A Skeptic's Cognitive Dissonance

[pleclair]

Is there a difference between ignoring evidence vs. not believing in it?
Is it the same?

I was wondering what you might say about someone who considers themselves skeptical, but who refuses to act on the evidence. Let's say in the case of a skeptic who smokes, he knows it causes cancer, yet still smokes.

The question of ignoring evidence vs. refusing to believe it seems to be a fine line between the skeptic and the believer. I'm sure I could think of additional examples, maybe climate change and continuing to buy fossil fuels vs. an alternative, or that vegetarian lifestyles could be better for the planet in general? I think there are many cases where we as skeptics might accept the evidence for something, but simply not change or modify our lifestyles to suit the new evidence for something.

I hope I conveyed what I'm trying to with this.
Any comments?

Thanks

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Is there a differnece between ignoring evidence vs. not believing in it?
Is it the same?

I was wondering what you might say about someone who considers themselves skeptical, but who refuses to act on the evidence. Let's say in the case of a skeptic who smokes, he knows it causes cancer, yet still smokes.

The question of ignoring evidence vs. refusing to believe it seems to be a fine line between the skeptic and the believer. I'm sure I could think of additional examples, maybe climate change and continuing to buy fossil fuels vs. an alternative, or that vegetarian lifestyles could be better for the planet in general? I think there are many cases where we as skeptics might accept the evidence for something, but simply not change or modify our lifestyles to suit the new evidence for something.

I hope I conveyed what I'm trying to with this.
Any comments?

Thanks

The decision of a human being of making the wrong decisions even though they know deep inside that it is wrong, is an issue of discipline and maturity, not of skepticism

When I don't clean the bathroom on sunday afternoon even though I know I should, I'm acting out of laziness. I know I'm gonna regret it cause the bathroom won't be clean the next day, but I'm not being responsible. Skepticism has nothing to do with it. I'm not postponing the cleaning because I think it's magically clean itself. I know it's gonna get dirtier. I'm just being undisciplined with myself at that moment

 

[pleclair]

Okay, does it make you a less effective skeptic? I do presentations on the dangers of CAM, but I smoke. There's no doubt smoking may be more dangerous then some CAM modalities. I suppose it's simply a case of "do as I say, not as I do". Ahh the dissonance! Speaking of dissonance, maybe Frank Zappa said it best with: "Information is not Knowledge, Knowledge is not Wisdom, Wisdom is not Truth..."
-FZ

 

[Darat]

Regarding the smoking analogy what you are describing is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance would be something along the lines of saying:

"Yes I know that smoking carries an increased risk of cancer, but it won't do so for me".

 

[NewtonTrino]

Knowing what to do and doing it are two separate things.

 

[pleclair]

Regarding the smoking analogy what you are describing is not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance would be something along the lines of saying:

"Yes I know that smoking carries an increased risk of cancer, but it won't do so for me".

I agree, but putting a cigarette to one's face implies reasoning like: "well one more cigarette won't kill me", or, "maybe I'll be okay", or, "I should quit, but not now", etc. These are all thoughts that have passed through my head.

In my case any of the excuses I have reasoned with for not quitting right now, is likely attributable to some form of cognitive dissonance I have experienced. But I do agree with your overall correction to the terminology.
Thanks for the replies so far.
P

 

[Disclord]

What about someone like me? I'm a complete skeptic yet I smoke - I LOVE smoking, I always have. I love the way cigarettes make me feel, the way the smoke feels when I inhale, etc... I'm sure I'll probably die from a smoking related illness, but I can't help it, I love it.

 

[Morrigan]

You love it because you're addicted to it, and smoking preserves this addiction.

 

[Ferguson]

I agree that this has nothing to do with skepticism or cognitive dissonance.
I smoke, and I know smoking is bad for me. I also drink coke, and beer, when I know it would be better to drink water, milk, or juice.
Now, if I believed that smoking and drinking were good for me, or did an "experiment," where I smoked two cigarettes, and concluded that I was still alive, therefore cigarettes are harmless, then I would have some serious critical thinking issues.
As it is, I still smoke, but I know it's bad for me. I also don't encourage others to smoke.

I think the "problem" here is not cognitive dissonance, rather apathy or just lack of discipline. I take the bus to work, I know the bus uses gas which pollutes the air, contributing to global warming. I also know the bus is the only way for me to get to work. I wouldn't say someone is "ignoring" the environment just because they use petroleum products. It's virtually impossible to go off-grid at the moment in any kind of urban setting (Unless you have a large sum of money to invest in roof-top windmills and water-collection/purification system), so someone can continue to use fossil fuels, while also accepting climate change as a reality. I would not say this person is "ignoring evidence" or "not believing in" climate change.

 

[Disclord]

You love it because you're addicted to it, and smoking preserves this addiction.

