charity wrote:Cognitive dissonance is part of the reason why we learn. It is neither bad nor good. It just is.
Schol teacher time. Sorry ifyou all already know this.
Jean Piaget called it adaptation. And there are two features--assimilation and accomodation. We all form schemas. When new information comes in that doesn't fit, this creates cognitive dissonance, and it is uncomfortalbe enough to motivate us to resolve the conflict.
Sometimes, we rework the old schema so that the new information can fit in without changing the new information. Sometimes we change the new information so it will fit the schema without changing the scheme. Assimilation or accomodation.
I have read an article by Terryl Givens (The Lightning of Heaven, BYU studies) where he makes the statement that there is plenty of evidence on either side for what he calls "a life of credible belief" or "a life of dismissive denial."
I think this assimilation/accomodation problem is the answer on the surface to why two people can take the same information and deal with it in these contrary modes.
The real question is why does one person go one way and the other person go the other?
I would be interested to hear ideas on this. And I hope the discussion can stay well above the level of "because you are stupid," or "because you are brainwashed."
Charity states:
Cognitive dissonance is part of the reason why we learn. It is neither bad nor good. It just is.
----
JAK:
Flawed conclusion. If we fail to absorb new information and knowledge, we
don’t learn.
----
Charity states:
Jean Piaget called it adaptation. And there are two features--assimilation and accomodation. We all form schemas. When new information comes in that doesn't fit, this creates cognitive dissonance, and it is uncomfortalbe enough to motivate us to resolve the conflict.
----
JAK:
Jean Piaget was addressing the stages of
cognitive development. When new and reliable information fails to fit one’s paradigm, one must either reject his old paradigm, or deny the new reliable information by attempting to discredit the
information.
Resolving the conflict is a matter of getting with the right
correct information, not defending some ancient religious superstition. The latter is what you have done in virtually all your posts here.
----
Charity states:
Sometimes, we rework the old schema so that the new information can fit in without changing the new information. Sometimes we change the new information so it will fit the schema without changing the scheme. Assimilation or accomodation [sic].
----
JAK:
Wrong again, Charity. New information which is tested, clearly and skeptically reviewed
must prevail. It’s dishonest to “change the new information so it will fit…” That’s not the way
new information (as I have clarified) is treated. Honest skeptical review is not done through the
religious superstition of ancient scripts.
In fact, it is always religious dogma which is revised or abandoned in the face of new, reliable data. It is never the other way around.
That is, religious pundits ultimately give
respect to scientific discovery. It does not work the other way around. Science does not comment
directly on religious dogma. But, science
indirectly comments on it by producing new information which reveals that the religious dogma is wrong.
There are those like you who persist in ancient religious dogma. You adopt the stated or unstated position:
Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up. Huckabee, a Republican candidate for President of the US, is a creationist, a right-wing Christian fundamentalist. Like you, he rejects science in favor of religious dogma. (You and he may not have the
same religious dogma, but you share in the rejection of fact in favor of religious doctrine.
Your analysis here is flawed.
----
Charity states:
I have read an article by Terryl Givens (The Lightning of Heaven, BYU studies) where he makes the statement that there is plenty of evidence on either side for what he calls "a life of credible belief" or "a life of dismissive denial."
----
JAK:
It’s irrelevant to the issue of
accuracy. And there is
not respected, transparent, clear, skeptically reviewed
evidence on the side of religious propaganda. BYU is hardly a source for objective writers. The quotes are irrelevant to
reliable information.
----
Charity states:
I think this assimilation/accomodation problem is the answer on the surface to why two people can take the same information and deal with it in these contrary modes.
----
JAK:
Your problem is that you
don’t think. You rely on pre-packaged religious dogma. A fundamental principle in science is
consensus based on
all the available information. Your computer works as a result of that kind of
consensus.
When information appears to be contradictory, science
keeps testing. It reaches
tentative conclusion and awaits further testing to confirm the accurate or the best conclusion. Not religion. Religion pursues
truth by assertion.
Hence, it is religion which must conform to the information, not the other way around.
----
Charity states:
The real question is why does one person go one way and the other person go the other?
----
JAK:
The answer is a matter of
heredity & environment. The less education in one’s environment, the more likely he/she is to be compliant with
truth by assertion. Conversely, the
more education, the more likely one is to insist that reliable accurate information is critical for
reliable conclusion.
People
indoctrinated from cradle up in some religious dogma tend to resist or reject
facts which conflict with their indoctrination.
People with open, extensive education tend to approach
more with rational, analytical reason. They ask
why in a serious way without religious spin in the question or dogma in the conclusion.
We discussed on another forum the role which heredity might play in addition to environment. Some concluded that there are those who are
hard wired to be gullible and easily victimized by religious doctrine/dogma.
While the question was not resolved, there was some agreement that certain people are more susceptible to
advertising and marketing. That applies to religious indoctrination as well as to product loyality.
----
Charity states:
I would be interested to hear ideas on this. And I hope the discussion can stay well above the level of "because you are stupid," or "because you are brainwashed."
----
JAK:
It’s above that level. However, that level is inherently a part of the discussion. I don’t think “stupid” is particularly a good characterization. “Brainwashed” is.
I asked you (and you never answered with honesty): If you had been raised from cradle up as a Muslim, what would be your religion?
The answer is obvious. You would be Muslim. You might not be, but that would be the most likely the case. If you had been raised from cradle up as Roman Catholic, you would most likely be Roman Catholic.
As with virtually all religious background, there is variation in the extent or degree to which people have
only blind faith. For example, studies show that 90% you young married Roman Catholics practice
artificial birth control. That is straight against the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.
However, the educational level and the analysis of a couple that they can
afford to educate children is limited. The educational level of such Roman Catholics is such that they
recognize quality of life as opposed to the official RCC position favoring
quantity.
They understand that with more than 6 billion people presently on earth,
Be fruitful and multiply is not in the best interest of them or their children.
Hence, they directly violate the RCC doctrine by
choosing to limit the size of their family. Some young RCC couples whom I know also feel strongly that
more humans threaten the planet with more pollution. So for them, preservation of the planet is a higher calling than the doctrine of the RCC.
I strongly suspect there are Mormons who drink coffee or tea or wine. They may be secretive about it, but I would be most doubtful that 100% of Mormons adhere 100% to all the doctrines and dogmas of the official LDS organization.
Of course, they are not going to brag publically about their private behavior which is contrary to Mormon dogma. That could be said for virtually any person who is officially a member of some religious group.
I’ll close by calling your attention to the fact that I quoted verbatim paragraphs from your post and responded directly to them.
I much prefer to use color to distinguish people in the discussion as individuals are quoted and a response is given. This is much more difficult to read.
JAK