I've just watched this all the way through for the second time. I find this to be just so incredibly profound, and I wish more people would watch this lecture and make its lessons the foundation of their very existence.
Go 10min into the lecture to avoid the anecdote. 2/3 (e.g. 66%) regret they began to smoke as teenagers and became more or less heavy smokers (atleast according to the statistic in Denmark I have seen). Cognitive dissonance as an explanation makes no sense here. Be careful to misuse cognitive dissonance as an explanation. People can do something unhealthy, know it and regret it even though they are still doing it! People misunderstand cognitive dissonance, when they use it too widely. cognitive dissonance is about creating and keeping the self-narrative (e.g. self-concept or self-image) consistent and beliefs important in the self-image consistent. Nothing else... Also, don't confuse the psychological need to create and maintain a positive self-image (e.g. a self-narrative with a minimum amount of self-worth) with the need for cognitive consistency (e.g. a consistent self-narrative). They are two distinct psychological needs, although they influence each other in the psychological system.
I can see trying to avoid what we call cognitive dissonance being used to explain the brain trying to justify the actions after we did them by impulse, by the subconscious or whatever mechanism is responsible for actions to be made. I think that applies more to short term actions in which we can try to track when we started to try to justify them. that being said, I agree cognitive dissonance is used too vaguely
I thought cognitive dissonance implied some active lingering conflict between two opposing views. Like u have to be torn by them at least for some non trivial amount of time. What she is saying here is basically a kind of automatic self justification, usually of a pernicious kind , exactly to protect someone from uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. Not necessarily the result of the dissonance. The dissonance itself seems to be what is being avoided, to spare oneself even the mental effort and agony of deliberation between “have i gotten this right or wrong”. She seems to assume that ppl do this to protect their self image, that’s what happens AFTER a deliberation have taken place and a decision was made to protect the self image, but most ppl don’t even get there, the go on automatic self justificative mode. She also assumes that this is necessarily always a bad thing, but that is not always the case. You can avoid cognitive dissonance precisely because you dont think it is even worth it to go over a nonsensical deliberation process that doesn’t even pass the smell test. Imagine if someone abuses you constantly and then when u complain they call u “oversensitive” , you cannot say aha u denied oversensitivity because u are protecting your self image. That’s trivially true, but it so happens that it is a CORRECT self image. The call for deliberation is nonsense. In other words what matters isn’t necessarily protecting the self image because the opposite would be destroying the self image which is crazy, what matters is protecting it for the wrong reasons. Or rather being vain about it. It really all boils down to “are u being honest with urself?” Another missing piece to this puzzle is how u also need to “build up the self image” in minimally false but short of delusional, ways. This is what being confident is all about, u need to be more confident than what ur abilities actually allow u, and that confidence helps u in growth in order to get those abilities in the first place. A sort of fake it until u make it . And we all know this too well deep down. But it cannot be too delusional or u lose touch from reality and disallow growth , thus the minimally false part. I think ultimately all of this talk about protecting the self image, destroying it, building it up, all boil down to missing the mark or alternatively hitting that sweet spot. The right balance , in which one minimize errors according to the mental/physical resources that constrain you.
what if science or its testing methods are limiting themselves? when it is the case, how will beliefs be properly and 100% precisely testified? I am quite confused about situations concerning spiritual experiences which cannot be explained by sciences...
There’s much that cannot be explained or measured..and humans are infinitely hindered because they “need” answers, numbers, despite the vast things that don’t have answers…& many never will, not that our limited capacity can hold. We just can’t explore, consider, how limited we are, as to most it is too threatening
The name itself 'cognitive dissonance' is fine for psychologist but it causes the eyes to glaze over with normal people. Has anyone a name more suitable for explaining the term?
Wilful ignorance , invincible ignorance , stubborn prideful stupidity . take your pic. The nightmare truth however is that psychologists have discovered that the ignoring of unwanted evidence can happen WITHOUT the persons knowing they are doing it. This means that human choice, morality , intelligence, are all now very flawed concepts. It turns out we often are brutish monstrous beings rather than Homo Sapiens, unless we have been professionally trained to see both sides of a question and to examine all the evidence dispassionately. Sadly characters like Forrest Gump - err sorry Forrest Allgood are all too common examples of educated evil people taking lives deliberately when they do know better.
Cognitive= pertaining to mind Dissonance=two opposing beliefs that produce discomfort Therefore it is when you hold ideas that go against one another and you subconsciously go towards a position and cling to it, justify, whatever, to get rid of any identification with the other information.
Interesting. Can you say more? I would say it's maybe more akin to Nietzsche's idea of bad conscience. There may be the possibility of guilt or shame in the original tension (dissonance) between behavior and self-concept, but the rationalization process seems to foreclose on the actual conscious experience of this tension.
@@marknehoc1850 Perhaps more accurate to say cognitive dissonance is a superset of the nagging conscience, as there are other types of cognitive dissonance. The two can at least be said to have similarities. It calls out to the person experiencing it, and he/she knows something doesn't feel right. That person can ignore it and stamp it out until it finally disappears, repeating their personal narrative "I'm a good person."
"Cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information. Examples may include inconsistencies in a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment."
Cognitive dissonance has very little to do with addiction or addictive behavior. Smokers who are unable to quit are not suffering from cognitive dissonance, they are addicted to nicotine, regardless of that person's actual feelings about smoking. On the other hand, there are people who choose to do things they know are not healthy or useful, do so in full knowledge of what they are doing and don't try to justify those things. Not all criminals see themselves as downtrodden or a modern-day Robin Hood. They commit crimes because they enjoy the thrill of committing crimes. No cognitive dissonance needed.
Imo she could use a little lecture on self-righteousness, using her own bias a little too much as a reference in her lecture. I dunno, but I definitely refrain of calling myself "a good human". Or I am just too detached from society to have an opinion on this, regardless I find it a weird angle to study human behavior from a 'superior being' perspective
she is not referring to addicts but rather to the very beginning of the process,,, when you are not even closer to be called an addictive.. you are capable of making a choice in that very minute
You’re making a complex equation simplified and in doing so, highly inaccurate. It’s not one or the other. They each play a role…the addiction and the cognitive dissonance. There isn’t an addiction around that doesn’t have cognitive dissonance as part of it.
She’s not women, she’s a woman… Now that we have that out of the way, time stamp and explain what you are accusing her of. Are you merely threatened that she highlighted something you had no idea you struggle with…and so your immediate response is transference and projection? Even if she had some bias, and flaws in logic…hate to break it to you, but that’s what all is humans do!! The ones who do it excessively with no introspection and metacognition, course correction, are the ones causing suffering for themselves and others. What are you doing?
Thanks for sharing. It was a very successful speech.
I've just watched this all the way through for the second time. I find this to be just so incredibly profound, and I wish more people would watch this lecture and make its lessons the foundation of their very existence.
Go 10min into the lecture to avoid the anecdote.
2/3 (e.g. 66%) regret they began to smoke as teenagers and became more or less heavy smokers (atleast according to the statistic in Denmark I have seen). Cognitive dissonance as an explanation makes no sense here. Be careful to misuse cognitive dissonance as an explanation. People can do something unhealthy, know it and regret it even though they are still doing it! People misunderstand cognitive dissonance, when they use it too widely. cognitive dissonance is about creating and keeping the self-narrative (e.g. self-concept or self-image) consistent and beliefs important in the self-image consistent. Nothing else... Also, don't confuse the psychological need to create and maintain a positive self-image (e.g. a self-narrative with a minimum amount of self-worth) with the need for cognitive consistency (e.g. a consistent self-narrative). They are two distinct psychological needs, although they influence each other in the psychological system.
I can see trying to avoid what we call cognitive dissonance being used to explain the brain trying to justify the actions after we did them by impulse, by the subconscious or whatever mechanism is responsible for actions to be made. I think that applies more to short term actions in which we can try to track when we started to try to justify them.
that being said, I agree cognitive dissonance is used too vaguely
I thought cognitive dissonance implied some active lingering conflict between two opposing views. Like u have to be torn by them at least for some non trivial amount of time.
What she is saying here is basically a kind of automatic self justification, usually of a pernicious kind , exactly to protect someone from uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. Not necessarily the result of the dissonance. The dissonance itself seems to be what is being avoided, to spare oneself even the mental effort and agony of deliberation between “have i gotten this right or wrong”.
She seems to assume that ppl do this to protect their self image, that’s what happens AFTER a deliberation have taken place and a decision was made to protect the self image, but most ppl don’t even get there, the go on automatic self justificative mode.
She also assumes that this is necessarily always a bad thing, but that is not always the case. You can avoid cognitive dissonance precisely because you dont think it is even worth it to go over a nonsensical deliberation process that doesn’t even pass the smell test. Imagine if someone abuses you constantly and then when u complain they call u “oversensitive” , you cannot say aha u denied oversensitivity because u are protecting your self image. That’s trivially true, but it so happens that it is a CORRECT self image. The call for deliberation is nonsense.
In other words what matters isn’t necessarily protecting the self image because the opposite would be destroying the self image which is crazy, what matters is protecting it for the wrong reasons. Or rather being vain about it.
It really all boils down to “are u being honest with urself?”
Another missing piece to this puzzle is how u also need to “build up the self image” in minimally false but short of delusional, ways. This is what being confident is all about, u need to be more confident than what ur abilities actually allow u, and that confidence helps u in growth in order to get those abilities in the first place. A sort of fake it until u make it . And we all know this too well deep down. But it cannot be too delusional or u lose touch from reality and disallow growth , thus the minimally false part.
I think ultimately all of this talk about protecting the self image, destroying it, building it up, all boil down to missing the mark or alternatively hitting that sweet spot. The right balance , in which one minimize errors according to the mental/physical resources that constrain you.
