It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why It's Hard to Admit to Being Wrong

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I wasn't quite sure where to post this.

One thing I always found fascinating, was why people even when faced with evidence to the contrary would cling to any belief whether it is global warming or a pet conspiracy theory or a religious doctrine, here is an article that tries to explain human nature.




We all have a hard time admitting that we're wrong, but according to a new book about human psychology, it's not entirely our fault. Social psychologist Elliot Aronson says our brains work hard to make us think we are doing the right thing, even in the face of sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

www.npr.org...




There is an unpleasant feeling that Festinger called "cognitive dissonance." Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent


This is not aimed at any one belief system or meant as an attack, I just found it interesting and find it very common on forums,




[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]




posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
YEs thankyou for this post. Just in the nick of time too.

I just told someone to read it in a religious thread ;-P With Link.

Thanks a ton ;-P



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
I thought I would take a closer look at this theory,
Cognitive dissonance.

en.wikipedia.org...



Overjustification



The phenomena of not experiencing a belief change when forced to act against one's beliefs with high external justification.


This one point particularly caught my eye, I would think fear comes into play here, fear as in,
"How could I be so wrong?"

You would start to wonder and worry about your own Cognition,.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
What the thought police are out again, is it not our own business how we think.

[edit on 8/14/2007 by andy1033]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE
YEs thankyou for this post. Just in the nick of time too.


HI derange,


I don't know what your discussion was about but remember this works both ways,


[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
What the thought police are out again, does anyone think its our own business how we think.


Hi Andy,

Thought police?


IS thinking a BAD thing?

This is just an attempt to understand what makes us tick,

You mean you have never beaten a dead horse?




[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
i realized this a long time ago in not so specific terms. it actually baffles people when i say "you know what your viewpoint makes a lot of sense. you're probably right."

the last thing anyone expects you to do is concede your argument even though they may be so sure that you're wrong. i think it adds a little to how people think of you if they know you can be that objective.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Here are couple interesting studies



Studies of how people seek out information that is consonant rather than dissonant with their own views, so as to avoid cognitive dissonance (Frey, 1986);


Boy check out the first one, I think this is a big issue, we tend to try and find all evidence to prove our own theory, when we should be looking at every angle.



Studies of how people respond to information that is inconsistent with their firmly-held beliefs, attitudes, or commitments (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter, 1956; Batson, 1975; Burris, Harmon-Jones, Tarpley, 1997).





We must always try to disprove our own theories. “We can solidly settle our ideas only by trying to destroy our own conclusions by counter-experiments” . What is observably true is the only authority. If through experiment, you contradict your own conclusions—you must accept the contradiction--but only on one condition: that the contradiction is PROVED.

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course in matters of faith this will work only to a certain extent.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by an0maly33
i realized this a long time ago in not so specific terms. it actually baffles people when i say "you know what your viewpoint makes a lot of sense. you're probably right."

the last thing anyone expects you to do is concede your argument even though they may be so sure that you're wrong. i think it adds a little to how people think of you if they know you can be that objective.


Hi anomaly,

I have learned to bow out of a debate, I am actually guilty of beating dead horses.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Indeed. People are often more concerned about protecting their own ego rather than accepting the truth. I think much of it has to do with having a fear of possibly regretting past actions.

For example: A couple don't get along for a long time, yet they stay married because they're religion tells them do. 30 years later they're confronted with doubts about their religion, yet they hold on to it because the pain would be too much if they knew they didn't have to stay together all those years. It could potentially lead to despair and even suicide. Not only can ignorance be bliss, but it can be a protective instinct.

Probably not the best example, but it's something I've seen happen so it came to mind.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kruel
Indeed. People are often more concerned about protecting their own ego rather than accepting the truth. I think much of it has to do with having a fear of possibly regretting past actions.


Yes there is that word, fear.

One example I have is my belief in UFO's, I know what I have seen, but to think I was imagining things can be frightening, then having to question my own sanity.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
One more quote,



Tedeschi has argued that maintaining cognitive consistency is a way to protect public self-image (Tedeschi, Schlenker & Bonoma, 1971).


