As humans, one of the most basic and deeply emotional feelings we share is a discomfort known as thinking-related disagreement. Thinking-related disagreement is when a person at the same time holds two or more competing or disagreeing beliefs or attitudes. Disagreement is the mental pain that is caused when these attitudes or actions conflict. In order to reduce that pain, our brain subconsciously creates self-good reasons for thinking or doing something, or for the existence of something to create an agreement between our feelings and actions. As it comes with the package of human nature, it is natural for one to be flawed and cause common errors in their daily sit-ups in life. However, often times there is this common disconnected mindset that there is a justifiable reason to let these bad habits or occurrences to be accepted. One of the few examples, as discussed in the article reviewed, is the fact of accepting the practice of lying and cheating.
These two words play a really important role and they can affect people’s lives in many different ways. Both are sinful acts of deeds and individuals have a universal understanding of proving them to be right in “apparent situations” that pop up. Regardless of the percentage of righteous these deeds may fall under, it does not change the fact that a vice or crime to human honesty has been committed. The term intellectual discord is utilized to portray the uneasy inclination that outcomes from holding two clashing convictions. At the point when there is a disparity among convictions and practices, something must change with the end goal to wipe out or lessen the cacophony.
This type of thinking can be closely linked to the terminology of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance “is used to describe the feelings of discomfort that result when your beliefs run counter to your behaviors and/or new information that is presented to you” (Cherry 1). Individuals that feel challenged when questioned upon their attitudes towards certain topics or habits lean towards justifying and creating a more trusting view of their argument. There are many ways to look at cognitive dissonance and how it works. For instance, individuals who smoke realize that smoking is a negative behavior pattern. Some legitimize their conduct by looking on the brilliant side: They disclose to themselves that smoking helps hold the weight down and that there is a more noteworthy risk to their wellbeing from being overweight than from smoking. The greater part of us is cunning enough to concoct specially appointed theories or justifications to spare loved thoughts.
Why we cannot make a difference this astuteness all the more able is not clarified by noticing that we are directed to excuse since we are attempting to lessen or wipe out psychological discord. Distinctive individuals manage mental uneasiness in various ways. Some ways are unmistakably more sensible than others. This is a prime demonstration of cognitive dissonance, to support this example the author of “What is cognitive dissonance?” displays in his article that “When there are conflicts between cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, opinions), people will take steps to reduce the dissonance and feelings of discomfort.” Although in some cases, it can be healthy to think in that type of way but at the same time, it is important to understand the pathways this level of thinking can possibly take one to. As much as one can defend an issue for the whole course of their life, if it is morally wrong, there is no possible maybe or accepting.
In addition to this, “Examples and Practical Applications of Cognitive Dissonance” in this article that I reflected upon, the topic of conflict revived around proving a cognitive dissonance on accepting the good in cheating and lying. Cheating and lying are both actions of an individual that occur based on situations represented in front of them. It can be seen in so many different ways. But not at all times does there have to be a negative connotation or instance in which these two or implicated. However, it must be looked at in terms of both ways. For it must be taken into consideration, that the act of doing one wrong is to better oneself for example; cheating or lying, is still an inadequate deed.” For instance, cheaters realize that treachery is not right, yet regardless they do it. What is more, when they do, most will as a rule feel really terrible about it. They think that it’s hard to assume liability for their own terrible conduct since it clashes with their self-idea. Be that as it may, through different types of intellectual controls, they can limit their careless activities to rest easy thinking about themselves. Since they rest easy thinking about themselves, they may proceed in their undertaking and could then be vulnerable to duping again later on the off chance that they do not gain from their missteps.
For starters, this article completely adheres to only the positives that come from using a different perspective to mentally justify cheating and lying to please the guilt in one’s mind. Although initially, one would take these matters to a serious grade of the level, people who use cognitive dissonance to map out their habits tend to differ. The author discusses about how one should only look at the part that benefits in these acts of mistreatment like in terms of cheating, cognitive folks say “others cheat all the time, what is the big deal if I did it once?’ Thus giving the mind a cheat sheet to cover the guilty conscience. Moreover, when talking in terms of cheating, the author says it is an acceptable practice because of the fact that “lying in almost every situation invites cognitive dissonance as most of us have been brought up with the belief that lying is wrong and unethical”. The author explains how people will turn things around to please their morals because they trick themselves to believe in the impossible. The main picture that the author is trying to convey is that the mind of a person controls more than what their morals can about that individual’s identity and quality of nature.