--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@...> wrote:
>
> Turq,
> >
> > Just to clarify, I'm referring to the whole
> > theory which I believe includes not just
> > the discomfort caused by the conflicting
> > ideas but the motivation people have
> > to use ways to reduce the discomfort.
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
> > If you're correct, which I believe you are,
> > were does the predilection come from?
> > Is it nature or nurture or both? Are there
> > behaviours, say substance abuse, thatÂ
> > push the predilection in one direction?
You know me. Unlike some here, I don't "know" shit.
I just speculate. My speculation is that it's a
combination of both.
And I base this on a belief in reincarnation. Some
have 'paid their dues' along one path (sutra or
tantra) in the past, and thus nurture tends to
develop habits (samskaras) in them that cause them
to lean in one or the other direction.
On the other hand, some seekers I've met tend to
glom onto a predilection from past lives, only to
find that it doesn't work for them in this one.
At that point they switch and start batting for
the other team (which is not a euphemism for
turning gay, no matter what some will say). :-)
At that point, I think nature might be the pre-
dominant operative force.
> > If you, Fitzgerald and my first paragraph above are
> > all correct would it be more accurate to say some people
> > have less of a predilection to cognitive dissonance (CD)
> > (motivation to reduce the discomfort) than others
> > and are therefore more intelligent?
I'm really not comfortable with the "more intelligent/
less intelligent" thang. That's expressing things
from a certain POV, as if that POV were "right." That,
the belief that one and only one POV can be "right,"
to continue my train of thought, is sutra. I really
am more comfortable with tantra. For those who swing
the sutra way, behaviors modeled on pat answers might
make them more intelligent. For those who swing the
tantra way, the *same* behavior might make them less
intelligent. And vice versa.
> > For me, one of the many interesting aspects of CD
> > are the various denial techniques some
> > people use to reduce the discomfort
> > and if this is another layer of the predilection
> > you described.
I think it "follows from" the predilection. If you're
a sutra kinda guy suddenly confronted with two contra-
dictory ideas and thus experiencing CD, you might tend
to react by trying to "make it go away," using denial
or other techniques for doing so. A more tantra kinda
guy, confronted with the *same* two contradictory
ideas, might groove behind it and have no need to
do this. They might get off on juggling the two ideas,
keeping them both "in the air" at the same time.
In other words, one would experience CD and perceive
it as "discomfort-making." The other might experience
the same CD and experience it as "comfort-making."
> From: turquoiseb <no_re...@yahoogroups.com>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 8:53:36 AM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: cognitive dissonance
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price <bobpriced@> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm curious what everyone thinks isÂ
> > > the difference between cognitive
> > > dissonance ("people have a motivationalÂ
> > > drive to reduce dissonance")Â and whatÂ
> > > F. Scott Fitzgerald said: "the true testÂ
> > > of a first rate mind is the ability to holdÂ
> > > two contradictory ideas at the same time".
>
> An excellent question, one of the best here in
> some time. I would have to say that it probably
> depends -- as does so much else -- on predilection.
>
> I think that for many people, possibly the majority,
> cognitive dissonance is perceived as uncomfortable,
> and thus the "rule" might be true. On the other hand,
> I thrive on cognitive dissonance; it defines for me
> some of the highest, most profound moments of my life.
> I actually seek it, as much as I seek anything.
>
> > > If the theory of cognitive dissonance
> > > and Fitzgerald are both right would
> > > that mean the natural tendency
> > > of the mind is to become less
> > > intelligent?
>
> As stated above, I don't think that the "rule" is
> applicable to everyone. I honestly think it's a
> matter of predilection; some are comfortable with
> sutra ("Every question is the perfect opportunity
> for the answer he have already prepared") and others
> are more comfortable with tantra ("WTF? Wow, that's
> kinda neat!").
>
> Cognitive dissonance may make the former "less intel-
> ligent," but the latter "more intelligent."
>
