Have you ever come across some valid information that challenges your view of the world? I really hope you have, because otherwise you’re not very informed.
But, when your ideas are challenged, it can be really emotionally hard. You can feel anxious, or angry, or confused, or even hurt or guilty. These are all super common, super valid feelings.
But usually having a more accurate view of the world is more important some temporary pain. Knowing things is essential for making a positive difference in your issue(s) of choice, and your view of the world plays a part in all of your daily interactions.
So, how do you get past the icky feelings and actually consider the information? I’ve been forming my own strategy for a while.
Step one: take a deep breath. Take your eyes off of whatever is giving you dissonance (don’t worry, we’ll get back to it later) and work through your emotions for a bit. Once you feel just a bit calmer, move on to step two.
Step two: Ask yourself “what is my goal?”
An example of what I mean: you’re reading negative information about an organization you like. Is your goal to support that organization no matter what, or to support what you thought that organization stood for? Personally, my goals tend toward the bigger picture, and it usually boils down to: “My goal is to help people.”
If you’re like me, once you realize your true goal, you can manage to go through negative information about that group you like because your goal is to help people, not necessarily help a specific organization. And, in order to help people in the best way, you need the information.
Step 3: Read/watch/look at the thing causing you dissonance. Consume it critically, just as you should any piece of media. Don’t accept everything at face value, but don’t write it off, either.
Step 4: Reassess your standpoint. It might have changed, or it might not have. Maybe it shifted just a bit one way or another. Any way, you are now a bit more informed. And that’s always a good place to be.
“Cognitive dissonance is not a delusion, it’s a feature, it’s human nature. So we, in the science community, are looking for an explanation why climate change deniers, or extreme skeptics, do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change. The most reasonable explanation is you have a worldview. And then you have evidence, and the evidence disagrees with your worldview. So you deny the evidence and then along with that, you deny the authorities that are providing the evidence. Now, if you have a better hypothesis for why climate deniers deny the overwhelming scientific evidence, bring it on. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming; so, we’re looking for an explanation for why you guys are having so much trouble with this.”
— Bill Nye, during yet another instance where his presence on Fox News is used (by Tucker Carlson) to lambaste Nye, talk over/interrupt him repeatedly, misquote and slander him directly, get under his skin in an attempt to undermine his credibility and position on climate change as a socially active public figure communicating science and the dangers of ignorance, whilst devoting the entire segment to a specific and irrelevant question Carlson wanted answered which doesn’t address key problems right now we must plan for, the technologies and viable solutions already being implemented, what other countries have already done, the dense aroma of climate change denial and corruption that is the Trump Administration, nor – v important - Tucker Carlson’s intimate relationship and involvement with the Koch Brothers and their Heritage Foundation, a right-wing “think denial tank” that pours hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process to dissuade action on climate change. Simultaneously, Nye utilizes his presence on the program to expose the defensive and passive aggressive nature of Carlson and Fox News as a self-proclaimed “fair and balanced” source of news and information, with which millions of Americans rely on to form their own world views and perspectives on imperative issues of our time and the future of subsequent generations.
I think it’s so funny how liberals will condemn people on not believing in science when it comes to global climate change or evolution but when it comes to pretty solid incontrovertible science like “only females menstruate” science is baloney. science doesn’t know everything, science doesn’t know my feels.
A-spec person: Omg, it’s amazing that Garnet is aroace!
Aphobes: No! Garnet just doesn’t want to date men, and had never shown any interest in anyone! She’s obviously a lesbian. End of story! Stop stealing representation from other people who have planted their headcanon flag in a character already!!!
A-spec person: Whoa, Yuuri Katsuki is really relatable to how I have experienced being asexual!
Aphobes: No! We somehow know Yuuri feels sexual attraction! Why can’t you leave our representation alone? We know secretly that all a-spec people are cishet, so stop trying to pretend that you’re not! Why can’t you just be happy with the representation that you already have???????
Aphobe: Hey, did you all see this Jughead guy? Omg, he’s definitely gay.
do people really not see the irony of habitually telling women to choke and die, then turning around and calling them violent just because they want to have a space where they don’t have to interact with the people who are regularly telling them to choke and die?
He’s always wanted power though, and wanted to rule the city. I think he’s suffering from a case of a lack of foresight - he thought he wanted it, and now it’s a bit boring, so he’s setting up challenges and things like “oh maybe we can get ourselves into Iron Heights” or “oh there’s a vault that would be a challenge to crack” to try and placate himself.
There’s some cognitive dissonance there (like the classical sense of cognitive dissonance as coined Festinger). Once you do something, you convince yourself you have a positive attitude toward that thing because otherwise, why did you do it? We like to have a sense of internal consistency, and jump through mental hoops and change our thinking style to match our actions.
I doubt it would work for too long and he’d have to admit he’s getting bored and hates this, but I mean, he’s also trying to appease Mick? And keep Mick alive and unconcerned while Len deals with Eobard, who’s beck and call he’s at (which he very obviously doesn’t like and I’m relatively confident he’s been planning to kill Eobard for a while).