the human tendency to want to be right. Unfortunately, In doing so, we close ourselves off from new ideas and any opportunity for civil discourse.

We often rationalise opposing beliefs as spurious, but equally, we also constantly re-affirm our own - these are facilitated by our inherent biases. The cognitive dissonance theory very much links to other ideas in modern psychology - ideas which, once again, pervade into every aspect of cognitive function. For example, the cognitive bias by the name of confirmation bias: the tendency to perceive information in such a way to reaffirm one's existing beliefs - such a tendency may be one way in which one reduces “cognitive dissonance”. This closely links with the phenomenon of illusory correlation (when one spuriously perceives a relationship between variables), the epitomised infraction of “correlation does not equate to causation”. Such tendencies are ways in which ones dissipate “dissonance”, yet these ideas are all reflections of irrationality and perpetuate unfounded, erroneous beliefs - favouring the “heart” over the “mind”. These are the principles exploited by those who provide “physic readings”, manipulating such cognitive biases to ensure that readings have a high degree of applicability - indeed, aided by, most specifically, a confirmation bias (search up the Barnum effect)

With a more contemporary example application, social media and its operations have been made in such a way as to facilitate cognitive biases. The use of “filter bubbles”, personalized results that arise from data collection, create an environment of intellectual isolation - a “bubble” of information that reaffirms our beliefs, neglecting opposing political or social views. Such a system is employed when internet businesses aim to keep you on the platform for the longest amount of time; particularly successful when you are re-affirming news articles, aligning with, once again, your need to seek “consistency in thought” - free from “dissonance”. Such a way of living renders us ‘’sheep in a pack”, fettered by groupthink. Indeed, it is one of the factors for increasing political polarization, neglecting facts and civil discourse for group identities, all from the need to dispel “dissonance”. This raises a question, to what extent was populist rhetoric facilitated through filter bubbles, and by extension, how much do populist leaders on both sides of the political spectrum gain from these isolating mechanisms?

As a result of an environment in which we are increasingly intellectually isolated, we must strive towards veracity. We must analyse both sides of the argument no matter our own political allegiances, indeed, critical thinking in the face of cognitive biases. One may feel “dissonance” in doing so, yet such discomfort is necessary in the purveyance of truth - or at the very least, necessary in making the best-informed decisions; not one driven by spurious rationalisations. Let us open our minds, listen and think critically.

Think with your mind, not with your heart!