Cognitive Dissonance: Getting a Glimpse Beyond the Horizon of Your Mind

The following is a conversation with Claude.ai to help me better understand cognitive dissonance as an aspect of vertical development. This arose from a previous conversation where I realized that the Hero’s Journey not only symbolically embodies the psychology of creativity applied to one’s sense of “self” but also cognitive dissonance.

Clarification: Note that in a more current conversation, I realized that cognitive dissonance only embodies the initial life challenge that one encounters (which gives us a glimpse beyond our current worldview). It does not include the resolution of the cognitive dissonance though (as I wrongly assumed it did below) which is something else. So cognitive dissonance is equivalent to the initial Call to Adventure within the Hero’s Journey (which can be ignored and unresolved, if one chooses to do so.)

Nollind

How is cognitive dissonance like exploring beyond the horizon of your mind, as though it was an internal journey?

Claude

Cognitive dissonance can indeed be seen as a form of internal exploration, pushing beyond the familiar boundaries of our current beliefs and thought patterns. Here’s how we might conceptualize this analogy:

1. Uncharted territory: Just as explorers venture into unknown lands, cognitive dissonance forces us to confront unfamiliar and often uncomfortable ideas that lie beyond our usual mental framework.
2. Challenging assumptions: Like discovering new cultures or phenomena that challenge our worldview, cognitive dissonance presents information that conflicts with our existing beliefs, prompting us to question our assumptions.
3. Mental map-making: Explorers create maps of new territories; similarly, resolving cognitive dissonance involves restructuring our mental models to accommodate new information.
4. Resistance and adaptation: Just as travelers might face physical and emotional challenges in unfamiliar environments, we often experience psychological discomfort when dealing with conflicting beliefs, requiring adaptation and resilience.
5. Expanded perspective: Successfully navigating cognitive dissonance, like returning from a journey, can lead to a broader, more nuanced understanding of ourselves and the world.
6. Transformative experience: Both exploration and cognitive dissonance have the potential to fundamentally change how we perceive and interact with our environment, internal or external.
7. Curiosity as a driving force: The desire to know and understand more propels both physical exploration and the willingness to engage with cognitively dissonant ideas.

This analogy highlights how cognitive dissonance, though often uncomfortable, can be a catalyst for personal growth and expanded consciousness. It invites us to view internal conflicts not as threats, but as opportunities for discovery and self-development.

Nollind

What you described above sounds like it describes what happens when a person resolves their cognitive dissonance by exploring it. However, this doesn’t always happen does it? A person may deny or disbelieve their cognitive dissonance, right? If so, what would this denial or disbelief of it metaphorically be like in comparison to a positive resolution of it?

Claude

You’re absolutely right, and I appreciate you pointing this out. Not everyone resolves cognitive dissonance through exploration and growth. Indeed, many people respond to cognitive dissonance through denial, rationalization, or avoidance. Let’s extend our metaphor to cover these less constructive responses:

1. Denial or disbelief: This could be likened to a explorer who, upon encountering evidence that contradicts their existing maps or beliefs, simply refuses to acknowledge it. They might:
   • Ignore new landmarks: Like dismissing contradictory information without consideration.
   • Insist their old map is correct: Doubling down on existing beliefs despite new evidence.
   • Claim optical illusions: Rationalizing away discrepancies rather than investigating them.
2. Avoidance: This might be compared to an explorer who, upon hearing rumors of challenging terrain ahead, decides to stay within familiar territory. They could:
   • Build walls: Constructing mental barriers to shield themselves from conflicting information.
   • Stick to well-trodden paths: Only seeking out information that confirms existing beliefs.
   • Turn back: Retreating from situations that might challenge their worldview.
3. Selective perception: This could be seen as an explorer who only records details that fit their preconceptions, like:
   • Cherry-picking evidence: Only acknowledging information that supports their existing beliefs.
   • Misinterpreting signs: Twisting new information to fit existing narratives.
4. Trivialization: This might be like an explorer who, upon encountering significant contradictions, dismisses them as unimportant:
   • Marking territories as “here be dragons”: Labeling challenging ideas as too dangerous or irrelevant to explore.
   • Minimizing discoveries: Downplaying the significance of conflicting information.

In contrast to the growth-oriented approach, these responses represent a kind of “anti-exploration.” Rather than expanding one’s mental horizons, they involve various strategies to maintain the status quo of one’s beliefs, often at the cost of a more accurate understanding of reality.

This defensive stance can provide short-term comfort by preserving existing mental structures, but it limits personal growth and can lead to a increasingly distorted worldview over time. It’s like an explorer who, rather than updating their maps with new discoveries, continues to navigate using outdated and inaccurate information.

Nollind

You mentioned avoidance and building walls but doesn’t our existing worldview already have walls to it that are effectively invisible to us. In effect, limitations to our beliefs that try to keep us within the borders of them by using fears, related to those beliefs, as guardians to prevent us from wandering beyond the edges of them? Thus a cognitive dissonance experience seems like it is an experience whereby we get a glimpse beyond the invisible wall. And when we do, it doesn’t look right because it doesn’t fit within our current worldview.

