DISQUS

James · 2 years ago

Ryan,
I think you had a tough time rationalizing that a flood happened 4,000 years ago because, obviously, it happened 4,376 years ago. That makes a big difference. For example, according to the "Insight" books, there were 117 kinds of mammals and birds brought onto the ark. Current estimates place the number of kinds of mammals and birds at 14,600. So, if the flood happened 'only' 4 thousand years ago, this would mean a new kind has 'emerged', on average, every 101 days. This, of course, is ludicrous. On the other hand, if the flood occurred 4,376 years ago (and it did), this means there has been a new kind, on average, every 110 days. See? Doesn’t that make more sense? The Truth is so crystal clear.
Still, you insist on promoting the theory of evolution. Those evolutionists make crazy claims like “new kinds of mammals and birds emerge at a rate of approximately one every 5,000 years. And that, my dissonance friend, is sheer lunacy.

My dissonance is typified this way: The Society is wrong about 607bc. But the Society can’t be wrong about 607bc. But all the archeologists and historians can’t possibly be wrong about 607bc. Maybe the Society is wrong. But if they are wrong, I can’t say anything, because that’d be apostasy. Maybe they’ll correct the error in time. But still, I believe it they are wrong, and they say they are God’s channel. Maybe they’re wrong about not being wrong. Maybe I’ll stop thinking about this and within three or four days I won’t even remember this line of thought. Here, let me turn on the radio so that I think about something else. Shoot! It’s that blasted XTC song again! Why would God allow that song to be played when my faith is already weak? He must be testing me…

You didn't put up the link to the study involving brain scans of people experiencing dissonance.

ryan · 2 years ago

I added a link to the abstract of the study. Happy now? :-)

tom sheepandgoats · 2 years ago

This strikes me as a concept that merits a pamphlet but perhaps not an entire book, or at least, not in the use to which you have put it. Isn't it really just a means of running down an organization with which you disagree?

It's an age-old conflict with those religious and those not. One puts emphasis on "the things unseen," matters involving faith, and the other is concerned only with the things that are seen. A person in the former camp might easily view one in the latter camp as the one suffering from "cognitive dissonance!" Are you sure this is not just people throwing stones at each other, couched in learned rhetoric?

And not just religion. The world is divided into myriad factions and loyalties, few of whom interact smoothly with each other. And professions. Law enforcement, sales, and financial services, for example, are all fraught with opportunities for "cognitive dissonance." Before anyone ever heard of that term, we used to simply refer to one's reaching their "moment of truth" when they decided this or that pathway was not the one they wanted to follow.

In my view, the benefits (which you don't mention) of being one of Jehovah's Witnesses far outweigh the costs (which you overemphasize). But there are costs. To this, or to anything that stands for something. As you know, the scripture recommends "counting the costs" before committing. But if someone decides, down the road, that the course is not right for them, then the obvious thing to do is what you have done: to leave and move on. But I'm not so sure why it's necessary to kick sand at what you've left.

I will concede, though, that for someone raised in the faith, opportunities to "count the costs" might not seem as abundant as those of someone who has experienced both sides. But so what? That's always the case with one's upbringing. We're born into a certain nationality, social status, cultural background, and so forth. Lots of people reassess as they get older, as have you.

ryan · 2 years ago

First, thanks for the feedback. Nice to have comments. To answer your questions:

"Isn’t it really just a means of running down an organization with which you disagree?"

No. Cognitive Dissonance theory is applicable to all sorts of decision-making processes in life. It is not a way to slander a group you disagree with, it's a process you experience internally when you are attempting to hold contradictory beliefs. It is how the mind keeps you sane(r) in that situation. The Witnesses, and all other fundamentalist religious groups, are perfect situations for creating this dissonance because their beliefs are based on, in many cases, information that has long been proven false. The Society is a personal example for me and many I know because in our cases, the attempt to hold the beliefs we learned growing up in the truth in the face of conflicting evidence in the real world did real psychological harm. I was a Witness from birth to age 30. I am now 33. I have had very little time to get over this damage, so occasionally I still write about it.

One thing I have heard over and over again, is how people felt internally fractured for their entire lives due to the stress of attempting to hold onto Witness beliefs while being aware of disconfirming information. This internal stress has often been relieved by simply being allowed to accept reality as it presents itself, instead of attempting to project a cosmic drama based on bronze-age myth upon it.

For some it is as simple as watching nature programs on television and learning to automatically screen out any references to evolution. To others it's developing the worldly/Truth split I mentioned. The fact is, that being unable to create a consistent mental model of the world you live in, being forced to divide all information and people into two camps, is psychologically damaging and stressful. Any group that causes this effect in their members, be they political, religious, or otherwise will develop in their members a strong ability to rationalize just about anything in order to reduce this internal stress. Studies have been done over and over again in a range of social situations that have found that this holds true across the world. It is the explanation for why it is so hard to admit being wrong for many, and Witnesses are among the best examples of a group that definitely believes they are not wrong.

You made remarks to the effect that I am kicking sand at the group, that the benefits out-weigh the drawbacks. To be completely honest, this is totally false. I am not writing for a Witness audience, I am writing for an audience of Witness survivors. We are the ones suffering the shunning, we are the ones who have lost all of our friends and family, we are the ones attempting to recover from the psychological damage done by being shunned, molested, falsely accused, slandered or simply being denied the opportunity to respectfully disagree with the Watchtower Society and leave on decent terms. There is no honorable way to leave the Witnesses or I and many I know would have taken it. Instead, in order to be honest people who accept reality we have been forced to be demonized in the minds and hearts of all the people we have ever held dear. We are left attempting to comfort each other and help each other find answers. That is the goal of a post such as the one here, not to assault Witnesses (my entire family remains Witnesses, my father is an elder) but to help those trying to rebuild their lives in the aftermath of the Witnesses to move on with their lives.

A question for you sir, have you ever considered that there are those who have sacrificed everything and everyone they ever knew to leave the Witnesses because they believed so strongly in honesty and integrity? Or do you actually accept the Societies claim that all former members who disagree are offering poisonous food from the table of demons? My friend, most of us are simply attempting to figure out how to be regular folks with regular lives when we've never been given the opportunity to accept basic science or connect with human civilization. It's a phenomenally difficult undertaking, gone into with no training or support, and we have to look out for each other, share our insights, and muddle along as best we can.

Thank you for visiting and feel free to comment anytime.

Ryan

tom sheepandgoats · 2 years ago

"You made remarks to the effect that I am kicking sand at the group.....this is totally false......most of us are simply attempting to figure out how to be regular folks with regular lives"

Okay.

There are plenty of people who do kick sand and I may have been too quick to conclude you were among them. Sorry.

On cognitive dissonance I'll back off, too, but only a little. I didn't mean to suggest that it's purpose is to denigrate those you disagree with, only that it is often used that way. Humanity is and has always been a mass of conflicting ideas and whenever you encounter one, you have to deal with it. Cognitive dissonance is in the eye of the beholder. It can easily be turned around.

For example, we all know that the question of evil and suffering remains unanswered for most people. "Why do bad things happen to good people?" and so forth. On becoming a JW, I was really impressed by the Bible's explanation. It's intellectually satisfying and internally consistent. And it's unique to JWs, since even other Christian groups deny necessary building blocks to that understanding. I've never encountered anything else like it.

Here, I think C.D. is on the other foot. When fresh atrocities or cruelties present themselves, non-Witness folks are greatly troubled, at least if news reports and word of mouth are to be believed. Witnesses, on the other hand, understand it. Do non-JWs really have any explanation other than "shit happens?" Who has cognitive dissonance in this instance?

Ditto with losing a friend or relative in death. Do you not notice plenty of C.D. at funerals? JWs, while certainly not happy at such times, nonetheless understand it. They know why people grow old and die and they have reasonable expectation of how things will turn out well in the future. Yet people, even some of our own, throw all this aside as if it were spoiled produce so as to embrace the modern view that we are deluxe machines with an 80 year warranty, with no prospects beyond the current life. [I'm not saying you are among these people, but atheism is all the rage today and even some of our own have embraced it] And why? Is there decent evidence for such a view? Not especially, it's just that people tire of being out of sync with the (in this case, scientific) mainstream.

