- dcmuti
- Feb 16
- 6 min read
Written by Paul C. Bastante, CAPS – Certified Aging in Place Specialist for “The Agewise Institute” and brought to you by 101 Mobility North Jersey
Cognitive Dissonance in Real Life: Why We Defend What We Know Isn’t Quite Right
I’ve been thinking a lot about cognitive dissonance lately. Not in a textbook kind of way. Just in the way you start noticing something once you have a name for it.
Cognitive dissonance is that nagging feeling you might notice when what you believe doesn’t match what you actually do. I sometimes feel that someone
can be a “good” person and also hold two separate beliefs that don’t sit well together. It's a subtle thing. More of a quiet internal mental shift. And it usually happens when something or someone challenges the version of yourself that you prefer.
It is something that we consider to be a mental health concern because interpersonal relationships as well as public and direct response affects the way that we are seen. The way we are seen influences how we view ourselves and this has a direct impact on our mental health.
Most of us do not experience cognitive dissonance as a flashing red light, or something tangible. It’s more like an irritation. It’s the sudden urge sometimes to explain. Have you ever felt this? You’re not alone! It’s an actual thing.
Introduced by Leon Festinger in the 1950’s. The basic idea was that human beings are wired for internal consistency. We want our beliefs and our behaviors, with regard to our identities to match up. When they don't, we instinctively move to restore that balance.
What does THAT mean? As human beings, we do not usually look to change our own behavior first…We usually take the easy road and change the story instead. Almost like an internal governor designed for defense against having to recognize ourselves as the issue. And hence forth then? “Cognitive dissonance”.
Look at it like this, If you believe you are disciplined but you skip something important, you might tell yourself “I needed the break”. If you believe that you are an open-minded person, but you dismissed someone immediately, you might frame that as discernment. If you see yourself as fair but react strongly to something that you dislike, you may call it principle.
My point is not that these explanations aren’t always false. Only sometimes they are accurate. The issue is that we are rarely neutral when thinking of ourselves. We are subconsciously motivated to protect our self-image and the image in the eyes of those we see as important.
Right now, culturally speaking, we are living in a moment where cognitive dissonance is not only amplified, but actually commonplace. Information today moves at breakneck speed. Opinions form even faster. Every event comes with commentary before facts have settled.
Many of us agree that social media platforms reward certainty and punish hesitation and that means that the fastest reaction in the room often sounds like the loudest. It is a difficult environment to navigate sometimes because speed does not necessarily promote accuracy or reason.
When we encounter information that challenges our existing views, we really only have three viable options:
We can pause and examine it.
We can adjust our position.
Reinterpret the new information so it fits our existing narrative.
The last option is usually the easiest. We all understand that as human beings we mostly choose the path of least resistance.
It is easier to question the source than to question ourselves.
You see this across every ideology, every demographic, every age group. No one is immune. I am not immune. You my friends are not immune!
Cognitive dissonance also shows up in quieter ways.
We say we value civil discourse but most of us only engage with people who already agree with us. We say we want unity yet assume the worst about anyone outside our circle. We claim to care about truth but skim headlines instead of reading full articles.
Again, none of this makes any of us villains. It just makes us human. But it is worth considering…What would it be like, if the path of least resistance was also the path less travelled? Think about it.
The speed of modern life intensifies the pressure. We are naturally more reactive when the bullets are flying. There is very little room for reflection. We are asked to respond instantly to events that deserve careful thought. When careful thought is applied things feel different.
Another layer is our identities themselves. Many beliefs are no longer just opinions. They are tied to who we think we are. When a belief becomes part of identity, when that belief is challenged it often feels personal. That is when cognitive dissonance moves to the front of the line.
If someone questions a policy I support, I may hear it as a question about my character. If someone critiques a position I have taken publicly, I may feel attacked. Our brains move quickly to defend the rest of us. The defense can look like dismissal and sarcasm. And the reaction many times is to double down. The deeper the identity attachment, the stronger the reaction.
There is also a private version of this that does not involve politics at all. It shows up in relationships. It appears at work. It surfaces in how we see ourselves as parents, partners, leaders, or friends.
What I find interesting is that cognitive dissonance is not proof of hypocrisy. The discomfort exists because we want alignment within ourselves. That is not a bad thing. The question is more about how we respond to it. Our own reactions.
When we feel defensive about something, we should try to ask ourselves why.
Before we react. I am guilty at times of feeling certain in a way that leaves no room for doubt. In the future I plan on trying to slow it down. That does not mean that I am abandoning my convictions. It just means holding them without presenting myself as infallible. Arrogance?
There is strength in being able to say, “I may need to think about that.” before deciding to react. There is a certain stability in admitting that perhaps you had not considered that angle. Sometimes, this is not a trait of a weak person but of a strong and confident one.
In the current climate, this approach is not common. It is not trendy to display open arrogance, whether intentional or not. It requires restraint.
Cognitive dissonance will never disappear. It is built into the way we process the world. The goal is not to eliminate it. The goal is to become aware of it. To be open to communicating your views to the world in a constructive way.
When you notice that tightening feeling in your chest during a conversation, that may be dissonance. When you feel the urge to correct someone before they finish speaking, that may be dissonance as well. When you immediately search for reasons the other side is dishonest instead of considering their argument, YOU may be Cognitively dissonant.
We do not need to abandon conviction to avoid being rigid. We do not need to avoid disagreement to remain respectful. We do not need to pretend everything is equal to acknowledge that we can learn from people who see the world differently.
Right now, society could use more people who are willing to sit with discomfort instead of outsourcing it to outrage. Read that again for retention.
We could use more conversations that begin with curiosity rather than accusation. We could use more pauses before conclusions.
Cognitive dissonance will always be part of human nature. It shows up where reality collides with belief. The question is whether we allow it to push us toward growth or toward defensiveness.
If we can learn to recognize this and be thoughtful and considerate in our responses, we will be better able to address more substantive matters.
What do you think? I would like to know. Paulcbastante@Gmail.Com
Written by Paul C. Bastante, CAPS – Certified Aging in Place Specialist for “The Agewise Institute” and brought to you by 101 Mobility North Jersey