Oh yes, self, and ego.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
So with all this in mind I was wondering about the Evolution of the ego,

Religious concepts promote cooperation
www.truthbook.com...

This just suggests to me that no matter if it is a religious belief or a scientific belief, it is someones " sacred Cow", and like attracts like.

It is Tribal.

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I read a scientific study somewhere that claimed that altruism is a necessary component in the survival of the tribe.
pespmc1.vub.ac.be...




cognitive evolution, thought can be understood as the ability to control the production, reproduction and association of memes in the minds of humans. What follows is the possibility of evolution at the memetic level. The emergence of human thought marks the appearance of a new mechanism of evolution: conscious human effort instead of natural selection. The variation and selection necessary for the increase of complexity of the organization of matter now takes place in the human brain; it becomes inseparable from the willed act of the human being.





Perhaps the most powerful medium for meme transmission is the computer network, and this implies some specific characteristics for memes on the net.


WOW, Any thoughts?



Meme: an information pattern, held in an individual's memory, which is capable of being copied to another individual's memory.


Memory, consciousness, imagination, reality, fact, fiction, how do we influency one another and why?

The group mentality, shared wisdom or forced , an example, "If you can't see what I see you are either insane or stupid."


pespmc1.vub.ac.be...


Then what makes some individuals, simply observers, while other choose up sides?

Do we need the group to identify with, to feel secure in our beliefs?



[edit on 14-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Interesting finds...

The difficulty of admitting to being wrong certainly points to an instinctive protective mechanism. Also, it seems more common with men.

Men, who throughout the centuries have been forced into the role of having to be strong. Take for example, the guy who doesn't want to stop and ask directions. For doing so, he feels that it would make him appear to be incompetent. More so in the presence of a woman who he feels necessary to impress. The woman may complain about his stubbornness, but on a subconscious level she may actually want him to figure it out on his own (again, I point towards centuries of ingrained habits and instincts).

We all know how competitive people can get when they're trying to impress someone of the opposite sex. The ego, and subsequently the unwillingness to concede an argument becomes even greater in these circumstances. In extreme cases, someone may get hurt, and the justification goes even further. In the end, it comes down to self-preservation.

Humanity is still growing up. We're all basically animals, but we're slowly breaking out of our instinctual habits due to our ability to be rational. Often times it's a fight within, a battle between instincts and logic. The ability to control one's emotions is the key to defeating the ego.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
people are afraid that if they admit they were wrong, than other parts of there belief systems will come into question, and then they will panic, or at the least that they would have work to do (re-creating there belief systems) if they admit they were wrong in other things, so they ignore them

these people have not taugh themselves alternate ways to represent things in their minds (think)

something called NLP, Meta programming, and a website like Ken Ward's mind mastery are good ( the owners manual for your brain that you were never given and never knew you might need)



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Storm Dancer, truth is, we are living in a world where everyone wants to be right. Every group, religion, political group, nation, et cetera, screams at the top of their lungs that they are right. However, I have come to the stark conclusions that no one is right. People can't see the forest for the trees.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   
You can only be right as far as your knowledge extends on a subject and how correct that knowledge is. When you start to reply with one or two worded responses and a tinge of aggression then it shows that you have reached the end of your knowledge on said subject.

Take me and "common sense", from the age of 1 thru to 30 I took people at face value and what they said, gullible you bet, but I had no reason to not believe what people said, I was that naive.

Now ten years on I have progressed that far that I can discern bullsh*t from truth and can hold and win many a conversation over most general subjects and more.

Wolfie

PS It did take me a while to grow up lol



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie_UK

PS It did take me a while to grow up lol


Wolfie, if you're a guy, that's excuse enough...
Hell, I am thirty years old and while emotionally, I am pretty mature, I don't relate to others very well... I guess, socially, I am very immature, or retarded, whichever you prefer.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
What the thought police are out again, is it not our own business how we think.

[edit on 8/14/2007 by andy1033]


I seem to be having that thought alot lately...




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join