FFS don't wear multiple layers of metal when you are going to be mic'd.
Or ANYTHING that capable of making a 'sharp' sound.
Good lecture
Great lecture!
Thats was me,they tried to kill me.he saw at the 4 square
Truth works
what if science or its testing methods are limiting themselves? when it is the case, how will beliefs be properly and 100% precisely testified? I am quite confused about situations concerning spiritual experiences which cannot be explained by sciences...
👏 you my friend are onto something. We cannot define science is the purpose to limiting us on our spiritual growth.
Sounds dissonant... now what's the issue, the empirical findings or the spiritual experiences?
There’s much that cannot be explained or measured..and humans are infinitely hindered because they “need” answers, numbers, despite the vast things that don’t have answers…& many never will, not that our limited capacity can hold. We just can’t explore, consider, how limited we are, as to most it is too threatening
Could not hear the questions why don't you repeat the them.
Eu sou narcisista patológico
É impossível me controlar
that necklace with that microphone = horrors beyond human ken
It's murdering my attention span
@@violet-fl9ve vie girl what dvtyrgrejrg
her example of changing massive billion dollar industries
We need more social psychologists in society and it's governance today .
👍👍🌷
The name itself 'cognitive dissonance' is fine for psychologist but it causes the eyes to glaze over with normal people. Has anyone a name more suitable for explaining the term?
maybe something like clashing beliefs theory, or something like that?
Wilful ignorance , invincible ignorance , stubborn prideful stupidity . take your pic. The nightmare truth however is that psychologists have discovered that the ignoring of unwanted evidence can happen WITHOUT the persons knowing they are doing it. This means that human choice, morality , intelligence, are all now very flawed concepts. It turns out we often are brutish monstrous beings rather than Homo Sapiens, unless we have been professionally trained to see both sides of a question and to examine all the evidence dispassionately. Sadly characters like Forrest Gump - err sorry Forrest Allgood are all too common examples of educated evil people taking lives deliberately when they do know better.
inconsistencies
Cognitive= pertaining to mind
Dissonance=two opposing beliefs that produce discomfort
Therefore it is when you hold ideas that go against one another and you subconsciously go towards a position and cling to it, justify, whatever, to get rid of any identification with the other information.
Does anyone know this psychologist name ?
Hello, how you doing?
Carol Tavris
"Cognitive dissonance" seems to be a synonym for "conscience".
Interesting. Can you say more? I would say it's maybe more akin to Nietzsche's idea of bad conscience. There may be the possibility of guilt or shame in the original tension (dissonance) between behavior and self-concept, but the rationalization process seems to foreclose on the actual conscious experience of this tension.
@@marknehoc1850 Perhaps more accurate to say cognitive dissonance is a superset of the nagging conscience, as there are other types of cognitive dissonance. The two can at least be said to have similarities. It calls out to the person experiencing it, and he/she knows something doesn't feel right. That person can ignore it and stamp it out until it finally disappears, repeating their personal narrative "I'm a good person."
Only if you are not living in alignment
@@marknehoc1850 .q
11111111111111q
1
"Cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information. Examples may include inconsistencies in a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment."
Mas eu não me justifico
Eu me vejo como um imperador
Cognitive dissonance has very little to do with addiction or addictive behavior. Smokers who are unable to quit are not suffering from cognitive dissonance, they are addicted to nicotine, regardless of that person's actual feelings about smoking. On the other hand, there are people who choose to do things they know are not healthy or useful, do so in full knowledge of what they are doing and don't try to justify those things. Not all criminals see themselves as downtrodden or a modern-day Robin Hood. They commit crimes because they enjoy the thrill of committing crimes. No cognitive dissonance needed.
Imo she could use a little lecture on self-righteousness, using her own bias a little too much as a reference in her lecture.
I dunno, but I definitely refrain of calling myself "a good human".
Or I am just too detached from society to have an opinion on this, regardless I find it a weird angle to study human behavior from a 'superior being' perspective
CD is not the cause of addictive behavior, but the addiction may result in CD.
she is not referring to addicts but rather to the very beginning of the process,,, when you are not even closer to be called an addictive.. you are capable of making a choice in that very minute
You’re making a complex equation simplified and in doing so, highly inaccurate. It’s not one or the other. They each play a role…the addiction and the cognitive dissonance.
There isn’t an addiction around that doesn’t have cognitive dissonance as part of it.
Jordan Peterson doesn't like this
Lmfao
Why wouldn’t Jordan Peterson like this?
This women has cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias and cannot see the flaws in her own logic.🤔
But she puts on a good show
She’s not women, she’s a woman…
Now that we have that out of the way, time stamp and explain what you are accusing her of.
Are you merely threatened that she highlighted something you had no idea you struggle with…and so your immediate response is transference and projection?
Even if she had some bias, and flaws in logic…hate to break it to you, but that’s what all is humans do!! The ones who do it excessively with no introspection and metacognition, course correction, are the ones causing suffering for themselves and others.
What are you doing?