2,842
edits
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="res-img">[[File:Cognitive Dissonance2.png|alt=Cognitive Dissonance|center|Cognitive dissonance quote]]</div>[[File:Prejudice.png|alt=Prejudice|thumb|'''Figure 1'''. Prejudice can sway a crowd more easily than logic as it is associated with emotion.]]'''In an ideal world, | <div class="res-img">[[File:Cognitive Dissonance2.png|alt=Cognitive Dissonance|center|Cognitive dissonance quote]]</div>[[File:Prejudice.png|alt=Prejudice|thumb|'''Figure 1'''. Prejudice can sway a crowd more easily than logic as it is associated with emotion.]]'''In an ideal world, when people face strong evidence that challenges their beliefs, they would assess the new information and adjust their views. However, reality often unfolds differently.''' | ||
This resistance to change can be attributed to cognitive dissonance, a discomfort experienced when confronted with conflicting information. Rather than reconsidering their long-held beliefs, many people, driven by this discomfort, dismiss the new evidence. This tendency to cling to one's initial beliefs, even in the face of contrary evidence, is known as belief perseverance, and no one is immune to it. | |||
When individuals come across facts that challenge their beliefs, especially those tied to their personal and political identities, it can feel like a personal attack. This is especially true for deeply rooted beliefs. Being faced with such contradictory information can sometimes lead to a "backfire effect,"<ref>'''Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization'''. Christopher A. Bail Edited by Peter S. Bearman, Columbia University, New York, NY, and approved August 9, 2018. Accessed on 31st August 2022 via <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115</nowiki></ref> where people double down on their original beliefs. This reaction is notably observed in debates over topics like climate change and childhood vaccinations, as shown in various studies.<html><center><iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/AAnHeao2ceqYV9VOsC" width="480" height="480" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe></center></html> | |||
<html><center><iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/AAnHeao2ceqYV9VOsC" width="480" height="480" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe></center></html> | |||
This gets worse with age as [[neuroplasticity]] diminishes and changing our minds becomes increasingly difficult. Whilst cognitive dissonance in society is fine in regard to innocuous issues such as what is the best football team to support, when it comes to more pertinent issues such as what action to take in regards to the [[Ecological crisis|ecological crisis,]] dissonance on these ideas can be deadly. As Max Planck said "''A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it''” however, the question arises given the potential [[Ecological Crisis Timeline|timeline of the ecological crisis]] do we have the time needed to overcome societies dissonance? | This gets worse with age as [[neuroplasticity]] diminishes and changing our minds becomes increasingly difficult. Whilst cognitive dissonance in society is fine in regard to innocuous issues such as what is the best football team to support, when it comes to more pertinent issues such as what action to take in regards to the [[Ecological crisis|ecological crisis,]] dissonance on these ideas can be deadly. As Max Planck said "''A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it''” however, the question arises given the potential [[Ecological Crisis Timeline|timeline of the ecological crisis]] do we have the time needed to overcome societies dissonance? |