Leon Festinger Quotes

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

I prefer to rely on my memory. I have lived with that memory a long time, I am used to it, and if I have rearranged or distorted anything, surely that was done for my own benefit.

I once asked Leon Festinger, one of the smartest men in the world, whether or not he ever felt inept. He replied, “Of course! That is what keeps you ept.

First identified by academic psychologist Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance occurs when we are confronted with empirical data at odds with the way we “know” the world to work. To resolve this discrepancy, we choose to ignore data or try to fit the data into our preconceived belief structure. Sometimes, there is a crisis and the belief structure eventually crumbles.

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

Apocalyptic saucer cults have started to spring up all over America. One small group, which has been receiving messages from outer space via Lake City housewife Mrs. Marian Keech, becomes the subject of a research team led by psychologist Leon Festinger. According to an alien entity named Sananda, the end of the world is due any day and under the most cataclysmic of circumstances. The group meets regularly to discuss the latest predictions from Sananda and the rest of the Space Brothers, all relayed to them by Mrs. Keech. Some members bake cakes in the shape of flying saucers to be consumed during their gatherings while local college football scores are closely debated.

It is always useful to think badly about people one has exploited or plans to exploit. Modifying one’s opinions to bring them into line with one’s actions or planned actions is the most common outcome of the process known as “cognitive dissonance,” according to social psychologist Leon Festinger. No one likes to think of himself or herself as a bad person. To treat badly another person whom we consider a reasonable human being creates a tension between act and attitude that demands resolution.

When people are committed to a belief and a course of action, clear disconfirming evidence may simply result in deepened conviction and increased proselyting. But there does seem to be a point at which the disconfirming evidence has mounted sufficiently to cause the belief to be rejected.

The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance. 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.

It is always useful to think badly about people one has exploited or plans to exploit. Modifying one’s opinions to bring them into line with one’s actions or planned actions is the most common outcome of the process known as “cognitive dissonance,” according to social psychologist Leon Festinger. No one likes to think of himself or herself as a bad person. To treat badly another person whom we consider a reasonable human being creates a tension between act and attitude that demands resolution. We cannot erase what we have done, and to alter our future behavior may not be in our interest. To change our attitude is easier.85 Columbus gives us the first recorded example of cognitive dissonance in the Americas, for although the Natives may have changed from hospitable to angry, they could hardly have evolved from intelligent to stupid so quickly. The change had to be in Columbus.

However, it is also true that sometimes people are transformed by their marriages in negative and hostile ways. I think this occurs as an attempt to resolve what Leon Festinger in 1957 referred to as cognitive dissonance. Festinger writes that we’re all powerfully driven to experience ourselves as consistent in our thought processes. As a result, if we become aware of an inconsistency in our beliefs, we’ll change one or more of the beliefs to make them more internally consistent. How might the theory of cognitive dissonance explain why Sam changed from being a kind and considerate family member to being critical and angry? Here’s how the shift in personality might work: Belief: My parents and sisters are good people who deserve my love and respect. Belief: Maria hates my family and thinks they brainwashed me into thinking that they were good to me when they really weren’t. Since Sam loves both his family and Maria, he’s in a quandary. If he remains committed to Maria, he’ll produce endless fights by disagreeing with her or pushing her into being more involved with his family; she has already said that she doesn’t like them and doesn’t feel comfortable being in their presence. He will also feel guilt toward Maria if he remains in contact with them, as she’s made it clear that he needs to choose her over him and being close to them is therefore a betrayal of her. Since Sam has to come home to Maria each night, his path of least cognitive dissonance is to accept her version of his parents as the correct one.

