how we convince ourselves

These days, I have been reading "Social Animals" by the famous American psychologist Elliot Aronson. Based on the many psychology books I have read before, I have also taken online courses, and then I will read this kind of book that systematically describes the knowledge of social psychology. It's a lot easier. One of the chapters, "Self-Defense", is an interesting read, and the "Cognitive Dissonance Theory" in it can explain a lot of phenomena, such as why we hold on to certain ideas and beliefs and why we change our old ones. attitudes and opinions.

I believe that everyone has encountered this situation in their life, my cognition is one thing, but what I do is another: I know smoking causes cancer, but I smoke; I know it should not be said Lies, but I still lie to keep myself out of trouble; I know I shouldn’t be addicted to gaming, but I still spend a lot of time every week playing games to make myself happy. And, we’re gradually convincing ourselves that smoking is harmful Exaggerated, a proper lie doesn't hurt anyone, life is too short to limit myself since games can make me happy. Over time, our original beliefs and opinions may also change, which is post-cognitive dissonance We changed our outcomes by proactively reducing dissonance.

The so-called "cognitive dissonance theory", that is, when a person simply holds two psychologically inconsistent cognitions (such as attitudes, beliefs, ideas), if the two cognitions oppose each other, the person will fall into a cognitive dissonance. state. And this experience of cognitive dissonance is quite unpleasant, so people are motivated to reduce dissonance, and the way to reduce cognitive dissonance is to change one of the cognitions so that the two cognitions are more consistent with each other. Still with Taking smoking as an example, suppose there is a long-term smoker, what measures would he take to reduce the dissonance in the perception that "smoking is harmful to health"? He may try to downplay the link between smoking and disease, using medical reports also Not necessarily correct ideas to comfort himself, he may look for some people who smoke but still live a long life, so as to tell himself that smoking is not so harmful, he can also establish the positive effects of smoking, such as smoking makes himself Pleasure and relaxation, and this feeling of pleasure and relaxation outweighs the uncertain health risks. In conclusion, by downplaying the perception of smoking-induced disease, he can establish a new attitude. A survey in the United States was used To assess people's responses to the link between smoking and cancer, the results were not surprising, with non-smokers overwhelmingly believing the link, with only 10% skeptical, compared with more than 40% of heavy smokers Doubt smoking can cause cancer.

The author also points out in the book that if we have already made a decision, we have a greater incentive to justify that decision. For example, if you buy an electric car, then it will be easier for you to remember about electric information on the merits of cars while ignoring reports on EV issues; if you decide to support a candidate of a certain party, it is easier for you to trust the news that is good for that candidate and not the reports that are bad for him or is actively defending his unfavorable news. Because our brain does not like those cognitions that conflict with our established cognitions, and even actively closes them, and for those signals that match our established cognitions, the brain will happily accept , This is the origin of the often said Confirmation Bias. In this way, perhaps the most rational time for people is when they have a choice but have not yet made a decision?

This theory can also be used to explain many phenomena during the recent epidemic. For example, people who have been vaccinated are more willing to firmly believe that the vaccine can provide protection, and people who have not been vaccinated are more willing to firmly believe that the vaccine can provide protection. It is the conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies and the government. If an area implements a strict policy of clearing and closing customs, it is easier for people there to support epidemic prevention than freedom and ignore the cost of strict blockade, while if an area implements a relatively loose epidemic prevention policy, People there are more inclined to believe that the risk of the virus is not that great. Because people have no way to change their environment and government policies, they will adjust their perception of the epidemic to avoid the discomfort of dissonance.

In fact, this kind of active persuasion to avoid cognitive dissonance is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, no one wants to live in a state of "disagreement of knowledge and action" for a long time. However, we should always remind ourselves that when new information appears, and When our existing beliefs and opinions are inconsistent, or conflict with decisions we have made, it does not mean that the information is wrong or should be ignored. We should consider whether we need to stop and give up our intuition. And rethinking. In addition, I also thought that this further illustrates the harm caused by a single decision maker. After a single decision maker makes a decision, he will also actively avoid or negatively interpret information that is unfavorable for his decision in order to avoid cognitive dissonance. , so that they sincerely believe that their decision is the best and most correct for this country or organization, but the result is often disaster.