I was listening to Talk of the Nation's Science Friday today and they had a good show on cognitive dissonance and bias. Basically the idea of why it's hard to know when your wrong. Most of the research has been around a long time although the show put it together nicely. Roughly the brain doesn't like to be wrong on major things so you don't even know when you are wrong. This manifests itself in various ways. One interesting one is the fact that the harder it is to join a group the more you tend to support the group. The other is that the higher "cost" of a bad decision makes you deny that it was bad. All of these are happening very low level in the brain and it's very easy to miss it.
What surprised me was one call that claimed there was tons of evidence Mormonism was false and that people like Mitt Romney must be suffering remarkable cognitive dissonance. The insinuation being that anyone who could suffer such dissonance shouldn't be President. It sure sounded like one of the regular anti-Mormons I've met who absolutely love to talk about cognitive dissonance. (You can find some of their comments here at my blog if you search) Now I think this was unfortunate for several reasons. For one the evidence is much more complex and open than the caller suggests. (Although I'm not interested in getting into such apologetic discussions here) More interesting to me is that often the very people crying "cognitive dissonance" the most are often most guilty of it themselves. That is they can't imagine being wrong about Mormonism. So rather than question their preconceptions of it they simply assume despite all evidence that all Mormons are idiots. It's kind of a funny example of irony.
Now are Mormons particularly prone to cognitive dissonance? I don't think so. I think it a basic cognitive feature of the human mind. The Science Friday show offered an interesting theory on why this structure would be selected. Clearly it takes energy to deal with bad decisions. It's thus in the best interests of the person to not spend too much time on unimportant bad decisions - as merely an optimization of mental resources if nothing else. One can also point to various kinds of mental illness that can emerge due to very bad decisions one makes and the attempt to grapple with them. Repressing the idea that one is thinking badly is perhaps a bit of a survival technique. Especially in very primitive societies where choices are often one of many bad options.
Anyway, where I think Mormons might have a bit of a problem is in our reliance on personal revelation. I think most Mormons acknowledge the problems inherent in this. But as one is searching for God's guidance how do we distinguish between what is of God and what is our own thinking? Further, especially if we make bad choices, how do we react? Do we simply pin the decision on God and thus deny our responsibility? I think in that sense there is a danger. Yet, I think that the evidence is overwhelming that everyone does this to some degree. Perhaps not pinning the idea on God, but at least in terms of abrogating responsibility. If anything the mere fact we are responsible for understanding revelation (and acting on it) entails the potential of greater, not less, taking of responsibility.
However clearly most Mormons have encountered people who perhaps are less than humble in how they act towards God and their surety of decisions. It is an interesting question, although I don't think it ends up developing the way some anti-Mormons portray it.
It seems that Mormons are more prone to cognitive dissonance when you consider the high cost of membership. All the behaviors which mark a person as a faithful member of the community require a heavy investment of time and energy. A faithful Mormon will avoid the idea that the investment is for naught. Just like you noted: "One interesting one is the fact that the harder it is to join a group the more you the more you tend to support the group." This is a point of vulnerability for Mormons which should cause introspection and caution.
Whether this makes Mormons more prone to cognitive dissonance than average isn't really a useful question. The more useful question would be whether a person's belief is inappropriately propped up by their avoidance of the pain of cognitive dissonance. This is a question everyone should be willing to ask themselves, not just Mormons.
"[T]he brain doesn't like to be wrong on major things ..." Well, that's an interesting way for us to pass the cog diss buck along. "Me, I'm perfectly happy to admit when I'm wrong; it's my stubborn brain that doesn't like to be wrong about things ..." I'm not sure we can really blame the brain.
Whether cog diss is a property of brains or our neural wiring or our mental archetypes or just "human nature," it's pretty clear it is not some form of mental disease or weakness but simply an aspect of how we all think and process information. Which, as you point out, makes its incessant use by Exmos quite misplaced. What they are really engaged in is an extended exercise in trying figure out how they themselves once believed in something they no longer believe anymore. It's sort of an ironic form of public therapy -- ironic because they don't realize that's what they are doing, although it is fairly apparent to everyone else.
