Today, people act according to a tribal categorization system dating back to prehistoric times, as evolutionary psychology points out. In line with this tribalist worldview, individuals have classified both human and animal tribesaccording to their own perspectives. Accordingly, people living in communities have created a kind of “in-group and out-group“, that is, “us and them“, in order to protect themselves from external dangers. However, in the modern age, these distinctions continue to be produced due to completely arbitrary, automatic habits. Fortunately, we have now reached the tools and keys that can change behavioral patterns shaped according to boundaries such as species, race, and gender.
People naturally tend towards knowing and making decisions. They feel uncomfortable when they are faced with conflicting information. Nevertheless, some people resort to countless tricks to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. In other words, they want freedom, but cannot establish autonomy over their own lives. So why do people ignore this gap between their ideas and behaviors and avoid taking steps towards change? In this article, we will examine the psychological roots of cognitive inconsistencies and invite the reader to reflect on their own behaviorsand thoughts.
The Effect of Social Mechanisms on Attitude Determination and Adjustable Selves
People are generally inclined to think that their choices belong to them. However, their entire world of meaning has been created by a set of systems established long before they were born. In other words, what people think are individual preferences are actually random selections designed to suit the interests of certain minorities. On the other hand, the current working system has been created so that people do not question the facts. Indeed, when people understand that the pieces of information they hold onto as their identity are manipulative content they collect from outside, systematic and cruel fictions are also exposed.
The subject of self has been researched by various branches for centuries and even millennia. Current neuroscience studies show that the perception of self has a constantly changing structure and is temporary (default mode network). In the context of philosophy and practice, the fact that the self is an illusion is supported by neuroscientific evidence in the studies of the Buddha school of logic. The selflessness (anatman) approach of the Buddha schools has also been clarified in the context of presenting a map of mental processes with neuroscience and modern psychology methods. On the other hand, studies on the transformative effects of meditation on mental functioning are increasing (Wright, 2017).
Evolution of the Forebrain, Ethics, Empathy, and Compassion
The ability of humans to go beyond their vital inconsistencies is directly related to the evolutionary development of the brain. The forebrain (prefrontal cortex) and the white matter section below it are responsible for the highest level of behavior and sensation structures. Especially with this section, elements such as complex thinking, empathy, and ethical questioning capacity have developed. The element that should be remembered here is that this development does not put humans in a position superior to other species. Thus, humans have the ability to undertake a constructive and healing mission between species. In other words, violence is not an unchangeable element inherent in sentientand sensitive living beings.
As is known, scientifically, humans are also a type of animal. In other words, humans, like other animals, are inhabitants of the world and even the universe. Just as thinking only about ourselves is considered selfish (egoism), thinking only about the interests of our own species is also selfish. On the other hand, selfish people are usually associated with narcissistic tendencies, experience a lack of empathy, and are insensitive to the feelings of others. Therefore, they experience stress and mental health problems in the long term. However, the social ties of people whose sensitivity has exceeded the limits are strengthened, their life satisfaction increases, and they are happy.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Social Psychology
Cognitive dissonance (contradiction) is a psychological disorder that occurs when a person holds on to more than one and inconsistent piece of information (cognition) (Festinger, 1957). For example, it is expected that someone who states that “he loves animals or respects their rights” will not harm them directly or indirectly. In other words, this is what is consistent. However, if a person prioritizes their own personal interests and contributes to the exploitation of animals, this produces cognitive dissonance. This dissonance makes the person uncomfortable and they resort to various methods to relieve this discomfort. For example, they may produce contradictory arguments such as “humans are insensitive and the world is a bad place” or “there are differences in values among animals.”
In the context of normative influence, people behave according to the frameworks that are considered normal by the social group they are in. In other words, even if people sense that their actions are wrong and their thoughts are inconsistent, the existence of the social group causes them to feel pressure. In this case, they do not realize that they are also part of the social group in question. Based on informational influence, some people adopt the behaviors of people they believe are more knowledgeable than themselves. In other words, even if it is a piece of information that has lost its validity, some people are open to being misled by people who are considered experts.
Leaving the Comfort Zone and Psychological Dissolution
We call the situation in which people feel safe the comfort zone. People’s learned routines provide them with an artificial security area. Nevertheless, cognition does not occur unless they go beyond this limit and enter the tension area. The situation in which a person clings to existing pieces of information affects their social environment, from the smallest to the largest scale. This means that a person’s positive or negative transformation can lead to a change in the same direction in the community they are in. In other words, a person’s reshaping of himself and his determined stance paves the way for the reshaping of his social environment.
The act of leaving the comfort zone, the learning and resistance phase (tension area), and then psychological disintegration occur with the shaking of thought and identity. At this stage, the person begins to question old beliefsand identity perception under the influence of new experiences and information. If they can overcome this feeling of uncertainty, they can create a fresh cognitive infrastructure. On the other hand, if they resist change, they fall back into the old system and suppress the disharmony. Even so, since the person is now aware of the facts, this resistance continues to affect them negatively throughout their life. When the first scenario occurs, in the last, fourth step, the person synthesizes his old and new information and renews himself. Thus, while mental flexibility increases, the obstacles to learning and change are eliminated.
The Peace of Liberation
Today, social atomism, context collapse, human-centeredness, and power-centeredness produce people who experience communication problems with themselves as well as with others. By reshaping our mind maps, we can create intellectual and practical areas that will include other animals that we are co-evolving with. As we imagine ourselves together with other sentient beings that we are part of, we can discover the door to freedom and peace. By prioritizing the right to life of all sentient beings, we can use the key within each of us correctly. The way to be free from cognitive contradictions is to be aware of and accept them. To have the courage to change for the collective good is to be free.
References
-
Wright, R. (2017). Why Buddhism is True: The Science and Philosophy of Meditation and Enlightenment. New York: Simon & Schuster.
-
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.