Since you've mentioned science and evolution more than once, and you've invited comments, I'll give you my own experience in that regard.

When I first came across JWs 35 years ago, I was staggered that I had found people who actually believed in Adam and Eve! They did not look especially stupid, yet all my life I had believed...I had been schooled that way...that only the dumbest of the rednecks didn’t believe in evolution. One fellow leant me the predecessor to the Creation book (you likely have never seen it). I didn't like it. I thought it was poorly written and took some cheap shots. I did not resolve this subject for a long time. Instead, I decided to shelve it for the time being, since everything else made so much sense. In time, I did resolve matters.

Evidence for evolution is not overwhelming, despite non-stop proclamations to the contrary. I'm not saying that there's not a lot of it, but only that it doesn't add up to much. It's not enough to derail the spiritual considerations already mentioned. For example, you're well aware that there are any number of aspects in life's origin in which the odds of this or that happening, even over eons of time, are so astronomically high as to be effectively deemed impossible. This makes perfectly fine reasoning and it's absolutely convincing. But - and I find this amazing - such reasoning is inadmissible to the scientific "establishment, who insist on the scientific method with doable, repeatable experiments for verification. It's as if you sit down at a board game and the rules are that you cannot move your pieces, though your opponent can move to his heart's content!

You've gone, not the way I went, spiritually speaking, but the other way. I don't think it's a wise move, though I'll concede that it may alleviate awkward situations that sometimes arise from living in a world with values markedly different from those with which you were raised. Still, if you insist on making the move, better to land on your feet than to self-destruct. So, to some extent anyway, I can empathize with the struggle you and your chums face to integrate into mainstream values.

ryan · 2 years ago

Tom,

Let me first thank you for at least being courteous and civil. Believe it or not, that rarely happens. I have had people I've known for 20 years run from me, refuse to speak to my at my own brothers funeral, and accuse me of being a "nuclear bomb" to their faith, simply because I hold alternate views. I personally find that compassion and fellow-feeling mean that we should all be willing to agree to disagree without demonization. I do not, and never will, demonize my family and friends and former brothers. They're good people, and I extend this to you as a former brother of mine as well. What I believe is not that Witnesses are bad, but that they are misinformed or uninformed.

For example, you mentioned that you have found the evidence for evolution to exist but to be inconclusive or unconvincing. This statement made sense before the advent of DNA analysis, but no longer. If you are truly open-minded, you need to familiarize yourself with the progress that has been made in reconstructing the history of life on this planet based on a synthesis of genetic analysis and the fossil record. Where the fossil record suggests evolution but does conclusively establish it, the entire evolutionary history of every living thing on this planet is carried within their DNA. An endogenous retrovirus infected the reproductive cells of a human ancestor, for example, and left it's unique imprint on all the subsequent DNA of all of us... and chimps. This sort of thing, retroviral insertions in non-coding DNA that are shared between two species can only be explained by common ancestry. This is just one example of literally hundreds of "smoking guns" that have been documented and continue to be documented as the DNA of the earth's species is sequenced and mapped and compared to reconstruct the way the tree of life unfolded. Most amazing is that bio-diversity (the geographical distribution of animals on this planet), the fossil record, DNA analysis, and genetics can all be used in concert as separate strands in the thread to absolutely demonstrate precisely what happened, how it happened, when it happened and why it happened. 35 years ago, this was not the case, but today it is. The information is available at your local library, if you but look.

I am quite familiar with both the original Evolution book from the Society and the 1985 Creation book and the Creator book, and even writings from Pastor Russell regarding evolution in Studies on the Scriptures. Not only have I read all these publications, but I have read many of their primary sources, including The Genesis Flood, The Neck of the Giraffe, Darwin's Black Box... I have a library filled with these texts. What these books DON'T tell you when supposedly presenting the evidence for evolution could, and does, fill whole libraries. With the current pace of learning, to learn what you know about evolution from 35 year old school textbooks and Watchtower Society literature is to learn nothing whatsoever of the subject. It is as if you learned everything you know about electronics from a book published in 1830 and an Amish farmer, both of whom might deal with the subject but radically misinform.

An additional statement you made on the subject of why bad things happen to good people:

"On becoming a JW, I was really impressed by the Bible’s explanation. It’s intellectually satisfying and internally consistent."

This is something I have long believed as well, but no longer do. I will share my reasons for this. I will summarize, first, what I believe you are referring to. You are discussing the Universal Court Case defense for the problem of evil, which goes something like this:

Adam and Eve, created perfect and undying, brought death and sin into the world by eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. At this point, God had a choice: wipe them out and start over OR allow them and their descendants to reap the results of their actions. This event raised the question in the minds of all the angels present as to whether they should all follow God's ways or not. In order to conclusively prove that those who follow his ways will meet with misery and unhappiness, and thereby vindicate his Sovereignty, He allowed mankind to carry on, provided Jesus for a ransom and will make it all OK in the end.

There is, sadly, a number of flaws in this argument. First, the Genesis account doesn't actually say any of this stuff. It never says Adam and Eve were created to live forever, for one thing. In fact, one detail in the story appears to indicate the opposite, that they were created mortal. For, if Adam and Eve were designed never to die, WHY WOULD GOD BOTHER TO PLANT A TREE OF LIFE? The Tree of Life, remember, was not off-limits. It was included with all the trees from which they could eat. In fact, Eating of that tree would have granted them immortality EVEN AFTER THEY ATE FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. Genesis 3:22-24:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Reading the Bible account, it appears that death didn't enter the world through sin but rather as a deliberate punishment from God. He cut humans off from life through deliberate action, i.e. - we weren't made to live forever, we were made mortal and given some special fruit that would have allowed us to live forever but Jehovah never allowed it to happen.

This raises the question of why? Was it because a universal issue had been raised? Again, there is nothing like that in the passage. In fact, there is not even an identification of the serpent as The Devil. No, read it carefully. The serpent here tells the truth. What does he say exactly?

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

What does God himself say happened?

"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

The serpent said they wouldn't die but would become like God in knowing good and evil. They didn't die and God himself admitted that they indeed became like him, knowing good and evil. Had they been created immortal, the "they began to die" explanation would make sense, but nothing in the text suggests that they were and the Tree of Life makes no sense otherwise. The only remaining explanation for the story is that God in the story told them they would die to discourage them becoming like him. He didn't want humans to be like gods. This explanation, which involves dishonesty on the part of God, is shocking to Christians but is precisely how early Hebrews understood this text.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the Christian reading of this passage had merit, and the Tree of Life is just sort of a weird thing we can ignore and the serpent really was the Devil and all the later stuff in the Bible can be retroactively projected on this account. It still doesn't make sense. Why not? Because the big question raised by Adam and Eve in particular would not have been "can man get along without God" but "can perfect humans get along without God'? Don't forget, according to your theory they became imperfect as soon as they sinned. They passed the imperfection on down, like a dented cake pan. This means that their DNA was physically altered by God to introduce cell-death and aging and the like. Does this not rig the game rather dramatically? The test was about obedience from "perfect" humans, not obedience from intentionally flawed humans. All of human history, all the pain and suffering and death, does nothing to answer the question about whether or not mankind would have needed to follow God had they stayed in their created state. Mankind was created perfect, then crippled, and it was the perfect ones that raised the issue but the crippled ones being tested. It's like testing whether or not an elite sprinter can run a 10-second 100 meters but slashing his achilles tendon first.

An additional flaw in the argument is God's subsequent involvement in human affairs. If mankind was to be given a chance to prove whether they could get along without him, then he would have to LEAVE THEM ALONE, but the Bible says he didn't. In the Bible, he picks sides, plays favorites, kills, elevates, gives privileged information to small groups... in short, he never allows the issue to be tested because he never lets mankind go about their business unhindered. Again, bringing back our sprinter, let's say we cut his tendon AND made him carry us on his back while we gave him directions.

