Cognitive Dissonance: A tool of manipulation that divides us

What is CD:

The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people are averse to inconsistencies within their own minds. It offers one explanation for why people sometimes make an effort to adjust their thinking when their own thoughts, words, or behaviors seem to clash with each other.

When one learns new information that challenges a deeply held belief, for example, or acts in a way that seems to undercut a favorable self-image, that person may feel motivated to somehow resolve the negative feeling that results—to restore cognitive consonance.

Possible ways to handle it:

It can lead us to examine our beliefs and adjust them, if necessary, to fit our feelings and actions. In the process, we may uncover subconscious beliefs (such as the negative feeling around people with red scarfs when someone in our childhood who wore red scarves was mean to us) and through conscious effort change the belief. Or we can examine our actions and feeling and change those through conscious effort to match our beliefs.

Less constructive methods ;

The problem is our beliefs can be manipulated by forces outside of our conscious effort to control our actions ( I highly recommend you watch this on PBS https://www.pbs.org/video/us-vs-them-2t0c0s/) We see this everyday in marketing campaigns. Most of these manipulations use our need to feel good about ourselves by associating their product and/or service with being a good, desirable, or successful person.

CD can help us change our lens and view things in a different way, or it can lead us to disregard evidence that is counter to our belief and create an artificial reality. In the current environment of mass media (and it’s advertising techniques in delivering the news, the presentation in reality shows, as well as social media especially when based on short bursts of information) can lead to the more divisive practice of judgement and degradation of those who disagree as a way to justify the projected reality. How this artificial reality keeps us from getting to purple is what this post will address.

Understanding the dangers of the artificial reality:

At its most vivid, CD shows its destruction of logic and a protection of the lens in cults. As an example:

Members of Heaven’s Gate, a religious cult, believed that as the Hale-Bopp comet passed by Earth in 1997, a spaceship would be traveling in its wake—ready to take true believers aboard. Several members of the group purchased an expensive, high-powered telescope so that they might get a clearer view of the comet. They quickly brought it back and asked for a refund. When the manager asked why, they complained that the telescope was defective, because it didn’t show the spaceship following the comet. A short time later, believing that they would be rescued once they had shed their “earthly containers” (their bodies), all 39 members killed themselves.

For many in a cult, they associate their self-image with the cult. The cult makes them feel special and worthwhile. To question the cult or accept evidence contrary to its teachings is akin to questioning one’s own self-worth. Any evidence that questions the teaching of the cult must be either explained away, ignored with a dismissive virtual wave of the hand, or a degradation of the source ( a faulty telescope of the source of information is from the left or right political side). Everything must be done to protect the beliefs and actions of the cult and its leaders or the individual member’s self-image is at risk. Even when suicide is ordered, the issue never becomes "does this make sense", but rather centers around the issue of.... if I am worthwhile, I will honor the order, and I am not worthwhile if I don’t. The more a person lacks a strong self-image, the stronger is the association with the cult and greater the depth of defense of its teachings. At the core of a cult is control of information flow, elimination of questions via fear of reprisal, and the daily inundation of emotional presentations usually tied into quick catchy marketing phrases and us against them scenarios. (Of course, this is not a deep dive into psychology, and I am not an expert. It is simply a laymen’s view and observations that will hopefully get us thinking and asking questions).

Present day example:

I am not here to say we should be or should not be wearing a mask. I am addressing how the way the issue is being handled might be playing a role in dividing us. I will address Trump's positive test in the post on COVID specifically)

CD is what allows many to accept the benefits of wearing masks ( I am not saying we should not wear cloth masks, I am examining the WAY we got to the conclusion and how it divides us and moves the line versus getting to purple) as an example. The CDC and Dr. Fauci now say we should wear masks, backed by non-descriptive catch phrases like “As we know more we do better” or “ Wear a mask and save a life” . These catch phrases are being used to explain their flip flop on the issue between March 2020 and April 2020. What they learned between March and April is not as heavily publicized as the marketing campaigns that position the wearing of a mask as what a "good" person does to slow the spread. There are two explanations on the flip-flop that I have seen:

One is they learned that the primary way the disease is spread is via person to person contact (droplets) versus the initial belief it was more commonly spread via contact with infected surfaces.

