Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 77081873.png (37KB, 396x400px) Image search:
[Google]
37KB, 396x400px
When a person holds an objectively wrong belief and is met with something that proves it objectively wrong, it causes cognitive dissonance if the person doesn't accept the truth.
But what about a subjective belief? They are completely arbitrary and can't be wrong or right for they are just personal opinions.(ex. Action X is moral; food B is unholy)
When a person that holds a subjective belief is met with a different or opposite belief, if that person doesn't accept it, can we still talk about cognitive dissonance or it's something else?
Plus, what do you think about completely refusing to change your subjective beliefs? Is it a good or bad thing for you? And why?
>>
>>17726252
One more thing: in The third period for"different or opposte beliefs" I'm still talking about subjective beliefs.
>>
Errr...
>>
>>17726252
Great question, actually had to do some research on this one.
Cognitive dissonance is actually just refusal to change opinions, yet you're still inconsistent with them. Basically, it's not admitting you're wrong. Cognitive dissonance is commonly observed in social behaviour. When someone has an inconsistent attitude or belief. Basically like Hillary Clinton. Realistically, all you can do is make someone THINK. Everyone experiences and causes cognitive dissonance during any form of debate or even a conversation. So yes, it would still be cognitive dissonance, as it is not OBJECTIVE denial of truth. It would more likely be inconsistency of thought and/or actions.
>>
>>17726252
>>17726292
Ex. When people smoke (behaviour) but they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition)
>>
>>17726292
Thanks for the answer!
So, if I got this right:
When we talk about objective dissonance it's about denial of truth.
When we talk about subjective dissonance it's about if you're actually being consistent with what you believe.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1