A few more points. This is not "the Bible's" explanation. It is the Society's version of one of many theoretical solutions to the problem of evil that various people have managed to wring out of the Bible over the millennia. Also, the historicity (or lack thereof) of the story can be established simply by tracing the roots of the story to it's pre-Hebrew origins in Sumerian literature thousands of years before the Bible was written. Last but not least, evidence of mankind's antiquity is far older even then Sumer and this story. To sum up, if the account were true, your explanation wouldn't actually make sense when all the details are brought to bear, AND if your explanation were true, God would be violating the terms of it by his own actions in the remainder of the Bible, but in the final analysis, neither the explanation nor the story are based on reality, but on a Hebraic adaptation of a Sumerian myth that was intended to explain why snakes lack legs, why childbirth hurts, and why we're so different than the animals and so like the Gods we worship.

I do not find that intellectually satisfying myself. And as you can probably tell, I've given it a lot of thought.

tom sheepandgoats · 2 years ago

So. Will DNA analysis prove to be the silver bullet that, once and for all, establishes evolution? Or will it be more like the Iraqi surge: just a temporary shot in the arm? Time will tell. I'm not ready to jump ship just yet.

The trouble is, DNA analysis is recent. And before it came on the scene, when (per your 2nd paragraph) we both found evidence for evolution to be inconclusive or unconvincing, evolutionists were even then declaring it incontestable fact which only an ignoramus would question. So should I lose my cookies when they claim - this time for sure - to have found the ultimate trump card? They've made that claim many, many times before.

In time this will be screened though the eyes of persons who are capable of seeing both sides, not just what they want to see. I don't mean the WBTS, but guys like Behe, guys who have some credentials. Possibly they've written on such matters already. This is not my field of expertise.

How's that for dealing with cognitive dissonance? Sorry, I still think it's a pamphlet sized notion. It's a high-brow name for a situation people have always known about and dealt with. We are finite beings. We never have every scrap of information for any position, for or against. Nor can you necessarily rely on those who do, or should, have the facts. They, too, are finite, biased, subject to emotion and self-interest. Isn't that why, in any murder trial, both sides come up with conflicting psychiatrists (a branch of science, its proponents would have us believe) to bolster their respective cases? Why, dammit, if science can so readily and impartially get to the bottom of things?

So people always experienced some cognitive dissonance with regard to the other side. It's not new. You make the best decision you can based on info you have, and you reassess or update it from time to time as new stuff is available. Had evolutionists maintained that, prior to DNA analysis, they didn't have much of a case, whereas now they do, they would have more credibility. However, things did not play out that way, as you know. From the moment Darwin stepped out of the ship, evolution was incontrovertible law to these guys.

I've not found scientists to be above the fray when it comes to obstinacy and pigheadedness. I don’t say they are worse, but neither are they better. It may be that their particular prejudices differ from that of mainstream, but they have them nonetheless.

For example: (I first read this history in Asimov's Guide to Biology (or was it Science?)) In the mid 1800's, Dr Ignaz Semmelweis proposed that fever and death following doctor-assisted childbirth could be curtailed by washing hands and equipment frequently. Doctors back then would deliver a baby, having just emerged from an autopsy, only wiping their hands on their smocks! There were some sort of tiny "particles" contaminating the women, Semmelweis proposed. Doctors howled with laughter at such nonsense. Asimov's book vividly portrays Semmelweis' presenting his ideas at seminars, with his esteemed audience mocking him, hurling catcalls! .....ho, ho, haw haw, so teeny weenie tiny that you can't even see them! yuk yuk! Doctors argued that, even if Semmeweis' findings were correct, washing one's hands each time before treating a pregnant woman would be too much work. Semmelweis enforced strict antiseptic practices at the hospital under his supervision, cutting deaths to under 1%, and it made no difference in their attitude! Colleagues ridiculed him his entire life, he suffered a nervous breakdown and, says Asimov, died in an insane asylum tormented by memories of women screaming in their death-agonies following hospital-acquired infections. With Semmelweis out of the way, his own hospital went back to familiar practices and the mortality rate climbed to 35%.

Sure, scientists readily make adjustments within pre-approved channels. But everyone does that. Radical changes are not so easy.

A more up to date example: When Nixon went to China he saw people operated on without anesthesia, numbed only by acupuncture. He saw it, and presumably his entire entourage, yet it was 30 years before Western science acknowledged there might be something to acupuncture, and many still maintain its all quackery.

The words of Max Planke the physicist are appropriate: "People think new truths are accepted when the proponents are able to convince the opponents. Instead, the opponents of the truth gradually die, and a new generation comes along who is familiar with the idea."

That’s how scientists deal with cognitive dissonance. They’re no more immune than the rest of us.

david · 2 years ago

While I don't always agree with you on your rants and writings, I respect your ideas a lot. They're always well thought out and VERY well presented. It's to the point where, even if I disagreed with something, I wouldn't want to respond because you'd "win" on articulation alone. I mean really, I'm not just trying to flatter you here - this is good stuff. In this one case, however, I'd like to point out something that I'm not quite aligned with.

You wrote:

"Before I heard this radio program today I was well aware of cognitive dissonance theory and I was also well aware of the role that cognitive dissonance had played in my life as a Jehovah’s Witness[...] There were a few things in the program, however, that I had previously been unaware of. The most interesting one involved a recent study in which brain scans were done of people experiencing dissonance (the abstract of the study is here) and it was discovered that the brain literally STOPS THINKING until the dissonance is reduced. This is not figurative, but quite literal. The brain ceases to perform thought when under severe cognitive dissonance until the dissonance is reduced. This is a deeply-ingrained evolved trait across all cultures and genders. What this means is that people who are undergoing cognitive dissonance reduction are unaware that they are doing it because they aren’t thinking at the time. That, my friends, is interesting."

This is inaccurate. I've read the paper (and not just the abstract that you linked to) and I do not see this "brain literally STOPS THINKING" business. It actually thinks more. If I may, I'd like to clear this up a bit.


First, I'd like to explain the study. These guys took 30 men - 15 Republicans, 15 Democrats - and subjected them to contradictory statements made by, in turn, Republican leaders, Democratic leaders, and neutral personalities. They then put up statements that cleared up the apparent contradictions. An example they give goes like this:

Slide 1 - ‘‘First of all, Ken Lay is a supporter of mine. I love the man. I got to know Ken Lay years ago, and he has given generously to my campaign. When I’m President, I plan to run the government like a CEO runs a country. Ken Lay and Enron are a model of how I’ll do that.’’—Candidate
George Bush, 2000

Slide 2 - Mr. Bush now avoids any mention of Ken Lay and is critical of Enron when asked.

Slide 3 - People who know the President report that he feels betrayed by Ken Lay, and was genuinely shocked to find that Enron’s leadership had been corrupt.

And they have an example for Democrat John Kerry and an example of a neutral person about a politically neutral subject (Walter Cronkite on the subject of retirement).

The idea is that when viewing contradictory statements about their own party leaders, the subject's brain will react differently from when they view contradictory statements by the opponent party leaders and the neutrals. They were looking specifically for emotional vs. cognitive brain activity.

I personally don't go in for all this cognitive dissonance stuff, but for the sake of argument we'll use these terms. What you've posted is that, for example, when the Republican, who is a big Bush supporter, sees contradictory statements made by G.W. his brain shuts off - "STOPS THINKING" - in the face of this cognitive dissonance. His brain then kicks back in when the dissonance is removed (during the statements that clear up the contradiction). The study did not propose this, nor did it find this.


Second, we have to understand how this kind of stuff is monitored. They use fMRI to look at the parts of the brain that are active during the different parts of the experiment. (They are actually looking at blood flow, but the correlation is pretty direct so we'll just say they are looking at neural activity.) The outputs are actually difference images. You take the fMRI of a guy doing one activity and subtract it from the fMRI of the same guy doing a slightly different activity. I'll explain the specific comparison that was made in a second, but the important thing to note is that you can have a final brain scan image with a sort of dark inactive area that was actually fully active during the test. It's only dark and inactive looking because you are comparing it to something very similar. The activity has been subtracted.

Stupid example - here's a scan of the effects of me singing my favorite song vs. thinking of my favorite song. It's a difference image so you'll notice that the parts of the brain that recall song lyrics are not active. So I'm not recalling the lyrics when I sing them? No, we've just purposely removed those bits so we can focus on just the effects of singing.

