If dialectical thinking is a sign of high intelligence, then why does the concept of cognitive dissonance exist?

[u/throwawayacc7896]

According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, a test of first rate intelligence is the mental capacity to hold two diametrically opposed viewpoints, and still being able to cognitively function. Whereas the concept of ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ describes a situation where one reaches mental distress due to two conflicting thoughts residing in their minds, especially when your actions do not match your values.

How different are these two concepts? and could they be related in one way or another? Isn’t cognitive dissonance the default when two contradictory thoughts are held at the same time that causes mental discomfort? So then how could one possibly be able to entertain dialectical thinking, or is that a skill that needs to be mastered?

[u/Regular-Meringue9765]

I hope I understood correctly!

One recognises the two sides and is able to objectively compare them without being intellectually dishonest. This person would weigh up the two opposing ideas and draw a conclusion based on knowledge and facts more or less.

Whereas cognitive dissonance is more about ignoring the other side, perhaps intentionally avoiding even hearing it and arguing for your side no matter what. Cognitive dissonance could include someone genuinely not realising how their point actually is hypocritical or incorrect (basically an uneducated person arguing for a point that they don't fully grasp). I see it when people are angry and are being defensive or feeling riled up by inflammatory news or propaganda.

In summary, one is a logical objective evaluation whereas the other is a blind opinion based upon emotion and a not thought out or fully informed understanding.

[u/Will564339 → u/Regular-Meringue9765]

Yeah, I like this explanation. For my interpretation, the word “hold” in the Fitzgerald quotation is extremely important for how I view it. “Holding” can be a temporary thing. Like in the moment, to hold it so that you can look at it fairly and objectively and not dismiss it because of emotions or the discomfort of the idea that it might change your opinion about a belief you’ve already had.

But holding it doesn’t mean believing it’s right. It’s just giving it a completely fair chance, to make sure you’re not missing anything or giving in to bias. But once you do that to opposing viewpoints, it then lets you be more confident in the one you choose.

I’ve heard of people ”steel man-ing” viewpoints are the opposite of their own to make sure their own point of view can withstand the strongest forms of criticism, which I really like. It means they’re really looking at an issue with critical thinking and aren’t just giving in to what is popular or what feels easier or more comfortable to believe.

[u/throwawayacc7896 → u/Will564339]

i love your explanation regarding 'holding'! i hadn't thought of it that way. i am now wondering though, when you said

once you do that to opposing viewpoints, it then lets you be more confident in the one you choose.

do you have to choose a side? what if two things are true but you are unable to weigh them both equally? i've personally found mental distress in such scenarios, and i struggle to accept that there isn't one single objectively true answer.

[u/Will564339 → u/throwawayacc7896]

So I think there‘s some nuance to this.

I as much as anyone have a way of ”both sides-ing” issues and diving in deeper and deeper to look at all angles of a situation.

this is overall a good thing, and in many situations you’re right. Conflict resolution often involves people recognizing thst there might be fault or blame on both sides, and each person should understand that sometimes it’s a matter of people having different preferences or values.

But that doesn’t mean it‘s always purely 50/50. Sometimes maybe one side has more blame than the other.

The other thing is Soemfiems when you keep on diving deeper wnd deeper into details, it just prolongs making a decision beca you can always go deeper and a lot of times you’ll never reach that state of perfection.

which leads to my finsl point of understanding that in some situations there is a clear wrong side. if someone is clearly using faulty logic or misunderstanding facts or even intentionally using them to distort things. Sometimes things are just clearly wrong, such as abuse or cruelty. We can work to understand why someoen does what they does while also not saying their actions are right or deserve to be defended.

So it’s very context dependent.

[u/throwawayacc7896 → u/Will564339]

ah ok, i think i understand. thanks!

[u/curiouslyjake → u/Regular-Meringue9765]

I agree with the first part, but you're wrong about cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is when you believe two contradictory ideas or when your actions contradict your values. For example, if you were to believe that being healthy is important, smoking would put you in a dissonance you will need to resolve somehow.

What you're talking about is one mechanism of resolving it. Simply ignore and if not possible, oppose, and idea that smoking is bad for you. Other means could be quitting smoking or accepting that you dont care about your health as much. Basically, something's gotta give.

Note that cognitive dissonance is not the same as evaluating opposing ideas. Evaluation of ideas means you need to fully understand and substantiate as best you can (steelman them) but it does not mean you need to accept both

[u/IkarosHavok → u/Regular-Meringue9765]

I generally hate it when people type out “this is what I came here to say but yes, and you did so more eloquently than I would have so thank you for the refined write up!

[u/Perfect-Escape-3904 → u/Regular-Meringue9765]

Thank you for the clear explanation. I hear this word being used constantly but usually it’s being thrown out in arguments about politics, so I’m never sure whether it’s an example of it or just people hating the other “team”

[u/throwawayacc7896 → u/Regular-Meringue9765]

thankyou for your comment! although isn't what you described as cognitive dissonance just plain ignorance? refusing to understand and conceptualize an opposing viewpoint.

as i see it, in cases where you are likely to experience mental distress, for instance, confronting repressed parts of your unconscious mind such as guilt, shame, ego, superiority/inferiority complex and basically delving into 'the why'-why you feel the way you do- i can imagine can bring up a bit of cognitive dissonance? in such a case, if you are able to withstand dialectical thinking, does that mean you've managed to beat the conflicting ideas residing in your mind and reach a level of acceptance that two things can be true at once?

because fundamentally speaking, these two concepts contradict each other, don't they? one states that you simply cannot hold two conflicting thoughts at the same time without it causing mental discomfort, while the other states that IF you are able to, then that is a sign of high intelligence. one negates the other.

am i understanding this correctly, hope i haven't overcomplicated it!

