A Clash of Ideas

In Psychology there is a concept referred to as cognitive dissonance which alludes to the «tension or internal discord of the belief system that someone perceives while holding two conflicting ideas all at once.» That is, holding two antithetical ideas simultaneously.

No doubt, this notion is far from new to those that know the dystopian fiction Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. The word «doublethink» is the best-known example of Newspeak and, as such, it has reached popular culture. Despite being used in a similar way to the psychological case, the Orwellian word will be left aside as brainwashing is not necessary for cognitive dissonance to have an effect on us. The fact that it is a basic human weakness makes it so much more terrifying.

Even though its social ramifications are wide-ranging, this psychological tension can be seen daily in many among us. One of the postulated examples is that of smoking: many smoke with the knowledge of the potentially carcinogen consequences, notwithstanding we all want to have a long and healthy life. The obvious way out is to quit smoking altogether -yet it is certainly true that ignoring the evidence that smoking increases the chances of getting lung cancer will also make the cognitive dissonance disappear. The cancer will not be so considerate.

Although the true addiction will take care of preventing you from quitting, this purely psychological clash can be even more noxious in new smokers. This clash of ideas is usually -and wrongly- assumed to be preferable to consciously putting the belief «I'm a rational and intelligent being» up against the fact «I'm increasing my chances of cancer». Facing that contradiction results in a hit to your personal ego but it is certainly less harmful than the psychological anguish of replacing reason with rationalizations. And cancer. Let's not forget cancer.

Not unlike a pandemic, this psychological disorder has spread from the individual to society. Albeit not a direct cause, the rise of social relativism has enabled the intrusion of this severe case of intellectual dishonesty. This philosophy, which defends the validity of every cultural system and prohibits valuing different ideologies differently, is particularly present in politics, where statesmen and other power seekers cater to the common denominator.

With the propagation of diplomatic speech (or «political correctness») even ordinary people have learnt to tangle up the language and leave it void of any meaning in order to rationalize relativistic thought. That way, nonsensical notions sprout, such as the contradictory idea that personal beliefs won't influence ones behaviour and will therefore be of no greater relevance to the group, be it a political party, a think tank or any other kind of common-goal organization. This practice, soiled by the foulest of demagogueries, is successful in its aim of appealing to more members of the common denominator -unfortunately, it also utterly waters down the groups original ideals.

Embracing relativism is not an indication of an open mind but of a profound confusion of intellectual honesty. The differential judgement of ideas is just as important in daily life and politics as it is in science; ignoring the fact that different systems and practices have better or worse results is a horrifying show of doublethought. The thesis Sam Harris is bent in showcasing with The Moral Landscape should clear up that, even if we cannot count on a numerical gradation of what is ethically 'better' or 'worse', the absolute instances of total well-being and total suffering that can be conceived allow us to unequivocally condemn practices such as female genital mutilation in certain denominations of Islam, regardless of religious freedoms.

Leaving the very harmful relativism aside, let's go back to one of its major by-products and the central regard of this text: the simultaneous hold of disparate ideas. Even if it has been described as a symptom of mental sloppiness and confusion, each and every one of us have experienced it. No matter how honest and clear we are with our own thoughts, we all have felt that anger and frustration from within in the process of radically changing our minds. The fact is that, even though it is false that convincing someone with reason and facts is impossible, it is very true that you will rarely see the change of minds in front of your own eyes -even the most humble will have a hard time admitting on the spot that they are wrong about a long-held belief.

Cognitive dissonance arises in that process of mental transformation: in spite of the fact that we no longer actually maintain certain established convictions we will keep professing them and we will do all it takes to ignore the fact that our beliefs have changed completely. We get stuck. We stop reasoning and start rationalizing. I experienced it myself when ceasing to believe in pseudoscience: I professed the belief although I knew deep down that I could not belief in practices with scientific pretences not backed by evidence.

Beyond the shadow of a doubt it was the most frustrating and miserable time of my life. I cannot bring myself to envision how it is for those that not only suffer it with paradigm shifts but live through every day with that dissonance pounding their heads. The most I can do for those that feel identified (even if they are terrified to admit it) is to beg them to be brave and admit to themselves the contradiction of ideas that torment them.

(Leer la versión original: Choque de ideas)