You can probably see where you went wrong already, but let's get all “sciencey” for a minute.


Let's look at the study.

The first difference image from the study compares what the brain "looks like" when the subject was looking at the contradictory statements made by his party leader vs. what his brain "looks like" when he's looking at the contradictions of the politically neutral contradiction.

From the paper:

"The first contrast subtracted neutral targets from same party targets during the contradiction phase (e.g., Republicans evaluating Bush contradictions vs. contradictions involving Hank Aaron). As can be seen in Figure 3, processing emotionally threatening information about one’s preferred candidate relative to a neutral target activated distributed sites in the medial PFC, including a large cluster of activation that included the ventral (‘‘affective’’) subdivision of the ACC, as well as the more rostral (‘‘cognitive’’) subdivision, and extending into the ventromedial PFC, a region associated with affective processing and emotional influences on reasoning. A superior medial prefrontal region was also activated. The other notable finding was a large area of activation in the posterior cingulate cortex, associated in prior studies with neural processing related to social emotions, moral evaluations, and judgments of forgivability."

Note that the rostral subdivision of the anterior cingulate cortex was more active when facing this cognitive dissonance. The subject was thinking more. Also keep in mind that other cognitive areas were in full use, but since they were in use for the “neutral targets” as well, they were removed from the fMRI.

There were three other comparisons that were looked at, but they are irrelevant to the discussion. The point has been made. People who face this supposed cognitive dissonance do not stop cognitively thinking - they think even more. Science has proved this out (although the paper has not been published nor even peer reviewed so maybe “proved” is not right).

The good news is that you didn't make this false conclusion up. It seems that some dolt spread this "brain stops thinking" crap all over the Internet and it leaked into news articles and (apparently) radio programs all around the country. Funny thing is, the original perpetrator was being ironic. Unfortunately, the media ran with it without understanding.

You wrote:

"...The average person is incapable of telling the difference between science and pseudo-science. It’s all jargon and mumbo-jumbo and if it sounds scientific, then it must be."

Very true.

The full paper can be found here: http://www.psychsystems.net/lab/06_Westen_fmri.pdf

ryan · 2 years ago

David,

Thank you for the clarification. At the time I initially wrote the post I was going off the top of my head, from my memory on the bus and had not yet read the study. Your analysis/correction, is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Ryan

Jennifer · 2 years ago

Tom Sheepandgoats,

Your examples of "cognitive dissonance" seem to be examples of people who simply changed their minds, or beliefs from one way of thinking to another over time. This happens, it may be slightly uncomfortable while making the shift, but I don't believe that this is a true case of cognitive dissonance.

For example, if there is a person who used to believe in evolution, but now believes in creation, that is a shift in beliefs, but not cognitive dissonance. If a person who believes in creation discovers some things about evolution that makes sense to them, and begins to believe that those ideas are true, while still believing in the idea that God created man 6000 years ago, well that is cognitive dissonance. It is quite different then simply changing a belief, not that changing a belief is simple, but it is compaired to trying to keep everything okay in your mind when you are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you only think the subject needs a pamphlet of info because you aren't quite grasping the concept. It may be hard to understand if you do not have an example of it in your own life to draw from.

For me, the biggest issue I had with cognitive dissonance began when Owen was born. On one level, I had a baby for the first time and when I saw other little babies and children around I could no longer separate them into a "worldly" catagory. It began to really upset me that these inocent children would soon die in armageddon because their parents weren't JW's. I began to reason with myself that they would not die, but would get another chance, along with most "worldly" people, however I also believed that Jehovah would soon destroy all the wicked, and the wicked were all the "worldly" people.

On another level, it upset me that here I was a parent with this great love for my child that I never experienced before, and yet I knew that Jehovah, our "father" would soon slaughter billions of his children, simply because they were not the correct religion. I knew why they were not the correct religion, because I had so many examples of doubts in my mind about scientific and other issues, that it made sense that most people would not be able to tell what the right path was, I only knew because I was born that way. I knew I would have never become a witness if someone had just come to my door. I had a great deal of trouble believing that Jehovah was loving and just, yet was going to decimate billions of his children.

And on yet another level, because of Owen's birth I had more intimate conections with "worldly" people than I had ever before had. My birth doula and then my therapist were a part of my life in a way that no "worldy" person had ever been before. I had a very hard time believing that either of these women would die very soon. I knew that they would because they were "worldly", yet I told myself that they were good people and they would make it. I had an equally hard time believing that all "worldy" people were wicked now that I had more connections with them. I realized that my few examples of relatives and others were probably the norm instead of the exception, and I had a very hard time understanding why God was going to kill these people.

The last thing that upset me was having to hold the belief that me and my baby would die because we were not good enough witnesses, yet I had been taught my whole life that witnesses would be the ones who would make it through armageddon. Some watchtower articles we studied indicated that JW's who weren't doing good enough would not make it, yet others suggested that all JW's would make it and even a handful of "worldly" people.

All of these conflicting ideas were too much to take after awhile and I finally allowed myself to do some real research about the religion that I was raised in, which of course cleared up all my conflicts in an unexpected way.

tom sheepandgoats · 2 years ago

Jennifer:

That's a nice reply. Civil, even a little conciliatory, and yet you hold your ground and illustrate your point well. I wish I had a nickel for every internet person who, when you "score a point," makes absolutely no mention of it, and simply launches a new line of attack. (no reflection on Ryan, by the way. He, too, is very civil)

So I should try harder to get the hang of cognitive dissonance? Okay, I'll try.

You observed "Some watchtower articles we studied indicated that JW’s who weren’t doing good enough would not make it, yet others suggested that all JW’s would make it and even a handful of “worldly” people." Yes, I have observed it as well. You resolved your C.D. in the way you've explained. Here's another way one might resolve it:

Since the articles don't really harmonize, you could conclude that the authors don't really know. They're groping as they go. And the reason they don't really know is that the scriptures are not that explicit. Some indicate this, some that. What we know for sure is that "the wicked" will be destroyed, but exactly who fits into that category is unclear. What we do know is that (from my point of view) Jehovah's organization has the truth. What inconsistencies there are all fall within acceptable limits of human imperfection. So that's the place to be. That is the place of safety. How far outside one can be and yet still be preserved is unclear. At a certain distance, or not one iota? I don't know. From the articles you mentioned, it would seem that the organization does not know. Of course, they lay emphasis on the known place of safety. Why should they not? I do, too.

Additionally, the ballgame isn't over yet. Will there be developments to cause mass influx into Jehovah's organization? I, personally, think that is unlikely, but it is another way to deal with C.D.

If the organization does not know, might they have been more moderate in their comments? Perhaps. You can make a case for it. On the other hand, they are the watchman, (you know the scriptures) and what good is a wimpy watchman?

Even now, you can find abundant statements that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth, and abundant statements that God will destroy the wicked, but not many at all that indicate that, without being within the organization, you won't survive. Yes, search and you will find it a few times. Some scriptures seem to indicate it. And some don't. What we do know is that God will destroy the wicked. Why not leave it at that? We don't have to know everything. Since I am confident in one place as a place of safety, that is where I stay. And work within its parameters. It's not that hard.

Yes, I too think highly of many "worldly" people. (I don't care for the term) Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are a family, but they are a dysfunctional family. Should we be surprised? Who isn't dysfunctional today? Keep people at arm's length, or hang out only with those with whom you personally mesh, and you avoid the problem. But you also shortchange yourself on the benefits of family, which I think are significant.

Several factors keep me where I am: (not in any special order)

1. JWs have unity and have overcome nationalism. Populate the earth with
only JWs and you have peace. How many groups can say that?

2. JWs have the only satisfying explanation for evil and suffering I have ever
encountered.

3. Ditto for old age and death.

4. The alternative to God, evolution, is so astronomically unlikely as to be
wiped off the court on probability alone. (yes, even allowing for a tiny
speck in the vast universe and eons of time)

5. Humans can't govern themselves. Human society has frayed absolutely over
the past century. Both these ideas are entirely in harmony with the Bible.
Both are contrary to popular thinking.

Granted, Ryan (and maybe you) disagree with points 2-4, and perhaps all 5. But on 2 and 3, Ryan's reasoning struck me as unconvincing. It struck me as the reasoning of someone who has already decided "I'm outta here," and so has to tidy up loose ends so as to make a clean break.