Pioneer social psychologist Leon Festinger made sense of that behavior in his 1950s study, When Prophecy Fails. Festinger and two colleagues closely followed a tiny American sect that predicted natural disasters from which the faithful would be saved by flying saucers. When the prophesied time passed, the small group of believers suddenly began trying to convince the world of their beliefs. Festinger's explanation: When a person believes in something, and the belief is clearly proved wrong, a gap opens between what the person sees and what he or she knows is true. You can shed the beliefs, but if you've staked a lot on them, that hurts. One medicine is an explanation proving that the belief is still true. And the best way to convince yourself is persuade others: "If more and more people can be convinced that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct." Ergo, when a messianic figure dies or disappoints followers, or when a date set for the End passes, believers are likely to respond by evangelizing. At the least, they'll look for reassurance that they're right. That may explain why monthly sales of Left Behind books actually doubled in January 2000, after the Y2K bug failed to trigger the End.

33. Đằng sau niềm vui độc địa là diễn biến tâm lý gì? Vì sao người ta thích xem người khác bị làm nhục? Một lý giải tới từ thuyết so sánh xã hội, được xây dựng từ những năm 1950 bởi nhà tâm lý học Leon Festinger. Theo thuyết này, chúng ta hay có xu hướng đánh giá bản thân không qua những chuẩn khách quan, mà qua việc so sánh mình với người khác. Ta thấy giá trị của mình được nâng lên khi người khác vấp ngã. Đó cũng là lý do những người thiếu tự tin thì hay có cái niềm vui độc địa này hơn những người khác - một học sinh giỏi có thể sẽ thương cảm cậu bạn bị điểm kém, còn tay học kém thì sẽ khoái trá khi thằng bàn trên còn bị điểm thấp hơn mình, và cảm thấy bản thân mình cũng “không đến nỗi”. Người thiếu tự tin thường xấu hổ và ghen tị khi thấy mình kém cỏi hơn, và khinh khỉnh và kiêu ngạo khi cho rằng mình hơn người khấc. Những vi phạm của hai bảo mẫu là niềm vui của nhiều người bởi qua đó họ thấy bản thân thật ưu việt về mặt đạo đức. Và giống như những người nghiện, hằng ngày họ đi tìm lỗi của người khác để được sống trong cảm giác của người đứng bên trên. Richard Smith, tác giả cuón Niềm vui từ nỗi đau, viết rằng chúng ta thích xem những “pha khó đỡ” trên truyền hình thực tế vì chúng làm ta thấy rằng cuộc đời của mình cũng không đến nỗi tệ. “Nhìn xuống”, như người ta vẫn nói, sẽ làm ta nhẹ nhõm hơn, vì ta thấy “không ai bằng mình” Thuật ngữ chuyên môn ở đây là “so sánh xuống”, và theo Richard Smith, nó đem lại một niềm vui hào sảng. 34. “Đặc tính tệ nhất của con người là vui trên nỗi đau của kẻ khác, nó là họ hàng của sự độc ác, thậm chí chỉ khác độc ác như là lý thuyết khác với thực hành.” - Arthur Schopenhauer “Con người được sinh ra để vui. Nếu họ không vui được về cái đẹp của bản thân thì sẽ vui vẻ cái xấu xí của người khác.” - Franz Schönthan von Pernwaldt 35. Gắn đây nhất, ở Việt Nam, một nữ học sinh bị bắt đeo biển “Tôi là người ăn trộm” đứng trước cửa hiệu sách. Một người đàn ông ăn trộm gà quần áo tả tơi bị trói giật cánh khuỷu, ngồi bệt, mồm ngậm một cái chân gà. Trải qua các thế kỷ, dường như phản xạ chà đạp lên nhân phẩm của người phạm chuẩn và niềm tin vào tính chính danh của các hình thức trừng phạt mang tính lăng nhục vẫn dai dẳng tồn tại. Chỉ có hình thức làm nhục công cộng đã thay đổi, những trận đòn giữa chợ không mất đi, chúng được bổ sung bằng những trận ném đá trên mạng. Vết xăm trên mặt được thay thế bởi vết nhơ online. Nhưng có một điểm không thay đổi, chúng tồn tại như một lời mời cho kỳ thị và định kiến. 36. Gắn đây nhất, ở Việt Nam, một nữ học sinh bị bắt đeo biển “Tôi là người ăn trộm” đứng trước cửa hiệu sách. 37. Chúng ta luôn được ngồi hàng ghế đầu, nữ tác giả Frances Larson phân tích trong bài nói chuyện TED của cô về chủ đế “Vì sao những video chặt đầu luôn có hàng triệu người xem?”, nhưng lại có thể tự nhủ “Không liên quan gì tới tôi, sự việc đã xảy ra rồi, tôi không ở đó.”17 Nhưng xem nghĩa là tán thành, là phê chuẩn màn diễn của đám đông ra đòn, trong đó nạn nhân bị ép đóng vai nhân vật chính. Người xem clip không phải kẻ đứng ngoài, mà trở thành nhân chứng và tòng phạm trong việc chà đạp lên nhân phẩm của những nạn nhân. Chiếc smartphone đã trở thành một vũ khí hoàn hảo để trả thù. Và trên YouTube, cơn trả thù kéo dài mãi mãi.

