February 20, 2010
Mistakes Were Made
Carol Tavris
Carol Tavris describes dissonance theory and how self-justification and self-deception often keep people from changing their minds even in the light of compelling contrary evidence, because the evidence is often dissonant with one’s self-image. She details the implications of dissonance theory for the persistence of psychic charlatans and other peddlers of the paranormal, and how it may explain how someone like Sylvia Brown can live with herself, and also how it may explain how believers remain so gullible about such unsupportable claims. She describes confirmation bias as a component of dissonance theory. She talks about how dissonance theory applies to the skeptic movement, both in terms of suggesting the best strategies for engaging the credulous, and in terms of fostering skepticism about one’s own skeptical views. And she argues that skepticism should be affirmative rather than destructive in its approach, and focused on both critical thinking and creative thinking alike.
Also in this episode, The Honest Liar, Jamy Ian Swiss, talks about who psychics really see when they look in the mirror.
Recommended Reading
Links of Interest
- Subscribe via iTunes
- Connect with For Good Reason on Facebook
& Twitter
- Support the James Randi Educational Foundation
- © Copyright 2010 For Good Reason
- Produced in association with the JREF
- info@forgoodreason.org
Listener Reactions
Hi D.J.
Love the new show.
This was an illuminating podcast, i have much to think about
What a great episode! I love Carol Tavris and the book Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me! Read that book, people!
Thanks for another great episode! I look forward to the next one!
Terrific discussion. This concept really helps me understand my own biases and those of others and why certain types of debates seem to get nowhere.
Faith is not just “believing what you know ain’t so” (Mark Twain), it is the strength of the emotional commitment to a worldview that, if it weren’t true, would cause severe cognitive dissonance by the believer.
Great, love this show and similar shows…I can’t help a silly side comment though - anyone besides me get a little tired of the “public radio-style” opening music? Pointofinquiry was worse, but geeez people, let’s get something a bit more…energetic and cool! Something clubby, something electronic! Not this sort of “almost-peppy but rather sleepy jazz” type of stuff. Hehe, that’s my comment for now.
Great interview! Highlight of my day. Keep up the good work.
For what it’s worth, I like the theme music. It reminds me a little of the Penn & Teller’s Bullshit theme. It’s certainly more energized than the Point of Inquiry theme, which I confess I always found a little depressing. (Adrian may enjoy the much clubbier music for Skepticality - another must listen!)
This was a terrific episode - and I will be adding Carol’s book to my reading list right away.
Love the new show as much as the old one. Carol’s interview was very insightful for someone like me who is not a psychologist. Can’t wait for more…
I would like to congratulate D.J. and Carol on a great podcast. The podcast brought up many interesting topics. I think one of the most interesting, and often not discussed was the topic of the skeptic movement. As Carol said, skeptics should be questioned just as non-skeptics are questioned. The idea that a skeptic can’t admit to being wrong, makes that skeptic a cynic. The idea that skeptics don’t want to crticize other skeptics, is a bad idea and lends itself to the logical fallacy- inconsistency, and appeal to authority. I am a member of three skeptic groups and I have noticed a growing trend in committing the appeal to authority fallacy. Just because a famous skeptic said it doesn’t make it right. It is also imporant to distinguish between skilled and non-skilled skeptics. I am not so sure that that some skeptics understand this concept.
Probably, almost every skeptic can admit that the skeptics beliefs should ultimately be based on evidence. Yet, some skeptics lack the skills to read the evidence. There is a huge difference between the strengths of evidence. Citing a popular science mag article (which lacks references, and misrepresents the data)is not the same as evidence derived from a valid RCT cited in a peer review journal (which could still be unvalid). Epidemiological studies do not possess the strength of double blind randomized controlled trials. One study that implies evidence for a particular occcurence does not outweigh evidence of 10 well controlled studies finding contradictory evidence. Understanding research methodology is important for skeptics. Last spring I gave a lecture in Kansas City- Introduction to Skeptical thinking- to a group of Fitness professionals in Kansas City, and as I figured, the majority of them had no knowledge of basic logic or research methodolgy. I feel like this is the norm.
To reiterate, skeptics should be questioned just like everyone else. Skeptics should lose the appeal to authority which seems to be happening quite often. Skeptics should also lose the mentality that they are smarter than everyone else. This doesn’t help further their cause.
On a final note, I am not sure how much of the nonsense perpetuated by Sylvia Browne is due to cognitive dissonance, and how much is due to her decison to willingly lie at all costs, if it makes her a few more bucks. Wonder why she has failed to take Randi up on his one million dollar challenge? Wonder why Montel continues to promote Browne? The following quote is from the Stop Sylvia Browne website, “On February 6 2007, Lt. Colonel Hal Bidlack (Ret) mailed a letter to Montel Williams, asking him some serious questions regarding Williams’ continued support of Sylvia Browne.” http://stopsylvia.com/articles/montelresponsetoopenletter.shtml
After listening to this podcast I immediately ordered the book.
Thanks,
J Hale
Thank you for this wonderful episode. I just bought the book. This topic explains both my recent change from fundamentalist christian to atheist, and also why I have such problems in relationships when I freely admit when I am wrong because I think of myself as a NON-expert in relationships, but that I don’t understand why my partners refuse to admit when they are wrong when the evidence clearly points out that they are. I look forward to admitting that I am wrong more often in other venues, as well as meeting people who are willing to admit that they are wrong in relationships.
What a great series of episodes so far! Keep it up. Also, I like the theme music. The reason it sounds like the Penn and Teller theme is because it’s composed by the same guy!
What a truly excellent podcast. Carol is a very natural communicator, and I really feel I’ve learned something from this episode. I hope her book is an unmitigated success. It’s important that we learn to recognise cognitive dissonance within ourselves, just as much as noticing it in others.
The podcast explains so much! I wish Carol the very best in her speech at TAM 8 later in the year.
DJ,
Love the new show. Great interviews and discussion as always.
I especially loved this discussion.
Keep up the good work!
Nice work! For Tavris fans
D.J. also interviewed Tavris for Point of Inquiry (8/3/2007)
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/carol_tavris_mistakes_were_made/
It was popular
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2773/#17754
This is one of the best discussions I’ve found about self-deception. I listened for the second time, today and have shared it once again with friends.
Your points regarding the attitudes of skeptics and non-skeptics alike are well taken. Without an inquiring mind, open to new evidence, we are more or less lost.
Ms. Tavris’ suggestions regarding how to approach others without engaging a specific dissonance, is quite helpful. I have been trying various methods of approach, and her ideas do seem to be the most useful I have found thus far.
Great podcast!
Great episode!
Great interview!
D.J. Central Europe is listening too!
Greetings from Poland!
I wish some of you people come to Poland some day for some wise, intelligent conference!
Thanks for great work.
Q
I blogged extensively on this episode, and I’d welcome any thoughts. http://skepticalrationalist.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-cognitive-dissonance.html
Well done and literally thought provoking! I’m loving the book.
Great podcast. I have been thinking along similar lines, but you managed to distill, clarify, and explain the hypothesis in extraordinary detail. Very nicely done.
I loved the cast. I bought the book. I loved it. Thanks For Good Reason.
I’m itching to buy the book, but the page isn’t available on your site. :(
Thank you for discussing this topic! I especially like the point that belligerence isn’t the way to change minds.