Okay, so perhaps C.D. has more substance than I gave it credit for. But you can resolve it in many ways, not just the way in which you and Ryan have.

Jennifer · 2 years ago

Tom SheepandGoats,

Your comments are interesting and thought provoking. About resolving CD in other ways, the examples you gave are things I told myself for years. It didn't resolve the CD, telling myself those things was part of the CD. It is what makes it so hard to deal with. Trying to reason with myself, and convince myself of alternative possibilities, and telling myself that society may be wrong about this one thing over and over again until (in my mind) the society was wrong about so many things that I finally allowed myself to wonder if perhaps they did not have the truth, but were simply a group of men seeking it. The CD does not resolve until the conflict is gone. The conflict is not gone until you can have a satisfactory answer, even if that answer may not fall into the black and white categories that my brain is used to. As JW, I had many conflicts in my mind that did not have resolution for many many years. Now that I am not a JW, I do not have them. I do not have to convince myself of things, or twist things around so that I will be okay with them, or push things to the back of my mind and try not to think about them because it is too uncomfortable. I simply don't feel that anymore.

Here are my current beliefs on your factors that keep you in;

1. JWs have unity and have overcome nationalism. Populate the earth with
only JWs and you have peace. How many groups can say that?

I think many groups can say that. Lets see; The Amish, The Menonites, The Mormons, or any Fundy Christian group really, Star Trek Fans, Green Peace members, Earth Loving Pagans, Hippies, Intellectuals, etc., etc., etc. JW's are certainly commendable in certain aspects of their unity, however, they are not the only group that could say this.

2. JWs have the only satisfying explanation for evil and suffering I have ever
encountered.

This is a subjective statement. What is satisfactory to you, may be very unsatisfying for many others. First, as Ryan pointed out, this statement is based on unscientific ground. Also, it is making the assumption that everything needs an explanation, and that there is only one satisfactory answer to any problem that life may present. Where you see black and white I see grey.

In my opinion what causes evil and suffering is the lack of a healthy continuum in many human beings today. Have you ever read The Continuum Concept by Jean Liedloff? Western civilization has destroyed the natural state of human beings. Infants are brought into the world in violence, separated from their mothers, treated like crap, and if they are male their genitals are mutilated, and this is their welcome to our planet. They are then raised with crazy ideals that have only become popular in the last few hundred years of our species existence, like forcing the infant to sleep in it's own bed and in it's own room, drink from a bottle when the breast is available, cry it out to "teach" them how to sleep through the night, spend hours and hours in solitary confinement in cribs, plastic carriers, play pens, strollers, etc., and they do not get nearly enough of the valuable "in arms" time that infants received through the ages that became a part of the human beings continuum and expectation. People these days would rather awkwardly lug around a 50 pound car seat with an infant in it than actually have to hold and touch and carry their 7 pound newborn. Now what kind of people does this produce? This is only infancy, childhood brings corporal punishment and many other unnatural states of the human existence. There are very few tribes who naturally follow the normal human continuum that have problems with evil and violence. Who has problems with evil and violent people? Western civilization, the people who have been keeping their infants at arms length instead of in their arms for ages now. But, that is just my opinion and I have no way of proving it, but it is what I believe and there is no scientific proof against it, so to me that is far more satisfying of an explanation than the JW's.

3. Ditto for old age and death.

What you need an explanation for, or an answer to, I just call the life cycle. Old age and death are normal parts of our existence. It is tough to grapple with the thought of our own demise, but not all cultures fear old age and death the way ours does. Old age is just another stage of our existence, and it should be honored and respected. Death is a part of being alive. We were already dead before we were born. Can you explain why that was? Does it really need an explanation? Neither does death. Everything deteriorates on this planet. Everything has a life cycle, even the sun and stars and planet itself have a life cycle. They have not always been here and their existence is not indefinite according to scientific findings. That is a satisfactory explanation for me, and one that has no scientific proof against it.

4. The alternative to God, evolution, is so astronomically unlikely as to be
wiped off the court on probability alone. (yes, even allowing for a tiny
speck in the vast universe and eons of time)

This one is confusing to me. Are we talking about believing in God or believing in the JW's? Those are two entirely different things. In fact, some people believe in evolution and in God. Others believe in evolution, but don't say that there is definitely not a God, because science can't prove that there is not a God. In my opinion evolution is far more plausible then the Watchtowers version of a global flood. A global flood would mean that animals had to evolve at an incredibly fast rate over the last 4000 years. Evolution means that animals developed at an incredibly slow rate over millions of years. The one that seems more plausible to me is evolution, and not a global flood. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in God, I hope there is a God. It simply means I don't believe that man is 6000 years old and that there was a global flood 4000 years ago. I believe there is a lot of proof that man evolved, and so did all the other animal species.

Also, why is evolution so "astronomically unlikely" but the belief that God was just always here is not? Where did God come from? If every watch has a maker, then who made God? If life on this planet is so complex that it is impossible that it just evolved, then God must be even more complex than that in order to create it, right? So if God is that complex, then who made God? It is impossible that he evolved or just came to be, because he is too complex, so how did he get here? If I am supposed to believe that God was always here, then how can I at the same time believe that everything must have a creator?

5. Humans can’t govern themselves. Human society has frayed absolutely over
the past century. Both these ideas are entirely in harmony with the Bible.
Both are contrary to popular thinking.

In my research of history I have found that humans have never been able to govern themselves, it is not something exclusive this last century, there are simply a lot more humans with a lot more technology than ever before. The reason that this thought harmonizes with the bible is that humans back then could not govern themselves anymore than humans now can. The way we predict the future is by analyzing the past. If your writing the bible, and you know that in the past and in the present humans couldn't govern themselves, then it isn't really going too far out on a limb to say that in the future humans will not be able to govern themselves. I also wouldn't say that human government has been a total failure. Of course, I am quick to point out it's flaws, especially under the current administration, but a lot of the earths population live in a social structure or government that at least works to prevent chaos. Not all of the earths governments have accomplished this, but some have gone above and beyond this and we americans now enjoy huge freedoms and a life that others only dream of. So, in my opinion human rule is not all bad, nor all good, it's that crazy grey area again that is hard to deal with if you like everything to add up and equal an absolute answer.

ryan · 2 years ago

Ditto to basically everything that Jennifer said. :-) Allow me to add too that I believe the group with the strongest claim to unity, world peace and a satisfying answer to the problem of human suffering and death is the Buddhists. I don't think it's much of a coincidence that many XJW's turn to Buddhism.

Now, about this claim that evolution is so unlikely. I understand, Tom, that you believe this to be the case and that you could in all likelihood drag out a bunch of quotes from a bunch of "authorities" claiming as much. However, I want to get more specific. What part of evolution do you believe is unlikely? When I mentioned the DNA evidence your response was basically to malign the honesty and integrity of all biological scientists. Except, of course, "guys like Behe, guys who have some credentials". Michael Behe does have credentials, yes, but nothing different than every other professional microbiologist in the world. Why would you accept his views and reject the views of his entire peer group? Nearly 100% of his colleagues disagree with his assertions about irreducible complexity and every example of IC that he has ever asserted to be proof of intelligent design has already been explained via natural selection, including the bacterial flagellum and the clotting sequence. You're cherry-picking the one guy who says what you want to hear and saying, in essence, "when somebody like him is convinced, well then, we'll see". I would like, then, to point out the things he is convinced of that you personally would reject.

From his book Darwin's Black Box:

"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) to be fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism - natural selection working on variation - might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life."

Let's analyze that closely. What, exactly, does Behe object to? He doesn't believe that natural selection explains everything at the molecular level. That's all. Fundamentally, that's the only claim he's making. He accepts that all living things are descended from a single common ancestor via natural selection over the course of billions of years. So, Behe already agrees with evolution in the main. As a Witness we were taught that it was OK that the universe was billions of years old, but two things we were not allowed to believe: one, that all living things (including man) are descended from a common ancestor and two, that the history of LIFE (not the planet, but life on it) is billions of years old with the history of man being millions of years since our divergence from our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. Tom, no doubt as one of Jehovah's Witnesses you believe that mankind is approximately 6,000 years old as a species and you believe that the living things we see today are all members of separately created "kinds". Behe would disagree with both of these beliefs, as would every single reputable scientist in the world. By Witness standards, Behe is an evolutionist, just a theistic one. He believes he can demonstrate certain problems at the molecular level of biology that could not be solved via natural selection and would have required intelligent intervention to solve, but he's still an evolutionist.