The second is because the supply of masks was initially low, they basically manipulated us to not wear them so more would be available for healthcare workers.

Many of us have a self-image that we are non-biased and rational people who rely on science (unlike those irrational emotional, stupid people who question it) so we accept the word of these “scientist” even though in the latter explanation they clearly manipulated us initially. In the first explanation above I wonder why we do not hear this evidence over and over again. Why is it not marketed with the same passion as "save a life... wear a mask". Shouldn't the way it saves a life be presented over and over so those who resist can change their minds?

Of course the first scenario (the virus is passed mostly by direct contact with an infected person) does not offer a complete examination of all the factors (viral loads, risks to the wearer etc.) There was a study I believe back in the 70's that showed the wearing of masks in hospitals might in fact spread viruses more rapidly due to the touching of the face and contamination. (I am not saying that study is right). Also in 2015 and again in 2018 nurses in Ontario Canada won a lawsuit against the forced wearing of masks because of viruses such as influenza with scientific experts serving as witnesses :

For a more complete article see https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ona-wins-second-decision-on-unreasonable-and-illogical-vaccinate-or-mask-influenza-policies-692687881.html

ONA's well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was insufficient evidence to support the St. Michael's policy and no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals. They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask. Arbitrator Kaplan accepted this expert evidence. In contrast, he noted the only fair words to describe the hospital's evidence in support of masking are "insufficient, inadequate and completely unpersuasive."

If anyone currently even questions the CDC recommendation (such as does it not make more sense to have people, especially the most vulnerable, choose to wear N95 masks for self-protection versus mandating everyone wear cloth masks to protect others) they are labeled as placing the inconvenience of wearing a mask over human life. This black and white judgement takes the place of a full examination of the questions. To get to purple, those who resist must be allowed to at least ask questions and receive answers versus catchy sayings. Instead, the protection of one's self-image forces the “believer” to see themselves as a good person and the one who questions or disagrees as a bad person. There can be no investigation of the validity of the question, the need for research, and any research that is counter must be eliminated or at least suppressed. The viability of wearing masks must be reinforced with a strong marketing campaign where the importance of it is constantly presented and becomes more and more important, until one can point to the campaign and despite a lack of answers to the resister's questions to support it, say, “ See I am right in believing” as the marketing campaign replaces deep investigation. The campaign justifies itself. In the case of wearing masks we went from wearing them being not recommended, to wearing them being recommended, to a mandate to wear them, to them being the number one focal point of stopping the spread of the virus during the recent spike, all in a few months ( I'll address the effect of Trump's positive test in another post). To show how deep is the divide I had one believer tell me the reason they don't give answers, and in fact block counter opinions and research is because most people don't have the intelligence to understand the science. While I can respect this person's honesty, it is a clear example of why we are divided. This person expressed their need to impose the beliefs of the 'intelligent" on the "stupid" ( this person's word). I question if this position is more about their need to be "right" than fixing our division and getting to purple.

Question: Do you believe most people lack the intelligence to understand the reasons for wearing a mask and need to be saved from themselves by the more intelligent?

I totally agree ____

I somewhat agree _____

I don't agree _____

As with cults this divisive view is necessary to keep control, even as its proponents stand up and preach inclusiveness (because of course they are the “good” people). I am not saying wearing cloth masks is wrong. I am saying the questions are legitimate (see the above scientific expert testimony in the Ontario nurses' case) and answering them is an opportunity to get us to purple. A switch of the image of a "good person" being one who supports wearing masks, to the image of being a good person" being someone who respects the opinion of others and is willing to explore challenging questions with them, would be a step to purple. To avoid the questions and ignore the opinion of scientific experts who disagree is akin to return the telescope because it must be defective.