Oh, there's no doubt I'm addicted to the nicotine, I'll readily admit that, but I also just love smoking - always have, even when I was a child, I'd see adults smoking and think "how cool."

 

[TaoMacGuy]

I was wondering what you might say about someone who considers themselves skeptical, but who refuses to act on the evidence. Let's say in the case of a skeptic who smokes, he knows it causes cancer, yet still smokes.

Let's all remember one of the ingredients in cigarettes, nicotine, is also one of the most addictive substances known. No amount of skepticism can, by itself, overcome that (and I would add nicotine has been/is used as a pesticide. Smokers might want to consider that as well when they take their next drag).

The question of ignoring evidence vs. refusing to believe it seems to be a fine line between the skeptic and the believer.

"Skeptic" to me, is a verb. It's something you do, a way of thinking, a way of living, an action.

Simply calling yourself a skeptic doesn't make it so. I've met a ton of people who call themselves "skeptics" (to be sure, we all have some "natural" skeptical abilities), but don't "do" skeptic.

When I talk with other "skeptics" who don't seem skeptical, I'll ask them what they think that means. If they are generally clueless about logic, the scientific method, etc. they aren't as skeptical as they think.

I then, diplomatically, give them references/ways to dive deeper into "skeptic."

So I guess I'm saying those who seem to confuse ignoring evidence vs. refusing to believe probably don't have as good a handle on "skeptic" as they could have.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Oh, there's no doubt I'm addicted to the nicotine, I'll readily admit that, but I also just love smoking - always have, even when I was a child, I'd see adults smoking and think "how cool."

When I see people smoking I think, "How sad and pathetic."

 

[quarky]

A skeptic that is addicted to smoking might do well to take on a woo-ish ritual as a surrogate. A meaningless (yet less harmful) routine could be reasonable, knowing the nature of addiction, and one's struggle with it.

There's an ancient tribe in South America, I forget their name, that claims to be the original people. They carry gourds and rub the gourds with a stick and some lime. They do it a lot.

When i saw that, I thought "I could give up smoking if I took up the gourd and the stick and the rubbing."

Yet, it would be hard to explain to my friends.

 

[pleclair]

So I guess I'm saying those who seem to confuse ignoring evidence vs. refusing to believe probably don't have as good a handle on "skeptic" as they could have.

I wouldn't say that, I consider myself a 100% skeptic, but I simply had this nagging feeling that I was a bit hipocritical for smoking, when I knew the evidence tells me it's bad.

It probably has no direct relationship to skepticism as this thread seems to imply. But maybe an Active vs. Passive skeptic? I'm an active skeptic, I'm out and actively promoting skepticism in the community, I've been on the news a few times supporting or opposing some views, I do anti-CAM style presentations as a public service around town etc. For me I guess I feel my reputation as a skeptic can be damaged by my conduct such as smoking. I guess it's more of a PR thing. So it may not have anything to do with skepticism or critical thinking, but could influence my reputation as a skeptic/critical thinker.

"Practise What You Preach" type of approach to skepticism would probably make you a better skeptic, no? I guess that's the point I was asking.

Thanks

 

[Disclord]

(and I would add nicotine has been/is used as a pesticide. Smokers might want to consider that as well when they take their next drag).

So? Nicotine, by itself, in something like Nicorette, really has no harmful effects, except if you chew, maybe 5 pieces at a time. It's kinda like opiates such as heroin - while drugs have ruined many peoples lives, when they have a constant supply of safe/pure opiates, a user basically suffers no ill effects - back in the 1800's, people from all walks of life regularly used opiates like Laudanum for years and years, with no problems... I've taken methadone since 1993 (for severe chronic pain due to being hit by a car driven by a drunk lawyer!) and it's done nothing bad to me - yet, on the street, illegally diverted methadone kills many, many people.

The problem with cigarettes isn't the nicotine, it's the tar and other substances.

 

[Disclord]

I wouldn't say that, I consider myself a 100% skeptic, but I simply had this nagging feeling that I was a bit hipocritical for smoking, when I knew the evidence tells me it's bad.

It probably has no direct relationship to skepticism as this thread seems to imply. But maybe an Active vs. Passive skeptic? I'm an active skeptic, I'm out and actively promoting skepticism in the community, I've been on the news a few times supporting or opposing some views, I do anti-CAM style presentations as a public service around town etc. For me I guess I feel my reputation as a skeptic can be damaged by my conduct such as smoking. I guess it's more of a PR thing. So it may not have anything to do with skepticism or critical thinking, but could influence my reputation as a skeptic/critical thinker.

"Practise What You Preach" type of approach to skepticism would probably make you a better skeptic, no? I guess that's the point I was asking.

Thanks

I've never thought about it that way - do you think most people really think like that? I've never looked at a smoker who was also a skeptic and thought it hurt their reputation at all - everyone knows smoking is dangerous, so I just see it as a personal choice and it's never influenced my opinion of their skepticality. Now, if they went around screaming about the dangers of smoking and trying to get non-smoking laws passed, while also continuing to be a smoker, then that would make me think of them as a hypocrite.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Smoking, or drinking, eating too much, gambling, patronizing prostitutes, etc. etc. are terrible examples of things to be cited as examples of cognative dissonance on the part of skeptics. Hell, if you want to step away from addiction into simple, harmless crazy town, I'm sure I could start a thread with a poll asking if members had persued unrequited love longer than a year and would get quite a number of people responding yes.

Natural and scientifically explained human foibles and shortcomings are not an example of cognative dissonance amongst skeptics! Just because one is a skeptic does not mean one is a souless automaton who acts on pure reason and logic. We're not effin' Vulcans.

Cognative dissonance is exemplified when one knows contrary evidence to one's ideas - say that homeopathy is effective - and rejects that evidence because it is on opposition to one's beliefs and positions. Virtually every skeptic I know who smokes, drinks too much, gambles, eats too much patronizes prostitutes*, etc. etc., is fully cognizant of how those choices negatively effect them, but accept the evidence and negative consequences.

I knew my grandfather died of smoking related illness. My dad died in 2001 due to lung cancer. I still smoke 2-3 packs a day. I fully and rationally understand that I should quit because of the cost and damage to my body, but I understand and have accepted the costs and dangers my habit comes with.

When I see people smoking I think, "How sad and pathetic."

Oooo! Please attend a TAM some time so you can state that thought aloud while I exhale in your direction.

* I think I only know smokers and those who drink too much, but I'm going with the theme of my opening paragraph.

 

[pleclair]

I've never thought about it that way - do you think most people really think like that?

Well yeah, here I am trying to inform them of how important good evidence is for making informed descisions, then I go ahead and choose to smoke knowing what the evidence suggests.

So, If anything it tells them I stupid for the poor judgement, then they resort to the ad hominem style of reasoning, i.e.: "Well if he's that stupid with his judgements, then why should I trust anything he says..." or something to that effect.

I mean that's what people do, we are trying to educate them on valuing evidence above belief, but then we turn around and conduct ourselves in a manner that is opposite to what the evidence would suggest we should do.

Maybe I'll just quit smoking, maybe this whole thread is just a cognitive crutch for me to try and validate my smoking habbit. i.e.: if it isn't contrary to skepticism, then I can keep doing it without worrying that it affects the integrity of my comittment to skepticism.

I think smoking is probably my only "sacred cow" that I feel may be negatively affecting my reputation as a skeptic.
p

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Feelings can have a much more powerful influence over people than logic and reason. That's especially where addiction's involved. It's much easier to stop a feelings-based behaviour if you can counter it with something that causes you stronger feelings than it is with logic and reason.

So, for instance, addicts are sometimes told they'll find it much easier to give up their addiction if they work on improving their lives and finding a variety of other things they like doing at the same time, so the feelings associated with giving up aren't all bad, and they have enjoyable feelings to compensate, gained in healthy ways.

They can also be told to engage their imaginations in the process of giving up what they're addicted to, since the imagination engages the emotions, so doing that can have a much more powerful influence than just thinking critically.

So, for example, a smoker might be advised to do relaxation exercises till they're very calm, so they're less likely to become upset by thinking about unpleasant things, and then to imagine they're at a crossroads. They then imagine they decide to turn left and walk down the road a bit, and it becomes stonier and pot-holed.

Then, they begin to imagine the possible consequences of their smoking, like imagining what it might feel like to have a bad smoking-related illness, and imagining how upset their family might be if they died from it; or they might imagine them all around the hospital bed. They imagine that for a while, trying to feel the emotions they might feel, and the physical consequences. Then, they imagine walking back down the road and going in the other direction at the crossroads. Then, they imagine a complete contrast to the previous scenes, where they go through each of the parts of the day where they would normally want a smoke, but instead of imagining smoking, they imagine feeling
really pleased with themselves for not smoking each time, and also imagine being happy about how much more healthy they'll be, and how much money they'll save, and relieved that they're
no longer putting themselves at risk of smoking-related diseases.

They can go through those scenes in their imagination several times while they're trying to give up smoking if it helps, till when they think about having another cigarette, they start feeling the feelings associated with the possible harmful consequences, and the joys of giving up. Their feelings will be more powerful than will power.

 

[kbm99]

Is there a difference between ignoring evidence vs. not believing in it?
Is it the same?

I was wondering what you might say about someone who considers themselves skeptical, but who refuses to act on the evidence. Let's say in the case of a skeptic who smokes, he knows it causes cancer, yet still smokes.

As others have pointed out, this isn't a failure of skepticism. People - including quite rational people - make irrational decisions all the time. Plenty of theory - economic, political, etc. - works great on paper but fails in practice because it's predicated on the idea that people will act rationally.