A Skeptic's Cognitive Dissonance

[aggle-rithm]

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! [/I]

Picture a person with cancer whose life can be saved by chemotherapy, but he decides to take snake oil instead.

He doesn't take the snake oil thinking, "Yes, I know this is going to cost me my life, but I just can't get enough of this snake oil!"

He does it because charlatons have convinced him he should.

 

[Alex Libman]

Science is not a dictatorship, it merely provides the means by which truth can be objectively pursued. Whether people will choose to act on those conclusions and to what degree depends on the individual.

There are often trade-offs involved: some people find smoking enjoyable, going to church may present a desirable opportunity to socialize, psychic readings may be entertaining, etc. Human beings are not robots, their happiness is important to them. And happiness is subjective, only you can decide which actions represent a greater value for you.

 

[Moochie]

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

Skepticism isn't a religion, last time I looked. Acting in ways that may be bad for you is a choice you make, not a law you abide by. I know plenty of people who smoke, drink, take other drugs recreationally, act in a debauched manner, etc, and they're just the scientists.

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

Are you religious at all? Because that sounds like the ol' guilt trip to me. As someone else has stated, skepticism is an activity, it's a way of questioning things to either verify or reject a hypothesis through finding evidence for or against the hypothesis. You're not a preacher (are you?) so practicing what you preach doesn't come into it, IMO. By advocating and disseminating the scientific method, you're providing people the tools whereby they can arrive at a provisionary answer to whatever question they're asking. Whether you smoke or wear a funny hat while you're doing that is irrelevant. By smoking you're not challenging the reams of evidence that link smoking with various diseases. By wearing a funny hat you're not asserting that it makes you able to communicate with your audience's dearly departed. Or at least I hope that's not what you're doing.


M.

 

[Moochie]

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

When I see someone who is watching me smoke, I think, "That's probably that Sir Robin Goodfellow bloke I saw in that thread in the JREF forum."


M.

 

[jakesteele]

Cognitive dissonance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.


A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi- one of the co-founders of CSIOP.

Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

I don't know if this will help clarify or not, but goes to the heart of the matter.

 

[godless dave]

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.

I don't think it does. I don't think it implies reasoning at all. Most of the things we do aren't reasoned ahead of time.

 

[themusicteacher]

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.

As long as you don't deny the fact that smoking greatly increases your risk of lung and esophageal cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other health issues, especially in yourself, you would not be guilty of cognitive dissonance. Being a skeptic doesn't mean one cannot behave in irrational ways or do things they know to be unhealthy or foolish so long as you admit that you are being irrational or ridiculous. Now, if you said, "I am skeptical that smoking cigarettes cause cancer," simply because you don't want to believe that you will be at risk of experiencing those effects while offering no credible evidence that refutes the well-established scientific opinion that smoking does, in fact, cause and/or contribute to those diseases, you would be guilty of cognitive dissonance.

I would say lots of people are selective skeptics. They are skeptical when it suits them but accepting of things in which they have an emotional or other investment. That, to me, is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Picture a person with cancer whose life can be saved by chemotherapy, but he decides to take snake oil instead.

He doesn't take the snake oil thinking, "Yes, I know this is going to cost me my life, but I just can't get enough of this snake oil!"

He does it because charlatons have convinced him he should.

Exactly, and much of their technique may involve appeal to emotion. He might also do it because he feels the medical profession have failed him, perhaps because the chemotherapy isn't working and he's desperate for a cure. Again, I think much of the reason for people seeking out things like alternative medicine has to do with feelings, not logic. People might do when they're stressed what they'd never do when they were feeling fine. The more desperate they are for a solution to a problem, or the more they hear anecdotes from friends about how such a thing worked that give them a sense of enthusiasm, the less likely they are to assess its validity before trying it.

 

[Hittman]

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 a smoking skeptic, I can answer that.

First off, smoking doesn't cause cancer, it increases your risk of cancer, a very different thing. If it caused cancer all smokers would die from cancer, instead of 10-12%.

Tobacco is my favorite vegetable. I enjoy it enough to take the risk. I don't pretend the risk isn't there, though.

I usually smoke cigars, which are not inhaled, and so are much less risky than cigarettes. Still, they are not risk free. But I'm willing to risk a shorter life for a much more enjoyable one.

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".

Or even worse, which I've heard from some smokers: "Smoking doesn't have any health risks, it's all a big conspiracy." In that case we're not dealing with a skeptic, but with someone who is fooling themselves.

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

When I hear people make statements like that I think "How sad and pathetic that they've accomplished so little in their lives they have to rely on looking down on others for their self esteem.

 

[quarky]

The smoking habit is so much more than merely a drug addiction. Its a ritual addiction as well. It has so many aspects to it besides the drug delivery system. I don't like to smoke in the dark, for instance, because I can't see the smoke coming out.

In trying to design a similar replacement routine, with multible components, it quickly becomes rather bizzare, even if, in fact, it was an improvement. I've even considered self-flaggelation as a replacement...carry around a little whip; pull it out when the urge comes; spend a similar amount of time doing it as a cigarete takes...yet, this would be seen as extremely wooish to observers. Smoking is somewhat normal, if insane.

I spend bout 10 bucks a day with this insanity. What if I could switch to actually burning 10 dollars, over the course of the day, instead? How would that be judged?

 

[Frankenstyle]

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.

