Cognitive dissonance can be defined as the state of an individual having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs or attitudes with the dissonance causing distress. Cognitive dissonance is therefore thought to be an undesirable state. I beg to differ. Nature forces us to hold contradictory views in order to understand what we observe. Realisation you may have cognitive dissonance, even if anxiety provoking, can be liberating and provides opportunities for change, to give insights not otherwise visible, so that we can be well balanced rather than cognitively totally integrated. Admittedly, if circumstances, especially extreme circumstances, cannot be changed then cognitive dissonance may be counterproductive.
Cognitive dissonance is not the same as George Orwell's Doublethink in which there is the holding of two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and accepting both. This acceptance is the key difference.
There are two main ways in which people deal with cognitive dissonances. Firstly, ignoring or avoiding (consciously or unconsciously) information that precipitates dissonance (this is common in most politicians) or, secondly, accepting the dissonances. Two ideal, but rarer ways to resolve cognitive dissonances are re-evaluating or justifying one or more of the dissonances.
Some people avoid cognitive dissonances by sublimating their dissonances to external influences including identifying with tribal groups (that their members would prefer to call institutions) that become an integral part of their identity. 'I always voted at my party's call, And never thought of thinking for myself' (WS Gilbert;
HMS Pinafore). Even if the tribal group is initially accepted, inevitably imperfections are present or develop that should produce cognitive dissonances. Many years ago, I was aware of an institutional imperfection that was addressed and successfully resolved. I advocated documentation of the events as a matter of historical record, but I was asked to accept my cognitive dissonances in favour of tribal loyalty to the institution concerned.
A common way for cognitive dissonances to be avoided is for excessively logical people to think without deviating, as if their thoughts were contained in a linear sequence of well-defined boxes that converge towards a destination without branching off to explore side branches. 'If A then B, if B then C…' and so on. Others start off with a box A and experience a dissonance of divergent thinking in which branching leads to other boxes, often with fuzzy borders, that exert changes to what might otherwise have been a strictly logical linear destination. 'If A then B, if B then perhaps C, D, or E.' Some would call this lateral creative thinking. On the other hand, linear thinkers may experience this mode of thinking as a failure to think straight because it can resemble Don Quixote who 'threw himself on his horse and rode off in all directions'.
Mozart was mostly a linear thinking composer. His compositions were written out, often as they were being composed, without alterations. There were some deliberate dissonances but no cognitive dissonances. In contrast, Beethoven was mostly a divergent thinking composer. Many of his compositions were written out with a spider's web of deleted detours and digressions that reveals his ability to address and resolve his melodic cognitive dissonances.
Examples of cognitive dissonances
Some political leaders seemingly do not have the capacity to accept or openly admit their cognitive dissonances. Instead, they conceal them and this enables them to project authority whilst dealing with conflicting interests. When did you last hear a politician say 'I am not certain of the best way to deal with these demands but my judgement is…'. They also claim to serve their country, but events often reveal that they, without realising any cognitive dissonance, often serve their own interests. Some politicians challenge us when they do not openly state: 'Let those that are without sin cast the first stone', but the meaning is there. I have some spare stones available on request.
Pacifists have to accept the cognitive dissonance that some fellow humans had given their lives in order that they could be pacifist.
Health boards have to pay out vast sums of compensation as damages to patients that have not been adequately treated. That each of these individuals deserves compensation is not in doubt. The dissonance is that, as a consequence, such payments disadvantage many more patients because less money is then available.
There are cognitive dissonances between opinions about accommodating illegal immigrants in hotels whilst not offering disadvantaged members of our population the same opportunities.
Some murders are so heinous that those responsible should never be released. A man dowsed his partner with petrol and set her alight. That such individuals deserve long-term, if not necessarily life imprisonment, is not in doubt. Equally not in doubt is the cognitive dissonance that costs of imprisoning such perpetrators (about £40,000 per person a year) reduces opportunities to help similarly predisposed individuals out there in the community to avoid committing such crimes because less money would then be available.
When extremists acknowledge views of the majority or those of opposing extremists, this acknowledgement involves confronting these views such that cognitive dissonances should be produced: 'My mind is made up and I refuse to be confused by the facts'. Extremists by definition are outliers and thus are not in favour of democracy.
Some Americans worship their Constitution yet participate in an insurrection, seemingly unaware of the cognitive dissonances that they should have. Similarly, cognitive dissonances do not occur between some Republicans and Democrats, some Conservatives and Labour supporters, some capitalists and socialists and some right and left-wing supporters.
There is a concept of moral injury when a vision of the world as 'fair' or 'good' is destroyed by events or experiences. Examples include doctors who feel they cannot provide the care that patients should receive, and servicemen and women who have done or witnessed events that contradict their moral inclinations. The currently touted cognitive behavioural therapy has little to offer because these moral cognitive dissonances cannot be reconciled and have to be accepted. People who suffer from these moral cognitive dissonances are more human and humane. Those who have been morally injured should be supported and congratulated rather than thought to require treatment. Those who have no such moral dissonances include leaders who initiate armed conflict knowing that thousands if not millions of lives may be lost.
I am certain that everyone will agree with these thoughts. If you do not agree, then this provides proof that our unshared cognitive dissonances need to be shared, discussed and hopefully resolved.
Philip D Welsby is a retired consultant physician