The issue of difficult of joining and Mormonism is an interesting one Jonathan. Is Mormonism harder to join than say the Marines? Certainly not. What about joining academia? Definitely not. It's actually fairly easy. If you were born a member it's very easy. Now if you had family persecution and the like it's harder. Still we do ask more than what most faiths do. 10% tithing. No drinking. No sex before marriage. So I think there is something to this. Perhaps this is why religions that demand more end up with better retention as compared to more "liberal" religion? I don't know. I definitely agree it can't be discounted.
Perhaps to the 25 year old guy who'd spent two years on a mission he paid for, avoided his friends offering drugs and alcohol, the temptations of sex and so forth it really does seem more like cognitive dissonance. As I was listening to the show I thought about that for sure.
I think the problem of too readily raising cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias is that when applied to others it often is a way of discounting their reasoning. However what it ought do for us as individuals, as you hint, is bring great humility and a desire to check ourselves.
Dave, as one who frequents ex-Mormon circles, I see what you mean about cognitive dissonance: "I'm a smart person, so why did I believe that stuff that seems patently false to me now? I must have been conned by my leaders and controlled by peer pressure. It wasn't my fault. That's the only reasonable way to explain it." Your point is well taken. I'll have to keep an eye out for that.
Clark, I agree that a lot of those critical of Mormonism cite cognitive dissonance rather indiscriminately and without understanding. Sometimes I wonder if they really know what it is.
There's an interesting illusion called the introspective illusion that I've been meaning to post about for a while. The introspective illusion is so named because it involves overly relying on our own introspective evidence over external evidence, while overly discounting other people's introspective evidence in favor of external evidence. The reason we do this is fairly simple: while most of us are fully aware that everyone, including ourselves, is subject to irrational reasoning, bias, and other sources of error, when we reach a conclusion or make a decision, we reason thusly: I can't have reached this conclusion/decision through irrational reasoning or bias, because if I had, I would change my mind.
It's not surprising, then, that we're quick to believe that others are suffering from cognitive dissonance, but unlikely to notice it in our own thoughts. Since Mormons are a minority, often seen as either a social or doctrinal threat to the main religion in our country, and at least seen as heresy (being non-trinitarian and all) or a cult (as many recently-born, non-orthodox religions tend to be seen), people are likely to believe that errors in reasoning went into people's believing in Mormon doctrine.
But it's important to be careful in attributing cognitive dissonance to someone, as the term is often misapplied. Regardless of the veracity of Mormonism, and whatever the evidence for or against it, it's pretty clear that Mitt Romney is not actively experiencing dissonance, and it's obvious that he's not experiencing high levels of it.
People (healthy people, at least) simply don't experience cognitive dissonance for long. When they do experience it, they always actively attempt to reduce it by changing their beliefs in one way or another. That's not to say that a Catholic, for example, confronted with evidence in conflict with one of their beliefs (say the virgin birth), and thereby experiencing dissonance, will become an ex-Catholic. It just means that person will likely alter his or her beliefs in such a way that they're not longer in conflict with the thoughts produced by the evidence. In the Catholic example, they may change the specific content of their Catholic beliefs (by de-emphasizing the virgin birth, by arguing that the virgin birth occurred in a way consistent with the evidence, and so on), they may find further evidence that shows the previous evidence to be mistaken (e.g., looking at other historical records and emphasizing those), they may come up with reasons why the source of the evidence is dubious, etc. Once they've altered their beliefs, they're no longer actively experiencing dissonance. If people aren't modifying their beliefs, they're not currently experiencing dissonance. They may have at one time experienced dissonance due to a particular belief, but they probably got rid of it pretty quickly.
And it's also important to remember that there are other, perhaps more common things going on than cognitive dissonance (cognitive dissonance theorists like Aronson tend to see it everywhere, but then, they're invested in the theory -- when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail). The most notable is probably confirmation bias. Instead of experiencing and then reducing dissonance, we're damn good at avoiding it altogether. We do this by actively searching for confirming evidence, over-emphasizing that evidence, and ignoring or de-emphasizing disconfirming evidence. So just because you and I see what we take as obvious evidence against the virgin birth doesn't mean that our Catholic does and is therefore experiencing, or has experienced, dissonance asa a result of that evidence.
