Even as I claim that I am not interested in psychology, one concept has always engaged my attention. This is the so-called Cognitive Dissonance. I have not gone much beyond the first few sites, including the omnipresent Wikipedia, thrown up by Google when I searched the phrase. So, now that I have established that I am an expert on cognitive dissonance, let me first tell you what those sites gave and then what my take is.
First to the sites: Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort that arises out of holding conflicting positions simultaneously.
Psychology then says, as I understand, that we reduce this discomfort, this dissonance, by rationalizing – choosing one out of the two conflicting stances. The “sour grapes” rationalization is given in Wikipedia as a classic example of how this psychological distress is resolved. “It is too sour to be of much interest to me” is chosen ahead of “The grape hangs too high for me”. The fox argues that no matter how high the grape hangs, if it is worthy of being eaten, it (the fox) would have jumped high enough to eat it. It is easier to downgrade the “other” vis-à-vis oneself.
May be so and I am no one to argue with the experts.
But, from my newly developed perspective such dissonances arise out of our inability to accept that our thoughts and actions have arbitrariness built into them. My example for cognitive dissonance arises when a physics-literate walks in a hot desert with the sun beaming down relentlessly.
The thirsty physics-literate perceives a body of water at a distance. It is a matter of less-than-thoughtful observation that he would put it down as a mirage – just noticing the position of the sun. But no, he does not. His thirst for water overwhelms his awareness of laws of physics. He suppresses rather than dispute them. He is happy by acknowledging as truth the faux reality of the mirage because it gives him hope. But, there is no arbitrariness involved.
However, if during another trip across the desert the physics-literate is not thirsty and he has a companion who is thirsty, the former would throw the weight of the laws of physics behind his arguments that there is no water. Here, arbitrariness shows up with a vengeance and there is a lot of empathy-deficit too. For the thirsty physicist there is water. But when he is not thirsty, there is no water for his thirsty companion.
This arbitrariness has a built-in time delay to show up as cognitive dissonance. At the moment the perceptions are expressed – “Oh, there is water!” or “There is no water. Just be patient” – the contradictions do not show up in the mind of the physics-literate as they are temporally disjointed. But when he is reclining on soft cushions in an air-cooled tent in an oasis in the middle of the desert, these arise as bas reliefs but gaining prominence over time. Then, he says to himself, “Oh, I am not as good as I thought I was.” You are thinking you are someone but you realize you are not that someone – a fundamental and unmatched dissonance.
This is the cognitive dissonance I subscribe to, no matter what the psychologists say. It is truly disconcerting to admit to oneself, not to mention realizing however slowly, that there is not a single bone of arbitrariness in his body, he is not goodness personified, he is not God.
While the experts may say that my understanding is either wrong or is no different than the accepted understanding, I would not agree. While not denying that I could be wrong, I will point out that cognitive dissonance as conventionally understood sets much store by the simultaneity of the conflicting stances. But, I am saying that the dissonance arises over time and only through introspection, in a compare-contrast exercise.
My understanding, while demanding some effort – thinking, introspecting – suggests how to reduce this noise within. Once I accept that I am not all good, I can try to become better than before – not good yet, but better – taking small steps.
In the case of the fox it had to decide then and there whether the grape is too high or too sour. Too binary. Time pressures skew one’s thinking to the extent that the activity stops. Cognitive dissonance is such an important result of our mental makeup and activities it deserves time and effort to set things right.
Look at the binary – Politician corrupt; public uncorrupt. Is this the truth? Look at the analog version – Politicians are in general more corrupt and at much larger scales than ordinary citizens. Here, even as the public is clamoring for punishing the corrupt politician, the ordinary citizen has to introspect and ponder over the punishments that should rightfully visit him. This points the way to a corruption-lite society, but it takes time.
Raghuram Ekambaram
First to the sites: Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort that arises out of holding conflicting positions simultaneously.
Psychology then says, as I understand, that we reduce this discomfort, this dissonance, by rationalizing – choosing one out of the two conflicting stances. The “sour grapes” rationalization is given in Wikipedia as a classic example of how this psychological distress is resolved. “It is too sour to be of much interest to me” is chosen ahead of “The grape hangs too high for me”. The fox argues that no matter how high the grape hangs, if it is worthy of being eaten, it (the fox) would have jumped high enough to eat it. It is easier to downgrade the “other” vis-à-vis oneself.
May be so and I am no one to argue with the experts.
But, from my newly developed perspective such dissonances arise out of our inability to accept that our thoughts and actions have arbitrariness built into them. My example for cognitive dissonance arises when a physics-literate walks in a hot desert with the sun beaming down relentlessly.
The thirsty physics-literate perceives a body of water at a distance. It is a matter of less-than-thoughtful observation that he would put it down as a mirage – just noticing the position of the sun. But no, he does not. His thirst for water overwhelms his awareness of laws of physics. He suppresses rather than dispute them. He is happy by acknowledging as truth the faux reality of the mirage because it gives him hope. But, there is no arbitrariness involved.
However, if during another trip across the desert the physics-literate is not thirsty and he has a companion who is thirsty, the former would throw the weight of the laws of physics behind his arguments that there is no water. Here, arbitrariness shows up with a vengeance and there is a lot of empathy-deficit too. For the thirsty physicist there is water. But when he is not thirsty, there is no water for his thirsty companion.
This arbitrariness has a built-in time delay to show up as cognitive dissonance. At the moment the perceptions are expressed – “Oh, there is water!” or “There is no water. Just be patient” – the contradictions do not show up in the mind of the physics-literate as they are temporally disjointed. But when he is reclining on soft cushions in an air-cooled tent in an oasis in the middle of the desert, these arise as bas reliefs but gaining prominence over time. Then, he says to himself, “Oh, I am not as good as I thought I was.” You are thinking you are someone but you realize you are not that someone – a fundamental and unmatched dissonance.
This is the cognitive dissonance I subscribe to, no matter what the psychologists say. It is truly disconcerting to admit to oneself, not to mention realizing however slowly, that there is not a single bone of arbitrariness in his body, he is not goodness personified, he is not God.
While the experts may say that my understanding is either wrong or is no different than the accepted understanding, I would not agree. While not denying that I could be wrong, I will point out that cognitive dissonance as conventionally understood sets much store by the simultaneity of the conflicting stances. But, I am saying that the dissonance arises over time and only through introspection, in a compare-contrast exercise.
My understanding, while demanding some effort – thinking, introspecting – suggests how to reduce this noise within. Once I accept that I am not all good, I can try to become better than before – not good yet, but better – taking small steps.
In the case of the fox it had to decide then and there whether the grape is too high or too sour. Too binary. Time pressures skew one’s thinking to the extent that the activity stops. Cognitive dissonance is such an important result of our mental makeup and activities it deserves time and effort to set things right.
Look at the binary – Politician corrupt; public uncorrupt. Is this the truth? Look at the analog version – Politicians are in general more corrupt and at much larger scales than ordinary citizens. Here, even as the public is clamoring for punishing the corrupt politician, the ordinary citizen has to introspect and ponder over the punishments that should rightfully visit him. This points the way to a corruption-lite society, but it takes time.
Raghuram Ekambaram
2 comments:
I think the politician (most of the lot at least) is far more corrupt than the common person. If the principle of 'Like king, like subjects' is really true, then we know where the rectification should begin.
Matheikal, you must also understand that the opportunities he has to be corrupt is far more than the same for the common man. Yes, the difference is one of scale.
But I am not justifying corruption by politicians. What I am saying is the common man does not take the "holier than thou" attitude, his efforts to right the system will have a better chance. Just speculation, of course. There is also the matter of time. Don't tell me that the Lokpal Bill has been around for three decades plus. The relevant thing to note here is that the cast of political actors is in a state of constant flux. So, who do you hold responsible, the generic politician? Do you think that would help the discussions even if there were to be any?
Forget about politicians. What about the so-called civil society actors? It is a game of musical chairs there too.
What I am saying is the common man sees himself as GOD and he is NOT. This is why a little introspection is needed on his part and his cognitive dissonance has a better chance of producing something useful besides offering him some faux palliative.
RE
Post a Comment