Now, about your claims of astronomical improbability. Evolution in the sense of common descent with modification via DNA is not improbable. It's a measurable predictable on-going observable process. But, there is a second subject which is where all the improbability claims come in... the generation of life from non-life. This is NOT evolution. Let me repeat that... THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. Everything in the theory of evolution (common descent via natural selection) would hold true if life was initially created by God, aliens, or chemistry. And, the odds there are not nearly as long-shot as people think. To explain...

The calculations of odds that the Creation book uses are based on the generation of a simple cell (DNA, nucleus, cell wall, etc) from basic chemistry. Let's state right here that to find a bio-chemist or microbiologist who believes that such a thing is possible or that this is what happened you will need a time machine. Nobody believes this any more. Even the most basic cell is a highly-evolved thing. The jump from non-life to life had to have happened the same way everything else did, via chemistry and graduating events. I personally find the RNA world hypothesis the most convincing because it also explains viruses, which are sort of half-alive, and it doesn't really require any massively astronomical odds.

So, I'll ask you. Which part of the whole thing is so impossible? Common descent? Natural selection? Abiogenesis? I don't find any of these things to be particularly hard to believe if one has a proper understanding of what they entail and a current education in what science has discovered relevant to each.

One additional point, as a Witness I too found that maligning scientists as a bunch of God-dishonoring atheists was an easy explanation for how out of sync they are with what the Bible claims. However, the truth is that they are among the most honest and rigorous and diligent people on our planet and deserve more respect than that. It's a logical fallacy to attack the messenger if you don't like the message.

If you would like to see how a very theistic and highly trained scientist reconciles the book of Genesis with modern discoveries, I suggest you read the work of Kenneth Miller, a highly-trained, highly-credentialed, and highly religious theist who happens to also be a biology professor and author of the book "Finding Darwin's God" in which he shows that evolution is not in conflict with religious faith. The supposed atheistic nature of evolutionary biology is a a logical fallacy. The truth is that the two subjects are not connected. Evolution with abiogenesis provides an explanation for life that does not require the intervention or existence of a God, however, it does not exclude it either.

tom sheepandgoats · 2 years ago

"as a Witness I too found that maligning scientists as a bunch of God-dishonoring atheists was an easy explanation for how out of sync they are with what the Bible claims"

No, I don't think I've done that. I rather like science. But there is a tendency today to reverse roles and regard scientists as the modern Moses descending with the Commandments which you had better accept. The examples I gave and the Max Planke quote show they don't merit that near-reverential regard. That's not the same as maligning them. It's only to say they are not superhuman. They have made the same blunders as the rest of us.

I will even add blood transfusion to the list of turnabouts, in the face of monolithic scientific opposition. Doctors are rapidly coming to the viewpoint that, if it is at all possible to avoid a transfusion, one should do it. A far cry from the not-too-remote past when you would routinely "top off the tank." Thanks to JW tenaciousness (stubbornness?) techniques of bloodless medicine are entering the mainstream. It is reasonable to expect, and may already be the case, that lives saved in using bloodless techniques will outnumber those lost by a tiny group that has held fast to it's principles.

My point is that science has become the litmus test by which every idea must be screened. Should that be? Religious ideas, far more often destructive than they are beneficial, nevertheless come to grips with moral and larger-than-life questions, as science does not, and as I have tried to point out in prior comments. Should they all be scrapped because mainstream science declares them suspect? As the example with transfusion thinking shows, scientists have a hard time with things that are here and now before our eyes. Should we accept without question any assertion they make about things millions of years ago? Frankly, I would be inclined to go along for the ride, if their notions did not conflict with something more noble. But they do.

Look, it all rides on what you regard as "more noble." We disagree on that. Point that out if you like. This is, after all, your blog, not mine. But I will most likely not answer. This has to end somewhere and we begin to repeat ourselves. You've been most gracious in allowing and giving answer to my comments.

Of course, it is not only Behe, but yes, he is in the minority. And no, he does not line up with JWs on everything. Nonetheless, he was interviewed in Awake! a few months ago. He did not regard the chasm too vast or the JW "ignorance" too great that he should not be used as a source. Is he the only "good" scientist, whereas the others are all frauds? No, I don't think I said that. All my prior reasoning is only to establish that it is possible for mainstream to be incorrect.

Do you really think that I am going to read your guys, or even my guys, and get the complete sense of all they are saying? When they have a lifetime of specialized training and experience behind them? Have you? How many people have? Or can? Don't we have to work the next day? And shop? And mind the family? And unclog the kitchen sink? And walk the dog? So, if it is outside our field or expertise, are we to be bullied into submission by any mainstream opinion simply because we don't share their credentials? No. What you look for is that your argument can be made persuasively by someone who has such credentials. It doesn't have to be the majority. As I stated before, I was attracted to JWs, not because they were or were not science-approved, but because they had spiritual answers I had never seen anywhere else, and they stood for something different than today's ever-declining standards.

ryan · 2 years ago

Well, Tom, I never really thought agreement was likely, and it looks like I was right. The examples you've given about scientists being wrong are good because they point out the specific and powerful advantage science has over tradition, science is not a thing, it's a process. Theories are put forward and tested skeptically over and over. When they fail the test, they are discarded. You could name a million discarded theories and initially heckled ideas and you would simply be proving the point. I don't put my trust in scientists or specific scientific claims, but I do believe in the process because of it's self-correcting nature. What's best about the scientific process is that scientists LOVE to prove each other wrong. They don't accept some holy mainstream writ and stick with it, they test each other and test each other and make their name by staking out new territory and proving the old guys wrong. You act like they made a saint of Darwin. Well, don't you think that the guy who proved Darwin wrong would make an even bigger name for himself? It would be huge, like Einstein proving Newton wrong with Relativity. Your characterizations of scientists are simply false. Scientists from all walks of life and religious backgrounds, in all countries of the globe, have been testing evolutionary theory for over 150 years and rather than being discarded, it has been confirmed over and over and over and over and over as the only known explanation that fits all the facts. Theists, Buddhists, Atheists, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Taoists... doesn't matter, if they use the scientific method and they put the theory of evolution to the test, they find it fits. Various ideas have been tested and discarded (Lamarkianism for example was tested and found wrong) but the core tenet, common descent with modification via natural selection, has withstood a century and a half of abuse and advances by thousands of honest, hard-working people who would advance themselves immensely by being the one to find it false. In the eyes of professional biologists the world over, it's the fundamental unifying principle of all the day to day work they do, as difficult to work without as gravity would be to an astrophysicist. I'm sorry you don't like the idea of common descent, but it's fact, it's confirmed by your DNA, and somehow you're going to have to make peace with it someday.

On your final point, I understand the attraction to the JW's. Being raised as one, I enjoyed the spiritual fellowship and the rest. I found the answers gratifying to have. I never intended to leave. I only left because I found out the answers were false. That's all. They would have been awesome if true, but, they weren't.

After leaving and doing a lot of searching I've found out something I never knew before... answers far more gratifying that also have the benefit of being based on reality instead of a book. I don't have to deny my DNA in order to find spiritual happiness, live a moral life, and understand the cause of suffering and pain. I don't have to view my fellowman as "worldly" or have an ancient book explained to me by some people I've never met in New York who claim to be the only ones who really understand it. I have learned to accept life as it is, to be happy in doing so, raise my child in a moral way, have compassion for everybody and to stand for something different than today's ever-declining standards.