young social psychologist named Leon Festinger

Signing a pledge is a particularly soft form of commitment because the penalty is simply the guilt and discomfort you’ll feel if you break your word, to others or yourself. Being at odds with yourself, which psychologists call “cognitive dissonance,” is a surprisingly powerful force first studied by Leon Festinger in the 1950s. People often go to great lengths to avoid reckoning with their internal contradictions. Cognitive dissonance can help explain why cults are so hard to leave (after you’ve joined and invested so much of yourself, it’s difficult to admit that you’re unhappy) and why smokers often underestimate the health effects of their habit (if you believe you’re intelligent and also have a nasty habit, cognitive dissonance pushes you to discount or ignore evidence that your habit is, indeed, nasty). Cognitive dissonance is also a handy tool we can harness to change behavior for good. By electing to make pledges and asking others to do the same, we can turn cognitive dissonance into a soft penalty that helps us and them achieve more.

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. —Leon Festinger et al., When Prophecy Fails

Being at odds with yourself, which psychologists call “cognitive dissonance,” is a surprisingly powerful force first studied by Leon Festinger in the 1950s. People often go to great lengths to avoid reckoning with their internal contradictions. Cognitive dissonance can help explain why cults are so hard to leave (after you’ve joined and invested so much of yourself, it’s difficult to admit that you’re unhappy) and why smokers often underestimate the health effects

A man with conviction is a hard man to change.

Intersectional Theory provided an entirely new, “increasingly sophisticated” way to understand power dynamics in society, allowing them to repurpose their failing theoretical models into something more diffuse and less falsifiable.23 We often observe this kind of shift to a more “sophisticated” and nebulous model when people are highly personally and ideologically committed to a theoretical approach that is clearly failing. This phenomenon was first described by Leon Festinger, in his study of UFO cults, and led to the development of the concept of cognitive dissonance.24 Festinger observed that highly committed cultists did not abandon their beliefs when the predictions of the cult failed to manifest—when the UFO never came. Instead, cultists resolved this undeniable contradiction by claiming the event had occurred, but in some unfalsifiable way (specifically, they claimed God decided to spare the planet as a result of the faith of the cultists).

We often observe this kind of shift to a more “sophisticated” and nebulous model when people are highly personally and ideologically committed to a theoretical approach that is clearly failing. This phenomenon was first described by Leon Festinger, in his study of UFO cults, and led to the development of the concept of cognitive dissonance.24 Festinger observed that highly committed cultists did not abandon their beliefs when the predictions of the cult failed to manifest—when the UFO never came. Instead, cultists resolved this undeniable contradiction by claiming the event had occurred, but in some unfalsifiable way

If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must after all be correct.

Social psychologist Leon Festinger described a “social comparison process”10 as a human universal. People everywhere compare themselves with others of similar social rank, paying much less attention to those who are either far above them or far below them on the social ladder.