DiscussMormonism.com

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."

I think the best way to resolve any dissonance is to talk with new members about the warty issues of Mormon history in a supportive manner.

charity wrote:The real question is why does one person go one way and the other person go the other?

They go which ever way makes them the happiest. At least, that's how it was for me.

I think it has to do with the "investment paradigm". If an individual's psyche or sense of self is too seriously threatened by the idea of abandoning former beliefs, then the accommodations will be taken to any extreme necessary to maintain the protective paradigm, even if those accommodations defy logic, reason, and intuitive moral standards.

beastie wrote:I think it has to do with the "investment paradigm". If an individual's psyche or sense of self is too seriously threatened by the idea of abandoning former beliefs, then the accommodations will be taken to any extreme necessary to maintain the protective paradigm, even if those accommodations defy logic, reason, and intuitive moral standards.

I agree with you here. Kuhn would say that once enough anomaly has been seen, you can't stay with the same paradigm without experiencing some serious psychic discord. But not long ago an apologist on MAD said that it was a matter of simply adjusting the paradigm, as long as the paradigm never lost sight of its center. To me, that's like rearranging the furniture instead of taking a good long look at the house to see if it's really falling apart.

Paradigm protection is serious business. It's very difficult to force ourselves to adjust our paradigms. And it's especially difficult when we have an emotional or social or psychological need for the existing paradigm to be right. That's why some things that apologists say seem so bizarre to me: they make sense only if you really, really need to believe something to be true. Hence, the discovery of a South American ochre mine becomes a "major" discovery validating the Book of Mormon.

Incidentally, I think Givens' statement is part of his own paradigm, and it would be very difficult for him to even acknowledge that there might be a preponderance of evidence against his belief system. He's content to believe that it's all just a matter of choosing between two equally plausible alternatives. I think that was part of my paradigm for quite a long time.

Charity --

about a year ago -- I made a list of things in Mormonism that no longer make sense(for me)... combined as much reliable history, and notes from observation of Mormonism today.. organized them by date.. and set off to make sense of the items one at a time... I got stuck at item #3 "the rock in a hat" I do not believe now --- nor do I ever think I will hold a belief in magic rocks, and the use of said rock to reveal scripture of an ancient people who labored and toiled for nearly a thousand years to record their history on sacred plates of gold - only to be wrapped up in a cloth, or buried under a mantle, or hidden in the woods, while said prophet looked into a hat to read them.

once I could come to my senses enough to understand this one thing.. the other 342 Items on my list became a side note to a religious mindset, to which I am no longer bound.

charity wrote:Cognitive dissonance is part of the reason why we learn. It is neither bad nor good. It just is.

Just stop with the twisting of Piaget. Its getting pathetic...ok, even MORE pathetic.

Turn your degree back into Devry and call it a night.

evolving wrote:Charity --

about a year ago -- I made a list of things in Mormonism that no longer make sense(for me)... combined as much reliable history, and notes from observation of Mormonism today.. organized them by date.. and set off to make sense of the items one at a time... I got stuck at item #3 "the rock in a hat" I do not believe now --- nor do I ever think I will hold a belief in magic rocks, and the use of said rock to reveal scripture of an ancient people who labored and toiled for nearly a thousand years to record their history on sacred plates of gold - only to be wrapped up in a cloth, or buried under a mantle, or hidden in the woods, while said prophet looked into a hat to read them.

once I could come to my senses enough to understand this one thing.. the other 342 Items on my list became a side note to a religious mindset, to which I am no longer bound.

Knowing the truth can make you free. –free from doctrine and dogma of superstition/religion.

You have arrived, evolving.

Believing the absurd is absurd.

JAK

This same question - why do some people continue to believe with "accommodations" - could be asked about many different faiths. The Jehovah Witness faith provides a clear example of this. One of the most important edicts their first leader issued was the exact date of the second coming of Christ. The date came and went, no second coming. So explanations were offered, and another date provided. Again, the date came and went without the second coming of Christ. If I recall correctly, the cycle even repeated a third time.

Some Witnesses lost faith, and other continued to believe. What was the difference between the two groups?

My ideas are influenced by Eric Hoffer's book The True Believer (which means something different than TBM). I think that some people become so enmeshed within their belief systems that they no longer have a separate "I". Therefore, the loss of the belief system feels like the loss of "I". Other believers, no matter how dear and cherished their beliefs are, still have a separate, core "I". Therefore, they can actually conceive of losing the belief system without the loss of "I".

Runtu wrote:

beastie wrote:I think it has to do with the "investment paradigm". If an individual's psyche or sense of self is too seriously threatened by the idea of abandoning former beliefs, then the accommodations will be taken to any extreme necessary to maintain the protective paradigm, even if those accommodations defy logic, reason, and intuitive moral standards.

I agree with you here. Kuhn would say that once enough anomaly has been seen, you can't stay with the same paradigm without experiencing some serious psychic discord. But not long ago an apologist on MAD said that it was a matter of simply adjusting the paradigm, as long as the paradigm never lost sight of its center. To me, that's like rearranging the furniture instead of taking a good long look at the house to see if it's really falling apart.

Paradigm protection is serious business. It's very difficult to force ourselves to adjust our paradigms. And it's especially difficult when we have an emotional or social or psychological need for the existing paradigm to be right. That's why some things that apologists say seem so bizarre to me: they make sense only if you really, really need to believe something to be true. Hence, the discovery of a South American ochre mine becomes a "major" discovery validating the Book of Mormon.

Incidentally, I think Givens' statement is part of his own paradigm, and it would be very difficult for him to even acknowledge that there might be a preponderance of evidence against his belief system. He's content to believe that it's all just a matter of choosing between two equally plausible alternatives. I think that was part of my paradigm for quite a long time.

You and beastie are both looking at it from the paradigm of the unbeliever. You can't see now that there is credible evidence because that is too threatening to your new paradigm.

And what if evolving had started his examination at another part of his list, he would have denied the exitence of the supernatural and insisted on all natural explanations and blown it away right there. It had nothing to do with a seerstone.