We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Contradictory: Doublethink as Whitehouse Policy

Doublethink is victory over Cognitive Dissonance - The stress of holding contradictory beliefs. Understanding it offers an explanation of, and strategy to counter, Trump's everyday support.

In this article, I look at the research and the long-term impact of cognitive dissonance on people, show examples of how cognitive dissonance appears, share what the likely outcomes are from being stressed by such internal conflict over an extended period - that research shows this extended psychological tension, this torture, pushes people to coping strategies that can result in sub-optimal outcomes ranging from poor decision-making to mass hysteria.

Two Things Can Be True?

Doublethink: "To simultaneously hold two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both." is now WhiteHouse Policy.

Donald Trump has pre-empted the findings of any air crash investigation by blaming DEI hires for the Potomac crash that happened barely a week after he fired key personnel in the Federal Aviation Authority. By his current rhetoric and 'reasoning', DEI is the current bogeyman to blame for all the federal government's ills. So on Friday, Peter Doocy, Fox News's Senior White House correspondent, probably thought he was on safe ground and brand when he asked a logical sequitur -

"If President Trump is telling us that air traffic control towers are staffed with unqualified controllers, these DEI hires who never should have been brought on, then it's not safe to fly commercially, is it?

Peter Doocy

White House Press Secretary Karoline "Make America Blonde Again" Leavitt said the president

"believes that it is still indeed safe, and Americans should feel safe traveling our skies… Two things can be true at the same time"

The American public is asked to believe two contradictory things are true. DEI hires are so doubleplusungood that they causing planes to crash, but it's simultaneously safe to fly.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -

Voltaire (Apocryphal)

Doublethink is the Party's victory over Cognitive Dissonance.

In 1984, 'DoubleThink' symbolises the totalitarian regime's power, embodied by the Party, to control citizens' actions by controlling citizens' beliefs. Winston is tortured until he genuinely believes that two plus two can equal five if the Party says so - while simultaneously knowing it equals four. This is "doublethink."

"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." - George Orwell

Cognitive dissonance is the stress we experience from holding conflicting thoughts - that might be two mutually exclusive beliefs or when a behaviour conflicts with a held value. Doublethink is the deliberate self-deception that allows you to believe two contradictory ideas while suppressing any recognition of the contradiction.

The mind needs to spend effort and energy coping with the constant conflict, and people become uncomfortable, stressed and even irrationally angry when their attention is drawn to it: Sound Familiar?

The Conflict of Constant Inconsistency

America is the birthplace of Cognitive Dissonance - American psychologist Leon Festinger proposed the theory in 1957, positing that we strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals will try to reduce it on one of three ways - denial, justification, or behaviour/belief change.

There are two key foundations to the theory.

• 1. The existence of dissonance [or inconsistency], being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance [or consistency].

• 2. When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.

The Smoking Gun

Continuing to Smoke Vs. Knowing it is very harmful

Festinger explained his research using the example of a person who smokes, even though they know it's bad for their health. This difference between what they do and what they know leads to a personal struggle. If this struggle isn't dealt with, it can get worse. The person has three choices to feel better about the situation: ignore the truth, make excuses, or change their behaviour.

Denial

They could deny their knowledge about the impact of smoking, convincing themselves that it's not as detrimental to their health as people say.

• "My grandpop smoked three packs a day and lived until he was 90."

• "They've never really proved smoking causes cancer."

Justification

They could seek confirmation or adopt beliefs that smoking has benefits

• "Smoking is social."

• "Smoking keeps the weight off."

• "Smoking helps me cope with stress."

Justification can effectively reduce dissonance, the reasoning generally isn't rational, factual or beneficial. For example - while they may believe that smoking relieves stress, what it really does is cause stress through nicotine addiction and withdrawal.

Change

They accept that smoking is bad for you, and to act consistently with that, they stop smoking, or at least make an effort to.

• I’m going to stop smoking

Note that from denial, justification and change - only change is beneficial. Denial and justification may lessen the symptoms causing the cognitive dissonance; only change will deal with the root cause.

And it’s a reminder to have some empathy - if someone you knew wanted to stop smoking, you would be supportive.

Cognitive Dissonance as Whitehouse Policy

We see cognitive dissonance in the American political realm: Indeed, it's part of what makes Trump's support so often inexplicable to the rest of us.

• It's how so many Christians support Trump and believe him Godly when he's the antithesis of forgiveness, love and moral values.

• It's how so many police support him when he is a convicted Felon - who, on gaining power, released 1,500 domestic terrorists onto the streets - including ones who tased, beat and attacked police officers.

• It's how Republican women can vote for him while knowing he's an openly misogynistic convicted rapist.

• It’s how can Republican legislators vote for him when they know he has no respect for the law.

• It’s how poor Americans can vote for him, when on some level they must know he cares only for his Oligarch Billionaire class.

So how can we counter people's self-delusion? When presented with information that exposes this conflict, they might dismiss the data or double down on their support to alleviate the discomfort caused by this dissonance or, rarely, change their beliefs.There are many such cracks in their psyche - between the reality and the rhetoric, between the propaganda and the policy.

"For We Walk by Faith, not by sight"

2 Corinthians 5:7

MAGA America is a country that prefers comfortable falsehoods to uncomfortable truths.

Prolonged cognitive dissonance presents serious mental risks. Consistently ignoring the dissonance leads to a distorted perception of reality. Individuals persistently choose suboptimal strategies, make poor decisions, and build a habit of denying contradictory information. They lash out when reality attacks their alternative facts that have become canon foundational beliefs.

MAGA, when challenged on them, can slip into denial or justification by reflex. Worse, as they are matters of faith, being attacked for them only cements their adherence, it becomes definitional.

It does not matter that what they believe isn't true, as long as it's Orthodox.

Over time, the chronic effects of cognitive dissonance are severe, leading to mental stress, denial, discord and a descent into collective irrationality.

"Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything."

George Bernard Shaw

Of the three coping strategies, denial, justification and change, you will notice that behaviour change is often the most rational and beneficial - often the only one that actually resolves the conflict. Eases the brain strain. But it also seems to be the hardest for people to adopt - and the hardest to externally influence.

Having conflicting beliefs comes at a cost - but changing behaviours also comes at a cognitive cost. While cognitive dissonance comes from wanting our concurrent beliefs and behaviours to be consistent, we also want our future behaviours to be consistent with our past behaviours.

Changing Course

Cognitive resistance to change is a psychological phenomenon in which individuals resist alterations to their established routines or beliefs due to a desire for consistency. This resistance is often rooted in the human tendency to value predictability and stability, making the change feel threatening or uncomfortable.

The principle of cognitive consistency suggests that we strive to align our future behaviours with our past actions and beliefs to maintain a coherent self-concept. This can create a barrier to change, as adopting new behaviours or beliefs may require acknowledging that our past actions were misguided or ineffective. Individuals may prefer to continue their current behaviours rather than face the discomfort of change.

What is to be done?

How many lightbulbs does it take to change a Trump voter? …One - but the Trump voter has to want to change.

Weaning a Trump voter off supporting him is like convincing someone to give up smoking. Making it expensive doesn't work. Telling them the risks of cancer doesnt work. Sometimes, even emphysema and cancer don't work, and even when people try, they can fail several times.

While cognitive dissonance is a natural psychological process of self-defence - and one that we all must do to some level in order to make our way through the world, Helping voters recognise and understand their cognitive dissonance and the mechanisms by which it works is crucial in promoting rationality, reducing mass hysteria, and fostering a healthy society.

Make it more Uncomfortable to justify the belief than to change it.

"I cannot teach a man what he thinks he already knows."

Epictetus.

When you speak with someone who believes in Trump, they may have an internal conflict that is causing them cognitive dissonance. If so, they will employ either denial or justification.

If you highlight the conflict and provide cast-iron evidence, they will still have a remarkable capacity to deny the evidence or justify the conclusions - often while giving abuse.

It is still worth doing. When we highlight their conflicting beliefs, it adds to the stress of holding them. We should nudge them to self-analyse the conflicts in their beliefs using the deny-justify-change framework and the Socratic method.

The Socratic Method

The Socratic Method is a form of dialogue-based inquiry used to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. It is not so much a specific method or formula but rather an attitude towards argumentation that involves questioning critical reflection and an openness to changing one's mind. It systematically interrogates a position, breaks it down into individual assumptions, and then scrutinises those assumptions to determine their validity.

One of the key features of the Socratic method is its focus on questioning.

Instead of directly contradicting an opponent's views or presenting an alternate argument, the Socratic practitioner probes the other person's beliefs with thoughtful inquiries.

This encourages the person to scrutinise their beliefs and possibly recognise inconsistencies or weak points. This approach can be particularly effective when discussing sensitive or contentious issues, as it tends to reduce defensiveness and foster a more open and collaborative exchange of ideas.

The Socratic method can be a powerful tool when dealing with cognitive dissonance – the psychological discomfort that arises from holding contradictory beliefs. Rather than directly challenging a person's beliefs (which can often provoke defensiveness and resistance), the Socratic method can help them explore the contradictions in their beliefs in a less confrontational manner.

Let's consider the situation of an individual who believes that Tarriffs are a genius economic policy and that Trump is going to lower prices. Don’t just explain how tarriff’s work and make them feel stupid. Using the Socratic method, you might begin by asking questions that explore their belief: By asking such questions, you guide them to critically examine their beliefs, identify inconsistencies, and potentially understand their cognitive dissonance. The purpose is not to corner them or make them defensive but to encourage self-exploration of their own ideas and beliefs.

Here's an idealised walkthrough of it - just to give you the idea to the approach. No real conversation will go this well. You aren't disagreeing with them, you are asking the right questions until they are forced to disagree with themselves.

Socratic Dialogue on Tarriffs

Interlocutor (I): I support tariffs. They protect domestic jobs and industries from unfair foreign competition.

Socratic Questioner (Q): I see. And how do tariffs protect domestic industries?

I: By making imported goods more expensive, so people buy from local producers instead.

Q: That makes sense. If tariffs make imports more expensive, what happens to the price of those goods in the market?

I: Well, they go up, obviously. But that's a good thing because it helps local businesses compete.

Q: I understand. So, if the government imposes tariffs, does that generally make prices go up or down for consumers?

I: It makes them go up, at least in the short term. But in the long run, it strengthens the domestic economy.

Q: I see. Now, you also believe the government is working to lower prices for consumers, correct?

I: Yes, they've promised to make everyday goods more affordable for people.

Q: So if tariffs raise prices on imported goods, and domestic producers no longer have foreign competition, do you think they have more or less incentive to keep prices low?

I: Hmm… I suppose if there's no competition, they might raise prices too.

Q: So if both imported and domestic goods become more expensive, what do you think happens to overall consumer prices?

I: They would go up, I guess.

Q: And does that align with the idea that the government is bringing prices down?

I: Not really… but tariffs are still good for jobs, right?

Q: That's a fair argument. But if the goal is to lower prices for consumers, do tariffs help or hinder that goal?

I: I suppose they hinder it. I hadn't really thought about it like that before.

Remember, the goal of the Socratic method isn't necessarily to change someone's mind on the spot but to stimulate critical thinking and self-examination.

Over time, this process can lead to greater understanding and potential change. It's important to approach such discussions with empathy and respect, creating a safe space for open dialogue and growth.

By questioning in this way, you can help the individual recognise and reflect upon their cognitive dissonance. This, in turn, can prompt them to reassess their beliefs or behaviours, fostering change. The Socratic method, therefore, can be a respectful and effective way to help others, and indeed ourselves, navigate the complexities and contradictions of our beliefs. This not only helps in the realm of personal growth but also plays a crucial role in enabling constructive and insightful political discourse.

Key Takeaway

Activism and resistance, of course, is about organising those already opposed to Fascism. There must also be an approach for helping uneasy supporters to lead themselves to a better place. When confronted by people with cognitive dissonance, we must make the cognitive cost of maintaining their conflicting beliefs through denial or justification higher than the cognitive cost of changing them.