The real question, Tom, is simple. If the whole Universal Court Case and Armageddon and all of it is just a story, a darn good one that seems to make sense, but just a story after all... do you really want to live and die waiting for a deliverance that will never show up? I mean, sure, the people are nice, but what, hypothetically, if the whole thing is really just a story, as I am convinced it is on the basis of many many many lines of evidence? Is that a trade off you're willing to make? If so, the Witnesses are a wonderful religion to be a member of. I do not try to get my father or brother or sister to leave because they are happy there. I do not believe for one second that the end they are expecting is based on reality or will ever happen, but they are happy and that is enough for me. If it's enough for you, then please go in peace, I support you as a Witness 100%. The only thing I would ever wish changed with the Witnesses is that they don't demonize former members who simply think they are mistaken. I can't pretend to believe something once I know why it's wrong and I can't claim to be a proponent of truth and honesty while being a hypocrite, so I had to leave. I don't deserve to be shunned for that. I find the lack of respectable disagreement the only real black mark on the Witnesses but if it helps you to believe what they teach and it makes you happy, enjoy sir.

david · 2 years ago

I just gotta say thank you to everyone who's added to this discussion. Ryan, Tom, Jennifer - you guys are all great to read. I wish this blog discussion could go on, but it looks like it's winding down. Each of you have hit on some good points. Before I say more I should let Tom know that I'm in "the other camp" here. Ryan and Jennifer are friends of mine so they already know where we're aligned. Still Tom, I see a lot of good points in your arguments. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're one of those guys who's in the organization, but doesn't line up perfectly with every little thing.

You know, this whole discussion started with this cognitive dissonance thing. I've heard of it before (I'm guessing from James or Ryan or Jennifer) and I remember not being too taken with it. I mean, it seems to either be a non-theory theory, or it's too general and covers too much, or it's just too often abused by really opinionated people who want to sound objective. It's something though.

So maybe it's too much of a non-theory theory. Like it explains some really obvious thing so it's either a law disguised as a theory or it's just complicated wording for stuff we're all familiar with and so we sit around sounding smart while talking about nothing. I know, I know - that's my answer for everything that's over my head. Fine.

But maybe this Cognitive Dissonance is a very general thing that's everywhere all the time. You have your cognitions that make up your personality. Every time you meet a new cognition, you have to reconcile it with the rest of the cognitions. "Huh? Did that guy just jump ten feet straight up? Oh, he's on a trampoline." Did you feel the dissonance there? People can't jump ten feet straight up. I know that. But I saw what I saw.

You know, reading this blog causes CD. Ryan and Jennifer don't agree with Tom. Depending on your opinion, one or the other viewpoint will be taken in as dissonant cognitions. So if it's everywhere all the time and I'm sure to varying degrees, why say that JW's should have any sort of special interest in it? Is it because they face more dissonant cognitions based on the fact that they are constantly on the lookout for differing opinions? Is it because they are open minded people that are always trying to better themselves through change. Does their unbiased open-mindedness for truth with no emotional leanings mean that they are more likely to not only explore new conflicting cognitions, but also be more likely to change their own cognitions?

No. If anything, a "good" JW should experience less dissonance. Going to an apostate website, reading oposing viewpoint material, schools of higher education, arguing with an opposer at a door, mixing company with unbelievers, becoming overly social with people who don't agree with you... these are things that are discouraged. On the other hand, The Public Conversations Project, in Cambridge, Massachusetts is a good example of truly open minded people trying to CREATE CD to better themselves. They do this by listening to the other side. They are there to grow. They look at CD as a good thing. And why not? You can not grow without Cognitive Dissonance. If there is no discomfort, there is no reduction. Reduction is the path to change. So yeah, if you were born right and don't need to add or alter anything in your mind, please avoid CD. I like it.

But maybe it's not so general. Maybe it's only a subject for these big in-your-face topics. But then maybe you can get in to trouble if you try to use it as a tool to sound your opinions off of. You know that book that "the good doctor" was peddling? I read some reviews about it and it would seem that he makes it very clear who he voted for in the last election. I like examples and illustrations as much as the next guy, but how good of an understanding will you get looking at things in such a one-sided fashion. You have three options when you reduce dissonant cognitions. Personally, I'd like to hear examples that offer explanations of each option without feeling that one is right.

Let's say I know nothing of CD and I come to this blog. I learn about the problem that people face when they think incorrect things. They face the truth of reality and it causes them pain so they have to make stuff up or shut their brains off or do some other negative thing. That or realize how wrong they are and change to the correct way of thinking (as stated by the writer's opinion).

For me it's like reading about CD from a guy who thinks that Red is factually the best color. There was a time when he would tell people that his favorite color was black, but this was really more out of habit. Without noticing, his preference had shifted to Red. He buys red shirts, uses red markers to write on his white board, he even has his Windows color scheme set to High Contrast Red. One day his buddy comes by and notices the Red fetish. He grabs a couple of markers and draws two lines on a whiteboard. "Which do you like better?" He erases the losing color and draws another. And again. In the end our man has just learned something about himself. He likes Red. Not black? The dissonance grows. He could throw his red shirt away and erase the red writing on his whiteboard and change the color scheme on his computer... or he can come to grips with the TRUE truth that's all around him. Red is the best color.

Of course he doesn't need to point out the facts of red being superior - the biblical significance of blood or the scientific fact of it's unique qualities. But think of all the people out there who (like he once did) think black is their favorite. The dissonance they must feel when they buy a dozen roses for their wives or drink a can of Coke or see a really flashy car drive by. "Oh it's the smell of the roses that women like and the red ones just happen to be cheaper. I actually prefer Pepsi," they lie. And some times he wonders what the world will be like in 1000 years. Will they even make black cars? There may not even be cars, but whatever they have, he can just see some backwards nut still zipping around...

I just think that if we always put forth these kinds of examples - the DNA evidence that sheds light on a wrong decision or the war we now know to be illegal - we will start to think of CD as this thing that emotional people who are set in their ways have that causes them to be so darn stubborn. Let's hear if CD can explain Stockholm Syndrome where the new cognition is the wrong one!

Used every day or abused all the time, Cognitive Dissonance - I'm just not convinced that JW's have any special reason to care about it. Ex-JW's maybe, but then again, Tom is an ex-worldly person and I'm sure some sort of CD came right before that little change.




I'm not sure if these parts about Cognitive Dissonance in regard to how JW's view ex-JW's are from personal experience, but it would seem that JW's are taught that once a person leaves, they are worldly. They are taught that worldly people do “bad” things. They don't have to know the specifics of the “bad” things. They don't have to have evidence. They have a strong Cognition - now that the ex-JW is worldly, they do “bad” things. If such an ex-JW was to fully disclose all the private things of their lives to such JW's, would the JW continue to have the dissonance or would the new cognitions confirm their current thinking about ex-JW's? (Keep in mind we are looking at the world from their view of “bad”.) For me, I don't love Jehovah. If that were the only difference between me now and me five years ago, they'd be right. Dissonance Reduced.

Stacy · 2 years ago

WOW. Ry, great posts and rebuttals. I'm adding a request to my library list for the book. CD describes my inner life from 20 - 26 (five years of going thru the motions . . . ).

I appreciate the points of Jen and Tom as well. If I may, I'd like to add a wish to Ryan's last rebuttal: "The only thing I would ever wish . . ."

Tolerance. Why is this not taught? Jesus hung out with tax collectors and prostitutes (not exactly the most savoury of folk) accepting people as they came. If anything, we as Witnesses are taught to look down, pity and avoid contact with anyone who was not JUST LIKE US, to the point that we only hang out with other JW's and shun the company of anyone who expresses ideas that are not copacetic to the teachings of the Society (not Jesus').

If Witnesses were tolerant, I would enjoy a much healthier relationship with my parents. They would accept my differing belief system while wishing that I were still a JW, but there would be the option of open communication without condemnation and social pressure from the Society and congregation to avoid my presence altogether.

It is truly a pity, since I have met some really fine folk that are Witnesses. And I miss them as friends. Maybe some of them miss me.

As a personal aside, Ry, when I had been out for about three years, I sought a counselor to work past what had happened (and hammer out a few non-JW items as well) and she gave me a sheet detailing the seven stages of being in a cult. At first, I was mildly insulted and taken aback; JW is a legitimate established religion. But then I read what she had given me and all but one step rang true for me. I was crushed. I spent HOW LONG of my life doing this?? Participating in a system of suspended disbelief and injuring myself in the process.