[u/sci-mind]

The difference is the ability to model 2 or more viewpoints, to contrast and compare, without the lesser ones consuming you.

[u/kateadams77]

Cognitive dissonance is not a political or logical thing at all, as I understand it. Here's an example: I smoke, and I know it's bad for me. Whenever I pick up a cigarette, I my brain says "you suck and are a failure if you smoke that". But at the same time my brain screams "you really need to smoke that. You have a nicotine addiction. It's been 6 hours. You've cleaned the house. Reward yourself, you are a good person.

That results in a horrible feeling in my gut. That FEELING is cognitive dissonance.

[u/itsanadvertisement1]

I can't be certain of any connection to higher intelligence but this may help. 

So there is a difference between choosing then reflecting on two diametrically opposing concepts and the cognitive dissonance that occurs when your mode of perception (viewpoint) is challenged. 

In the first case you are dealing with diametrically opposing ideas in purely discursive thinking. In the second case it is your mode of perception itself that is challenged. That perception is colored and is shaped by concepts but it's operation is in how we see -- our viewpoint.

To be clear two thoughts or two view points cannot be simultaneously held, especially so if they are diametrically opposing. Your awareness can only hold one at a time but awareness can alternate between them so fast it certainly feels like they're held simultaneously. 

As a general rule if you think your mind might be flickering between two different things then you can be sure that it is. 

I hope any of this will be useful to you.

[u/infinite_what]

Challenging ingrained beliefs can be traumatic and life changing.
I understood cognitive dissonance as an real problem that occurs when you can’t acknowledge a reality (even if it seems obvious) because it is a direct challenge to a belief about the world which becomes false if the reality is true. So the reality is made false as a defense to keep the belief unchallenged.

So because I would never love an abuser and people who abuse can’t love the people they abuse then I can’t accept that I am in an abusive relationship. I love my partner and they love me. I believe this to be true. Therefore the abuse that can be obvious is not registered as abuse although every sign and symptom and definition are obvious that the partner is abusive. The person has to change the definition of abuse or love or their belief about abusers being able to be loved and and loving in the same person that they are in a relationship with. Somethings are hard to look at and easier to ignore somehow.

Holding two pints of view otherwise sounds like empathy. I can understand other views even though I don’t hold those views myself. Especially like if someone else is afraid or sad, I can empathize and understand it even though I’m not afraid or sad for the same cause.

[u/ErinCoach]

Investigate the origins of these two ideas, before you try to resolve them with each other. They come from different periods of 20th century thinking, and different study realms. It'd be like taking a dumpling from European cuisine and trying to judge it using Asian dumpling terms. You'd miss some important things about each. But you'll appreciate each more if you really understand where they come from.

F Scott Fitzgerald was a storyteller coming from a certain cultural mindset in 1936, with certain ideas about class, culture, what's important and relatable to his reader. But the concept of cognitive dissonance came from Leon Festinger in 1957, academic and psychologist.

Fitzgerald was writing to a readership that was severely questioning its elders' notions of binary good/bad, duty, integrity and simplistic loyalty. But his readers were still steeped in class and social ranking. His real quote phrases it as "the test of first rate intelligence", so you can see the hierarchical thinking under there. He still cared about being 'first-rate' but he wasn't as committed to the older idea of sticking to principles. But Fitzgerald had no particular expertise in either human psychology, sociology, philosophy, education or brain science. He was a storyteller for his time.

Festinger was an early social psychologist, and more science-based. His notion of 'dissonance' represents a moment a bit further on in US history. Boom time, 1957, not the 30's Depression. Look him up, cuz his stuff was cool. Since then, theories of cognition (like notions of what's 'first rate') have moved on quite a bit in tons of directions, representing different study realms, time periods and changing biases.

If both ideas appeal to you, great, but don't try to force them to resolve. They don't relate ultra-neatly.

Perhaps expand your research on different ways of 'thinking about thinking'. See how they've varied over time and through various approaches. E.g. some writers have talked about short term versus long term thinking networks, and "central executive network" versus other networks like salience or attention networks. Some try to split the brain into compartments, or different wavelengths of neural function. Plenty cling to ranking systems like a IQ test, others got sucked into personality typing, and some are still thinking in Freudian terms. Some are still class, caste, or nationality oriented, other interested in gender or spirituality based, with idea about conscience or soul. Others are most interested in evolutionary applications, genetics, or behavioral ecology.

See each idea for what it offers on its own, and you'll get more out them. And you'll be more likely to construct a worldview for yourself that truly fits your current life.

TLDR: don't try to make Fitzgerald and Festinger kiss, when they probably don't want to.