I honestly don't understand how that's a problem. I quit smoking a few years ago, but I smoked like a chimney for fifteen or so years before that. I was well aware of the hazards of smoking, but decided that I enjoyed the instant gratification enough to accept the potential risk.

Someone who likes to skydive or mountain climb could say the same thing. I certainly didn't feel like I was being hypocritical, and if someone suggested I was, I was happy to explain that I had simply made an informed choice, that they didn't happen to agree with.

But it does bring up the question, "Now that I've quit smoking, does that retroactively make me a hypocrite?"

 

[pleclair]

I guess I like to be rational and make well informed judgments, but I also do many extreme sports and take certain calculated risks (and get injured too) so I guess it's not all that different.

That said, I suppose all of this is simply a matter of good reasoning and judgment, and my reasons for smoking are not good.

As for preaching, I had become a little preachy about skepticism when I first discovered the "movement" to support science, reason and critical thinking. It's somewhat challenging to withhold your opinion about people's quirky beliefs or rituals when you know they are bunk. I've since matured a bit and don't spoil as many dinner parties!

p

 

[Hound01]

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".

No, I think you are wrong. The original definition given was good. The definition below comes from answers.com:
A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.

 

[borealys]

Well, here are two possibly inconsistent ideas that someone might hold:

1) I am a smart person when it comes to health-related issues
2) I smoke, which increases my risk of assorted cancers and lung diseases

You could argue that there's some cognitive dissonance there. But it's not impossible to resolve. All it takes is to accept that even people who are smart about health issues often have bad habits that they're unable or unwilling to conquer, for any number of possible reasons. (After all, nicotine is highly addictive.)

In general, I figure cognitive dissonance is much less of an issue for people who are able to accept that good or smart people sometimes do bad or stupid things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

You're mixing a couple things up here. Risk perception is a tad different from filtering evidence into true/not true categories.

Skeptics of course can choose to believe valid evidence is not valid. Look at the huge discrepancies in our discussions in the politics threads. There are many indisputable facts of political evidence that are treated very differently when we evaluate them than scientific evidence is treated where there is not the same amount of emotional filtering going on.

Risk perception is in another ballpark. Regardless if something causes cancer, it isn't 100%. So the evidence is accepted, it just isn't acted on. And if you think about it, we take multiple risks every single day. It's impossible not to. You take a risk driving in your car, or one walking or taking the bus. If you decided the safest thing would be to never leave the house, there would be other potential risks there.

Do you have to smoke? Maybe not. But there are many discretionary choices we make that involve risk besides smoking. Have you ever undertaken a drive you didn't have to take? I would think so. Do you eat anything not the most healthy? Do you exercise enough?

I suggest people take all the risks they want but just evaluate the actual risk over the perceived risk when making your decision. If you are trying to quit smoking, I'd look at all the possible outcomes not just the cancer. Think about those disgusting hacking coughs smokers get when they are old. Gross. Think about the waste of money. Think about some person dragging an O2 bottle around with them when they leave their armchair.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The best example of skeptics' cognitive dissonance is skeptics who believe in gods. Just skip the evidence and call it a faith based belief as if that was somehow different from astrology or homeopathy.

Risk perception where a skeptic might be less than logical can be demonstrated when a skeptic thinks driving/riding in a car is fine but fears flying on an airplane. Per miles traveled, the air travel is statistically much safer.

Again, risk perception is the issue here, not cognitive dissonance.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Of course we totally ignore a gazillion risks and treats other risks as if we are 'differently obligated' to act on them.

There are plenty of reasons to quit or not start smoking. Most of us might even say the decision is obvious.

Do you have a working smoke alarm in your house and do you check the battery at least once a year?

Do you eat lots of fresh fruits and veges? Do you get a reasonable amount of exercise every day?

Do you own the safest car they make? Have you made a safe car your highest financial priority?

 

[shadron]

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'd always believed that cognitive dissonance occurred when you held two logically inconsistent states in your mind and simply refused to resolve them. For example, you could know logically that the reality of heaven and hell are remote, and yet believe for religious reasons that it is so. I suppose that Darat's example could also be cognitive dissonance: one logically concludes from the evidence that cancer arises from smoking, but one believes that you won't die for experiential reasons (hasn't happened yet, eh?), or for reasons of current pleasure (I like it, but I'll quit at some point in he future); you use that second promise to ease the dissonance. Were you to logically infer that smoking kills and that you are somehow exempt, then that isn't c.d., because you have settled the matter in your mind.

It seems to me that part of cognitive dissonance it what is known as conscience. It keeps you awake when you've acted in a way against your core principles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

You can quit. You know you want to. Posting this thread says so.

Just tell yourself you can, don't tell yourself you cannot, or that it's too hard. I'm not advocating any of those 'believe it and it will happen' philosophies. I am talking about something different. People quit once they've made their mind up to do so. There are lots of people who have been successful, unlike losing weight which has a lower success rate. It takes a committed frame of mind. It is typically the smoker him/herself who doesn't make that mental commitment, sort of a self fulfilling philosophy that one cannot quit.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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).



"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.

To be perfectly fair, camphor in rosemary, caffeine in tea and coffee, the digestive enzymes in pineapple all function as pesticides. Since bugs eat so much more than their body weight in one go, these work by dosage. If that arguement applies to tobacco, it applies to pineapples.

Otherwise, I agree.