cognitive dissonance

Dissonance. The clash of two opposing sounds, which generally results in auditory cacophony. When this idea is applied to matters of the mind, it is loosely defined as two diametrically opposing ideas being processed by the brain, which generally results in cognitive discomfort.  For the sanity of the thinker, one of these ideas is summarily dismissed. It is a result of the mind's inability to process two pieces of information that are in direct opposition to one another.

In a simple example, we have been taught from an early age that two plus two equals four.  If you are told instead that two plus two actually equals five, your brain will reject it.  The brain does not allow for this contradiction [George Orwell demonstrates changing this learned fact through the use of torture, but we'll save that topic for another day].

We have been taught from an early age that the American government is honest, reasonable, and just.  From the pledge of allegiance every morning before our math lesson, to the middle school history lessons in which we learned we are granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have been taught that the government is for and by the people. 

Cognitive dissonance says we will reject those thoughts that create a clash of ideas in the brain. Despite isolated articles or news stories about a corrupt government, many Americans do not independently inform their perception of the Republic. Most accounts that are in opposition to our ideas of our democracy are swept aside.  The mind is a powerful thing, and our brains will even go so far as to build imaginary bridges that explain the factual disconnect. 

I was speaking with a friend about the events of September 11.  As shereadschomsky alludes to previous blog post, the investigation itself was gossamer thin (see The Commission: The Uncensored History of The 9/11 Investigation by Philip Shenon).  Evidence is withheld to this day, and much of the facts reported by the Commission have been proven false. 

I was telling my friend about some of the inconsistencies of the events of that day.  As an example, most plane crashes of airliners leave a significant amount of debris, none of which was present in the crash in Shanksville, PA (the crash site of United Flight 93).  This evidence (or lack thereof) would indicate an alternative explanation than that provided by the government.  The physical evidence lends itself to the alternative explanation of the shooting down of the plane.  But the account of the renegade passengers and their subsequent takeover of the controls was what the media presented as fact: no real criminal investigation was carried out to arrive at these conclusions.  Available data was presented to support these claims.

I'm not arguing for the veracity of these accounts, but offer them as an example of the power of cognitive dissonance.  My friend said that she distinctly remembers seeing a plane in the picture of the PA crash site.  She has a doctorate, so she has been trained to systematically extrapolate meaning from the available data.  She thanked me for enlightening her.  Right or wrong, she realized that she had never thought to question whether or not a plane was visible at the crash site.  Her mind had always pictured a plane clearly in the field.* 

Nearly every single entity of the mainstream media has become a government megaphone, rather than a questioning body that was created to ensure a formidable democracy.  The cognitive dissonance that results when we hear anything different from "official accounts" can be overwhelming, because you have been conditioned think the media cheerleaders are actually journalists and, thus, investigators for the truth.  It's not "we report, you decide," but "we report, you believe."  In order to uncover the truth about our democracy, we must stop dismissing alternative news. We must keep our minds open to more than one message.

*Please let me know if you find a picture of a plane at the crash site.  I would like to see it myself.