It's a shame, it seems to me, when people believe that people of a particular religion, or religious people in general, must be frequently experiencing dissonance. I myself have been guilty of this. There was a time, when I was young, that I believed that all religion was the product of attempts to reduce dissonance. Life is purposeless, ethics have to be chosen rather than dictated, and so on, but people believed, or at least wanted to believe, that their lives had meaning, that ethics were universal and objective, etc., so they came up with sets of beliefs that allowed them to hold those views by reinterpreting the world around them. But that, and any view that religion is associated with unusual amounts of dissonance, is going to be seriously overly simplistic. For one, it ignores the fact that people (including we atheists) interpret the evidence they encounter through the lenses of their beliefs, so that evidence will say different things to different people. And it ignores the fact that dissonance is a social phenomenon. That is, people tend to experience it, even in private, because they don't want to be perceived as being wrong, or hypocritical, or what have you. Since most people are religious, and since we're likely to surround ourselves with people who share our religious beliefs, it's unlikely that we feel much anxiety about being perceived as being wrong about our religious beliefs, and therefore it's unlikely that we're going to experience much dissonance about them.
Chris, I was going to bring it up in my original post but didn't. But don't you think confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are related cognitively? It seems that at least both are always actively at play and at most they may both have identical subprocess at work. (For at least part of the processing)
I think the "cost of membership" issue for members raised Mormon has more to do with family pressure than "standards" per se. This is similar in other religions of course, but perhaps only to the same extent in Catholicism and Judaism because of claims of exclusivity....
Robert, I think that's true for some people who attempt to join. On my mission I had one woman who'd had some remarkable experiences when studying. Then a few days before her scheduled baptism she gave back the Book of Mormon with a note. (She wouldn't even open the door) She was in her 70's but the note said she believed but that her family told her if she joined a "white church" they'd throw her out on the street. People who've gone through that kind of opposition obviously have a high cost of membership. Interestingly this was true of many early members in the 19th century when joining Mormonism would have been considered quite scandalous in some circles. I halfway wonder if this was why they stayed with the Church despite the amazing opposition from the 1840's on up. (In those days you could be killed for being a Mormon)
Now of course for people leaving the Church who have a lot of family who get upset you have something similar. I've long wondered if some of the reason you get anti-Mormons is because of this. There once again is a kind of high cost of "initiation" in whatever group joined. (Perhaps the RFM "group"?) So one suddenly associates with this group in a different way precisely because of the subconsciously perceived cost of membership.
If so (and obviously I doubt this true of most who decide to cease being Mormon) then it would explain a lot. It would once again be ironic as well since this would entail the folks making the "cognitive dissonance" charge being most guilty of it.
Once again, standard caveats, I think most who leave Mormonism for intellectual reasons are pretty sincere and while they might be peeved at lost opportunities, it ultimately isn't a big deal for them.
This reminds me of an article in Time Magazine "Romney's Mormon Question" which discusses if Romney's faith should be in question. It points out a quote by Slate editor Jacob Weisberg referring to Joseph Smith as a con man, and Weisbery is quoted as writing "Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country."
I agree that cognitive dissonance is what keeps most religious people tied to their beliefs, and more especially Mormons. However, I would agree with Chris, that cognitive dissonance isn’t necessarily experienced more by Mormons than by anyone else. They often hang around and listen to people of their own faith. It’s also important to note that there isn’t anything wrong with having frequent cognitive dissonance as long as you are able to admit that you’re wrong and change your ideas. Everyone has various ideas and philosophies that are wrong. If you never experienced cognitive dissonance, what would ever make you realize you were wrong and change your ideas?
In the case of Romney, it shouldn’t be a matter of religion as much as good leadership. With all of the different Presidents we’ve had, which ones had the most impact for good on this country? Which religions did they belong to? What makes you think that Romney would do a poor job as President based on his religious beliefs right or wrong?
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble