--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > Do you (turquoiseb) think the indoctrination and group behaviour > patterns we see in various movements is entirely deliberate, or > can be perhaps a more subtle, unconscious effect, with the result > that believers become unaware of the cognitive dissonance?
I believe that the behaviors of changing one's core beliefs to suit the way things turn out, as opposed to the prophecies, is indeed a way for them to become "unaware of the cognitive disson- ance." Out of sight, out of mind. If they can find a way to pretend that their beliefs were never wrong (by...uh...changing those beliefs without admitting to themselves or others that the beliefs have changed), then they don't ever have to deal with cognitive dissonance. And that's good, because for these kinds of people cognitive dissonance is...uh...upsetting. As for whether this is a deliberate pattern of indoctrination or the natural state of being a True Believer, I'd guess that it's a little bit of both. If the "powers that be" in a True Believer organ- ization announce or promote the "belief change," it's probably a form of indoctrination, and an attempt to hold onto the believers despite the leaders' predictions or teachings having been revealed as bunkum. However, I would imagine that there are many True Believers who are far removed from any "organization" per se, and they might gravitate towards "belief change" on their own, as an intuitive way to avoid cognitive dissonance. > As an example, I have always had difficulty suppressing cognitive > dissonance, and yet, being with a group having a coherent belief > does have an effect to stun independence of expression which is > sometimes difficult to overcome. I like the phrase "stun independence of expression." That's pretty much it. I would agree with you that the "group phenomenon" and the "support of the group" have a lot to do with how groups react to their beliefs being proved to be bunkum. To True Believers, it's not really that important how the "outside world" perceives them, because they're used to being laughed at by them, and considering that laughter a reinforcement of their "specialness" and uniqueness. What they cannot allow is for the group itself to "lose faith" or abandon them. The "need to belong" and to gain emotional support from the group one belongs to is never to be discounted. > We see on forums, where individuals are basically free of > those kinds of group dynamics... Uh, I'm gonna have to disagree with this assumption. > ...a much wider range of opinion and beliefs being expressed. While there may be a wider range of opinions expressed on Internet forums, there is *also* "grouping," and the con- scious attempt to gather "those of like mind" into groups. Just look at the numerous attempts on this forum (FFL) to try to portray a criticism of one person who practices TM into an "attack" against all TMers. That's an attempt to form a group, and use it for their own purposes. > It also seems to me that 'spiritual development,' which leads to > independence of mind and thinking, almost always begins for most > people in an environment that has these group effects in > suppressing cognitive dissonance. In other words, one is in an > environment whose purpose is to wake up, get enlightened, or > become some kind of more whole human being, practicing techniques > like meditation whose function is to facilitate this process, and > yet the intellectual and behavioural context of this environment > works to subdue progress along these lines. I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. I would say that most spiritual seekers do tend to "start" in group environments, in which the group dynamic is used to suppress doubts and cognitive dissonance. This is pretty much the dynamic of most beginner spiritual organizations. Later on, some organizations allow seekers to expand beyond this overly-protective group dynamic and do some thinking of their own. Often this actually causes a schism within the org, as some of the seekers *like* thinking for themselves and grav- itate to the newer, freer form of group dynamic, while others *don't like it at all*, and freak out and form a schism group that is actually more suppressive than the original one. Bottom line for me is predilection. Some like to think, and to think for themselves, and some don't, and prefer having a group to think for them, or to tell them how to think. There is probably a place for both in this world, but at the same time there is place for me in only one of them. I like thinking for myself, even if that causes me to exper- ience cognitive dissonance from time to time. *Especially* if it causes me to experience cognitive dissonance from time to time. :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > Being a big fan of the book "When Prophecy Fails," I love days like > today, when True Believers all over the world awaken to find not the > Rapture they were hoping and praying for (not to mention the > condemnation into eternal hellfire of those who had been making fun of > them *for* hoping and praying for the end of the world). Moments like > this provoke an intense state of cognitive dissonance. The fascinating > thing is what happens when the cognitive dissonance hits the fan. The > True Believers almost always find a way to change their beliefs rather > than deal with the facts.That will happen with Harold Camping and his > group of sad heaven seekers. The only interesting part, now that the > sociological trends in such cases have been established as thoroughly > predictable, is exactly *how* they'll find a way to change their beliefs > that doesn't make them look like total idiots *to themselves*. They're > comfortable with having been thought of as idiots by unbelievers, > because of course unbelievers don't count. But they'll have to find a > way to maintain the group delusion so that they don't look at *each > other* and think, "Man, how could that person have been such a dweeb as > to believe in this crap?" Because the next thought after that would be, > "Oh shit...how could *I* have been such a dweeb as to believe in this > crap?" Can't have that. They'll jump through hoops and come up with some > way to just shift their beliefs around and pretend that everything is > just hunky-dory.This should be a familiar pattern to everyone who has > followed the ever-changing "magic numbers" necessary for TMSP > butt-bouncers to bring about world peace. First it was one set of > numbers, and they were achieved and damn! -- no world peace. The > solution was obvious. Not enough butt-bouncers, so the "magic number" > was raised. And achieved. And still nothing happened, world-peace-wise. > The ultimate solution, of course, is to create so much disaffection in > TMers and ban enough of them from the domes for lifestyle infractions > that the newest magic number can never be achieved. That'll