Does cognitive dissonance make the concept of "double-think" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink as presented in the book 1984 not work in the real world?

Just flicked over the page quickly, and it seems my understanding of cognitive dissonance is a wee bit of. I thought it was basically impossible to have contradictory beliefs at the same time?

Why would a person who does not want to have lung cancer, smoke cigarettes knowing smoking causes lung cancer?

conflicting desires?

I, for one, believe in using force strictly in my defense, because I am a peaceful man. But in order to be truly effective, I have found that such defense needs to be proactive, frequent and overwhelming.

I believe that the Prohibition of alcohol in the Early Part of the 20th Century was an abject failure which did not stop people from drinking and instead made criminal organizations powerful and corrupted politicians. Ending Prohibition was the best policy because it cut off the oxygen supply to criminals.

The war on Drugs, on the other hand, is a necessary and noble effort. We must stop people from using drugs, we must combat criminal organizations and I believe that my government's only flaw is that it is not aggressive enough in combating this modern scourge.

op how many fingers am I holding up?

Violent opposition to violence. Such things are possible if you use shades of gray in your thinking. Better to unmercifully bully a bully than to not.

Yeah, war on drugs is pure doublethink.

There was a Eurostar train that was painted with images from Yellow Submarine, a film which overtly celebrates drug use. Yet if you were caught in possession of drugs on the train you would have been arrested. How is that even possible?

Cognitive dissonance is just uncomfortable. Many a parent is convinced that their children are smart, even though they see their grades.

Why would a person who does not what to die in a car accident, drive a car knowing driving causes car accidents?

A person driving a fatally injured loved one to the hospital is probably driving because that person wants loved one to get medical attention and not die.

Generally speaking though, why would someone with poor driving skills (aggressive risky speeding) drive like that knowing driving like that increases the chances of an undesired avoidable collision?

Surveys consistently reveal that the majority consider themselves more skillful and safer than the average driver.

Poor drivers are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. Holding conflicting ideas simultaneously, might cause them discomfort.

I, personally, reduce my discomfort by blaming other bad drivers and inefficient or unnecessary road safety 'suggestions'.

Also, it's very difficult to hold two thoughts in my own head simultaneously. I try to make comments on topic, but find myself staring at this guy's f'ing avatar for 10minutes lost in some forever away world where I'm a bedspread.

Do you know any humans?

OP thanks for the question, I have been reading about holding contradictory beliefs as a result.

It seems to me important to see it as part of the arsenal used by the totalitarian regime in the novel. Anyone whose cognitive dissonance led him to even make a gesture of disbelief in public would be carted off to be tortured and killed. Its a system of artificial selection that would lead to a docile populace over time.

1984 strikes me as an excellent riposte to Plato's Republic.

I doubt that people can be tortured into believing contradictions, unless you consider studying dialetheism a form of torture.

I share this doubt. However, by gently nudging, it is easy done.

heh awesome example

hahaha that too

This is what it ultimately comes down to. In the book, the discomfort of accepting the contractions outweighed the discomfort of now allowing cognitive dissonance to occur, hence doublethink was frequent

There was once a time, but I have ran away since then, my alpaca family appreciate me much more than those petty humans ever could

incentive to read Plato's Republic + 5

In the book, after months upon months of torture he talked himself into believing. It started by pretending him believed whilst not really, which he was to do that by actually believing, doublethink on a level, as soon as that process started he was lost

He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- "the Party says the earth is flat," "the Party says that ice is heavier than water" -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain.

'When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?'

lastcardcharlie is good at metaphysics, unlike poor Winston

Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.

You are right about why doublethink was habitual.

From Wiki:

I assume that when he typed "now" he meant "not"

That still reads as he is stating the existence of two distinct discomforts.

I am saying: cognitive dissonance = the discomfort ... A singular discomfort.

"In the book, the discomfort of accepting the contractions outweighed the discomfort of now allowing cognitive dissonance to occur, hence doublethink was frequent."

Edited:

"In the book, the discomfort of accepting the contradictions outweighed the discomfort of not allowing cognitive dissonance to occur; hence, doublethink was frequent."

Haven't read the book (despite owning it), but from reading this thread, I assume that by "the discomfort of not allowing cognitive dissonance to occur", he's referring to extreme measures of Party-administered punishment for a principled stand against their platform of wrong ideas? If true, then that seems like a pretty distinct discomfort from the discomfort of doublethink/cognitive dissonance. My assumption, simply put, was that the options were cognitive dissonance or death.