Cognitive Dissonance the definition
Frankymole
http://www.sixofone-info.co.uk/ site but remain members (Andrew?), and
also to anyone who cannot admit when they're wrong (no names, no
packdrill) ;o)...
"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the
discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or
believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when
there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it
to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the
generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial
(and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual
wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go
"over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:
* if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts
what they already think they know - particularly if they are committed
to that prior knowledge - they are likely to resist the new learning.
Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than
Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
* if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even
humiliating enough, people are not likely to admit that the content of
what has been learned is not valuable. To do so would be to admit that
one has been "had", or "conned".
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger and
associates, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult
which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and
what happened to its members - particularly the really committed ones
who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult - when the
flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to
recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to
experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the
evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not
destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).
Ordeal is therefore an effective - if spurious - way of conferring value
on an educational (or any other) experience. "No pain, no gain", as they
say.
* the more difficult it is to get on a course, the more participants
are likely to value it and view it favourably regardless of its real
quality.
* ditto, the more expensive it is.
* the more obscure and convoluted the subject, the more profound it
must be. This has of course been exploited for years to persuade us of
the existence of the emperor's clothes, particularly by French
"intellectuals". (I recently came across the wonderful phrase
"intellectual flatulence" which perfectly describes such rubbish)
It is not, however, the qualities of the course which are significant,
as the amount of effort which participants have to put in: so the same
qualification may well be valued more by the student who had to struggle
for it than the student who sailed through.
--
Frankymole
~~~~~~~~
The alt.tv.prisoner FAQ can be found at:
http://www.web-sighted.co.uk/franks/faq.html
Information about Six of One, the disgraced Prisoner Appreciation
Society, can be found at:
http://www.sixofone-info.co.uk/
Lew Stringer
Yes. A term too strong to apply to you in our recent squabble Frank, and I
aplogise. But as you say, a perfect term for Six of One members who won't
listen to the truth.
Frankymole
"Lew Stringer" <Lew.St...@BTopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:BC5E805C.2324C%Lew.St...@BTopenworld.com...
I understand where you're coming from Lew, and it taught me something
too. Better result than most "earnest debates" in life!