outfox the > critics. Then *we* will never have to go through one of those "How could > I have been such a dweeb as to believe in this crap" moments. > Prophecy Fail > What happens to a doomsday cult when the world doesn't end? > By Vaughan Bell > Preacher and evangelical broadcaster Harold Camping has announced that > Jesus Christ will return to Earth this Saturday, May 21, and many of his > followers are traveling the country in preparation for the weekend > Rapture. They're undeterred, it seems, by Mr. Camping's dodgy track > record with end-of-the-world predictions. (Years ago, he argued at > length that the reckoning would come in 1994.) We've yet to learn what > motivates people like him to predict (and predict again) the end of the > world, but there's a long and unexpected psychological literature on how > the faithful make sense of missed appointments with the apocalypse.The > most famous study into doomsday mix-ups was published in a 1956 book by > renowned psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleagues called When > Prophecy Fails. A fringe religious group called the Seekers had made the > papers by predicting that a flood was coming to destroy the West Coast. > The group was led by an eccentric but earnest lady called Dorothy > Martin, given the pseudonym Marian Keech in the book, who believed that > superior beings from the planet Clarion were communicating to her > through automatic writing. They told her they had been monitoring Earth > and would arrive to rescue the Seekers in a flying saucer before the > cataclysm struck.Festinger was fascinated by how we deal with > information that fails to match up to our beliefs, and suspected that we > are strongly motivated to resolve the conflict a state of mind he called > "cognitive dissonance." He wanted a clear-cut case with which to test > his fledgling ideas, so decided to follow Martin's group as the much > vaunted date came and went. Would they give up their closely held > beliefs, or would they work to justify them even in the face of the most > brutal contradiction?The Seekers abandoned their jobs, possessions, and > spouses to wait for the flying saucer, but neither the aliens nor the > apocalypse arrived. After several uncomfortable hours on the appointed > day, Martin received a "message" saying that the group "had spread so > much light that God had saved the world from destruction." The group > responded by proselytizing with a renewed vigour. According to > Festinger, they resolved the intense conflict between reality and > prophecy by seeking safety in numbers. "If more people can be persuaded > that the system of belief is correct, then clearly, it must, after all, > be correct."When Prophecy Fails has become a landmark in the history of > psychology, but few realize that many other studies have looked at the > same question: What happens to a small but dedicated group of people who > wait in vain for the end of the world? Ironically, Festinger's own > prediction that a failed apocalypse leads to a redoubling of recruitment > efforts turned out to be false: Not one of these follow-ups found > evidence to support his claim. The real story turns out to be far more > complex.What Festinger failed to understand is that prophecies, per se, > almost never fail. They are instead component parts of a complex and > interwoven belief system which tends to be very resilient to challenge > from outsiders. While the rest of us might focus on the accuracy of an > isolated claim as a test of a group's legitimacy, those who are part of > that group and already accept its whole theology may not be troubled by > what seems to them like a minor mismatch. A few people might abandon the > group, typically the newest or least-committed adherents, but the vast > majority experience little cognitive dissonance and so make only minor > adjustments to their beliefs. They carry on, often feeling more > spiritually enriched as a result.For those who draw their inspiration > from the Bible, there is some small print in Deuteronomy 18:21-22 which > wonderfully illustrates why a failed prophecy may not shake the > foundations of a believer's faith, or cause him any uncomfortable > cognitive dissonance.You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a > message has not been spoken by the LORD?"If what a prophet proclaims in > the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message > the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do > not be alarmed.Only predictions that come true are from God, you see, > while failed prophecies are just down to human slip-ups—a truly > divine response to anyone who would condemn either a prophet or a whole > belief system on the minor matter of a failed apocalypse.Even without > this sacred disclaimer, it's easy enough for a believer to reinterpret > and revise the details of a prediction so that it fits whatever facts > are on the ground. The research literature is littered with such > examples. When atomic energy didn't sweep over the Earth to herald the > Second Coming on Christmas Day 1967, the Universal Link group cheerfully > reinterpreted their prophecy as pertaining to a spiritual force, rather > than a physical effect. When flying saucers never announced their > presence to humankind in 1976, the Unarian sect gently reworked its > prophecy to refer more broadly to some point in "the future," while > blaming limited human minds for misunderstanding the aliens' grand plan. > When a Pentecostal group led by the God-channelling housewife Mrs. > Shepard emerged after more than a month from self-built fallout > shelters, they were pleased that the divinely ordained nuclear holocaust > had not come to pass and grateful for having passed a test of their > faith. > In fact, so many studies have been conducted on unfulfilled prophecies > from religions large and small that they were compiled into a > fascinating book from 2000, Expecting Armageddon. None of the groups > described reacted to the unexpected persistence of the world with a > zealous drive for new members, and most made just minor adjustments to > their beliefs. If Harold Camping's followers remain steadfast in their > devotion come Sunday afternoon, don't be surprised it's merely a > testament to the human spirit.For those not waiting for the world to end > in a storm of fire and light it is easy to write off the believers as > deluded, but Festinger was not so wide of the mark when he suggested > that we adapt to even the most unlikely of contradictions using nothing > more than our methods of everyday rationalization. The faithful could > just as easily be those who stubbornly stand by disgraced politicians, > failed ideologies, dishonest friends, or cheating spouses, even when > reality highlights the clearest of inconsistencies. Armageddon is > unlikely to arrive this weekend, but most of us have lived through it > many times before. >