Here are some of the resisters' questions:

1) Do masks only help if we are within social distancing. If so and we are practicing social distancing, how much help is it to wear them all the time?

2) Do they pose a risk to the wearer: touching your face more often, contamination of the mask, oxygen levels ( most studies say there is no low oxygen risk and the trouble people have breathing is in their heads but I wonder if that alone is an issue. I also wonder why then do they not recommend them for young children or for people with breathing problems).

3) What are the research studies that show wearing a mask has helped in "like" communities? ( The only ones I have seen showed that the infection rate went down when masks were mandated by 0.9% in a short period and down by 2.0% over time. These studies did not evaluate other factors that may have contributed.)

a) What is the research and evidence that is we all wore masks the next 3 months the death rate would be cut in half?

4) Is the risk to over 300,000,000 wearers worth the seemingly small decrease in the infection rate?

5) The CDC and WHO recently brought into question if asymptomatic people are contagious. Yet the main reason for everyone wearing a mask is to protect people from asymptomatic infected people. Of course pre-symptomatic people are contagious.

6) The viral load from an infected person's sneeze within social distancing is not enough, according to WHO and the CDC, to infect any but the moist vulnerable. Is the risk of wearing masks for 300,000,000 people significantly less that the risk to maybe 250,000 vulnerable people who might have one of the 250,000 infected people sneeze or cough on them from a distance less than social distancing requirements? ( 250,000 number is just for illustration)

7) Would it be better to have the most vulnerable wear N95 masks?

Question: Do you feel anyone asking these questions is of lower intelligence?

I totally agree ____

I somewhat agree _____

I don't agree _____

Question: Do you feel anyone who puts someone down for asking these questions is simply controlling and trying to impose their beliefs?

I totally agree ____

I somewhat agree _____

I don't agree ____

Question: As you answer the above questions, do you feel some anxiousness that might be a sense of a threat to your self-image?

I totally agree ____

I somewhat agree _____

I don't agree ____

Again I am not saying there are not unbiased answers to the above questions that would support wearing a mask. I am saying they need to be presented to the public with the same passion and intensity as the marketing campaigns. We can not say simply trust the experts because as we see above even the experts disagree between themselves (those who disagree today are silenced by the media). Instead of getting and presenting the answers many turn to the judgement of people who resist. Why, because their self-image is at stake and to give credence to the legitimacy of the questions is a conflict. If they question the sources that they relate to, they question themselves. The first step to get to purple is ask why do we not have the answers to the questions those who resist are asking? Should we not have them even before we make a mandate and start judging those who resist? Are there some people who are using this as a tool to get more of the circle?

The resisters are not off the hook. They see the mandate as controlling and having the beliefs of others imposed on them. But is that the case? I can see evidence that some leaders who would gain money and power via increasing their portion of the circle might be using this issue to manipulate and divide the population, but is that true of the “believers” in the general public. The “resisters” are also passing judgement on the “believers”. Their way of handling CD is a connection to those who resist. The see themselves as real Americans. They defend the constitution. To seek real answers from the “believers” and being open to the possibility of the necessity of wearing masks calls into question their own vision of self-worth. Maybe they could ask why the “believers” believe and have real discussion around the common ground of both sides IE: valuing life.

If we were willing to explore our beliefs and look at our actions, and be willing to change them (whether or not you do is not the issue) perhaps we could move toward purple. We could decide that people who wear red scarfs are not mean and treat them with openness. If we believe in inclusion, maybe we could see where we exclude and change that behavior. Our exploration, asking questions and exploring the world as well as understanding the lens of others not just ourselves can lead us all to cherishing the sovereignty of the individual. We can change our lens and what we allow ourselves to see and expand ourselves without threatening our self-image. Cognitive Dissonance can be a tool away from division and toward purple. The first step is being aware how others use it to manipulate us.