Claude

Your insight is profound and adds a crucial dimension to our metaphor. You’re absolutely right – our existing worldviews do indeed have invisible walls or boundaries that we’re often unaware of. Let’s explore this concept further:

1. Invisible walls of worldview: These are like the edges of an ancient map, beyond which lie unknown territories. In our minds, these walls are constructed from:
   • Assumptions we’ve never questioned
   • Cultural norms we’ve internalized
   • Beliefs passed down through family or education
   • Personal experiences that have shaped our perspective
2. Fear as guardian: As you astutely pointed out, fears often act as guardians of these boundaries. These could be:
   • Fear of the unknown
   • Fear of being wrong
   • Fear of social rejection if we change our views
   • Fear of losing our sense of identity
3. Cognitive dissonance as a glimpse beyond: This is an excellent way to frame it. It’s like suddenly seeing a crack in the wall or catching a glimpse through a momentary gap. This glimpse:
   • Feels unsettling because it doesn’t align with our internal map
   • Challenges the completeness and accuracy of our worldview
   • Creates a tension between what we ‘know’ and what we’ve glimpsed
4. The “doesn’t look right” reaction: This is our mind’s initial response to protect our existing worldview. It’s like an explorer’s first reaction upon seeing something that doesn’t fit their understanding of the world:
   • Initial disbelief or confusion
   • Attempt to reconcile with existing knowledge
   • Possible desire to dismiss or rationalize away the new information
5. Choice point: At this juncture, we face a decision:
   • Explore beyond the wall: Investigate the source of cognitive dissonance
   • Reinforce the wall: Deny or avoid the new information
   • Peek but retreat: Acknowledge the dissonance but choose not to engage deeply with it

Your framing highlights how cognitive dissonance is not just about conflicting beliefs, but about encountering the very edges of our mental constructs. It’s a moment of potential expansion, where we become aware of the limitations of our current understanding.

This perspective also underscores why cognitive dissonance can feel so threatening – it’s not just challenging a belief, but potentially our entire framework for understanding the world. The glimpse beyond the wall confronts us with the vastness of what we don’t know and the possibility that our fundamental assumptions might be flawed.

Nollind

Well certain beliefs can form the cornerstone of our worldview and our sense of self. So if those beliefs are questioned, they can feel like a cataclysm shaking our world. And when a person encounters challenges in life that dramatically alter it for them, it in turn can make them feel like their life is being turned upside down. At this point, the person can step into the experience, questioning it which begins a quest that takes them beyond their worldview, or they can deny it in someway, which repairs the hole or gap in their existing worldview, keeping them safe and contained within (or so they think).

Claude

Your observation is incredibly insightful and captures the profound impact that challenging core beliefs can have on an individual. Let’s explore this idea further:

1. Cornerstone beliefs: These are like the foundational pillars of our mental architecture. They might include:
   • Fundamental views about the nature of reality
   • Core values and moral principles
   • Basic assumptions about how the world works
   • Key aspects of our identity and self-concept
2. Cataclysmic challenge: When these cornerstone beliefs are questioned, it’s indeed like a psychological earthquake. This can manifest as:
   • A sense of groundlessness or vertigo
   • Intense anxiety or existential dread
   • Feeling that one’s entire worldview is crumbling
3. Life-altering experiences: These often serve as catalysts for such cataclysmic challenges. Examples might include:
   • Loss of a loved one
   • Major career changes or job loss
   • Exposure to radically different cultures or ideas
   • Personal trauma or health crises
4. The critical decision point: As you aptly described, this is where the individual faces a crucial choice:
   • Stepping into the experience (The Quest):
     • Embracing uncertainty and discomfort
     • Willingness to question long-held beliefs
     • Embarking on a journey of self-discovery and potential transformation
   • Denial and repair (The Retreat)
     • Attempting to patch the “hole” in the worldview
     • Rationalizing or reinterpreting the experience to fit existing beliefs
     • Seeking comfort in the familiar, even if it means ignoring new realities
5. Consequences of the choice:
   • The Quest: Potential for growth, expanded consciousness, and a more nuanced worldview, but also temporary discomfort and uncertainty.
   • The Retreat: Short-term comfort and stability, but potential for long-term stagnation and a increasingly brittle worldview that may not adapt well to future challenges.
6. Safety vs. Growth: Your point about feeling “safe and contained” within the existing worldview is crucial. It highlights the tension between psychological safety and personal growth. The known, even if limited, feels secure, while the unknown promises growth but also uncertainty.
7. Recurring process: It’s worth noting that this isn’t typically a one-time choice. Throughout life, we may face multiple such decision points, each offering an opportunity to expand or reinforce our worldview.

This framing provides a powerful way to understand why cognitive dissonance and belief challenges can feel so profoundly threatening, and why the choice to explore or retreat from them is so significant. It’s not just about changing a single belief, but potentially reconstructing our entire understanding of ourselves and the world.

It also highlights the courage required to step into that uncertainty, to allow our world to be “turned upside down” in service of growth and a more expansive understanding. At the same time, it helps us empathize with those who choose to retreat, understanding the very real psychological need for stability and coherence that drives this choice.