She also talked to me about CD (this was five years ago) and how I had basically been feeling this way for such a long while that I never even thought about it and accepted it as something everyone else does as well. The answer to that was: no. It's not normal. Now, I'm of the school that if it doesn't feel right, don't do it. And I've learned to listen to myself a bit better. Just not my husband. ;p tee hee

~Estace

ryan · 2 years ago

David,

Sorry I missed your second post until now... I just read it.

I have found this entire conversation to be very interesting, although I'm fairly certain that a lot of what we've been talking about is not precisely the actual subject of CD.

One of the reasons I was so interested in the topic when I listened to Dr. Aronson on Science Friday was because of having read his previous book on Propaganda. I have yet to read "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)", the book that started this conversation, but his previous book was powerful not because it touted a bunch of theories, but because he had the experimental evidence to back it up. In the case of propaganda, he wrote extensively about experiments that had been performed to attempt to determine exactly how it was that people were convinced/coerced into doing things they never would have wanted to do in the first place. In controlled conditions, they were able to discover behavior patterns that were surprisingly consistent. I think I gave more weight to his discussion on the radio because I knew that he had previously made use of a fairly rigorous experimental methodology to reach his conclusions, not just making blanket statements from the hip.

An example (from memory). He discussed an experiment in which random strangers were brought together in a room and assigned to a group at random, say the orange group and the green group. The people were allowed to mingle and socialize and then they were interviewed about their perceptions of the other people. The finding was that people were far more likely to say good things and have good feelings about others who were assigned to the same random group. The sense of shared membership in a group, no matter how arbitrary, had a psychological impact on perception of other people. Kurt Vonnegut called this a granfalloon, and discussed it in a few books. Marketers and religious leaders and politicians are well aware of this effect/tendency/etc. It's not a 100% thing, but if you want to galvanize people to your way of thinking, it's remarkably powerful. Heck, even the bag of sunflower seeds I have here attempts to make me feel like I'm part of some special group of sunflower seed eaters with the text:

"Congratulations! You're a seeder! Seeders are unique. They're cool, confident, independent, active, and hard working."

I mean, how silly is that? I like sunflower seeds so now I'm part of a unique, cool, confident, independent, active and hard working group? This is an example of a marketing department attempting to pull two known levers in the human psyche: people like to belong to a group and people like to have their egos stroked.

The presence of cognitive dissonance in the minds of people is a reality for many people, probably not for everybody, just as pleasant (but irrational) feelings related to group membership are a reality for many. There are many more levers in the human mind and the people with a keen understanding of them can get people "en masse" to do what they want. They'll buy products they don't need, vote for people they shouldn't, work jobs they hate, destroy themselves and others in the name of religion, all sorts of stuff. Knowing the tricks, knowing exactly how a message has been crafted to manipulate the hearer into agreement, is something that can help one avoid being manipulable.

I guess my point is that the Witnesses, while not unique in doing so, are quite skilled at knowing how to psychologically manipulate people. Of the world's religions, they are one of the best, although they all do it to an extent. They define an in-group and out-group, creating a granfalloon. They provide strong rationalizations and apologetics to reduce dissonance while also providing regular opportunities for use of those rationalizations, which helps enforce commitment. They hold out a golden paradise and a scary alternative that helps make sure that alternatives are not seriously considered. CD is only a part of it and for some of us it was a major part of our Witness experience. For others, probably not so much, still I think this whole area of psychology/sociology, all the aspects of the psychology of persuasion, are worth the time and attention of anybody who was or is a Witness.

david · 2 years ago

"I think this whole area of psychology/sociology, all the aspects of the psychology of persuasion, are worth the time and attention of anybody who was or is a Witness."

I agree. I'd say that even if someone is in there and wants to stay there and even if they believe every bit of it and expect to always believe, they should look at how certain psychological/sociological manipulation coincides with JW practices. And if it causes too much dissonance they can always add the cognition that since God created man and he knows how man works, it only seems to reason that he'd use such techniques in keeping sheep-like-ones in the fold. Once again science proves that the bible truly IS the word of God (and thank space I have nothing to do with that guy anymore). ;)

Brant Jones · 2 years ago

I have really enjoyed reading this thread. All of you are very intelligent and respectful to each other.

I tend to disagree strongly with the assumption that JW's are a good religion for a number of reasons.

First, they encourage others to examine their own religion, but they will not do the same.

Next, the strong stand that the Org takes when people decide it is time to leave is very hurtful. I was a JW for 45 years and my wife even longer as she was born into it. All of our friends were JW's. When we were upset about the UN-NGO affair, and examined it carefully, and wrote to the WTS a number of times with no answer of any of our questions, we decided to leave. Bear in mind that I was in prison for 2 years in the 60's over the neutrality issue, later an elder for 30 years and raised 4 pioneer children, two of which went to bethel.

So upon leaving, the elders actually hunted me and my wife down to disfellowship us, for what? Because we disagreed with the Governing Body, a name not found in the Scriptures, nor an idea promoted by early Bible writers.

We then lost all of our "friends" and one of our children, as the rest, thankfully, left with us.

That is immoral to treat people like that. It is self-righteous and hurtful. We are old people, in our 60's, and we were really 'supporters' of the WT way for years, even though at times we found it difficult to do so.

The Dissonance that the JW's are subjected to is mind-boggling. Take for instance the latest KM. The Society tells the friends that there is no need for them to have "private study discussions" or to learn Greek or Hebrew. They say that they have done that study already and there is no need for them to do it themselves. What about the Boereans? Isn't Acts 17:11 heralded by the Society? Have they not said that the Boereans were 'more noble-minded'? But now, being noble minded has changed. It is not examining what we are taught, like the Boereans, who were examing carefully WHAT THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES WERE TEACHING. But now, it is wrong to question a Publishing Society that changes its mind about serious beliefs all the time.

Think of the changes:

The generation of 1914 would see the end. Millions now living will never die. Christ came in 1874, then 1914. Armageddon was to come in 1914. Then 1925, then 1943, then 1975, then the work was to be completed by the end of the century.

The blood issue as been changed. Where is the adherence to "ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD"?

The neutrality issue was changed in the 90's.

The 1935 teaching about the heavenly hope was changed just last May.

The problem for me is not that they change their beliefs, but they viciously attack honest hearted people that question their authority as God's Spokesman.

Are we to assume that God himself can't get it straight, or is it them?

Why for instance do we not still study the book, "The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life? It was the TRUTH wasn't it? Did the truth change?

Then the Live Forever that replaced TRUTH book was replaced by the "Knowledge" book, which is a farce.

BUT---They will disfellowship you, and do all they can to ruin YOUR LIFE if you disagree with them.

Where is Christ in all this? Is that the way he and the disciples viewed things. What happened to Thomas when he had the audacity to question CHRIST himself. Did Jesus disfellowship him? Or did he lovingly and clearly explain himself?

What about the verse in 1 JN 4:1 that says we should actually test all inspired utterances to see if they are from God or not? If you test theirs, you will find them to be dificient, but, dissonantly, they will disfellowship you for it.

They go have sex with the Scarlet Colored Wild Beast, and I get disfellowshipped for it.

Thats the dissonance that I am now free from. Never will go back, or into any organized religion. They are all bad. All part of Babylon the Great. Get out of her "my people". Ezekiel 34 comforts us to say that Jehovah will 'regather his sheep, and care for us' at the appropriate time.

Glad I found this thread, it was referenced on JWD.

All of you seem to be very nice guys. May God bless us all.

Brant Jones bhjones46@yahoo.com

myhowthingschange · 1 year ago

I am going to continue to write here, even though I presume none of you will read it. No matter my beliefs, I will not write anti-Witness garbage here, I still hate apostates, I will not personally attack anybody at any point, I will always respect the people I love

Priscilla · 8 months ago

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

management chiropractic · 7 months ago

Ryan,

Cognitive Dissonance, very catchy title, as you had mentioned you had read some propaganda books can you give ideas on what title are they I'm interested with it, I agree politicians every time the voting for new leader comes they are using their money and power to gain voters which is indeed is such a rude way all competitors must be fair with one another. you have such an informative post i'm looking forward for more of y our works.