Cognitive dissonance In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2] Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals tend to become psychologically uncomfortable and they are motivated to attempt to reduce this dissonance, as well as actively avoiding situations and information which are likely to increase it.[1] Relationship between cognitions[edit] Individuals can adjust their attitudes or actions in various ways. Consonant relationship – Two cognitions/actions that are consistent with one another (e.g., not wanting to get intoxicated while out, then ordering water instead of alcohol) Magnitude of dissonance[edit] Reducing[edit] Theory and research[edit] Examples[edit] E.
Ethics Are Universal, Just Check the Golden Rules Human flourishing and happiness are synonymous. One is what we mean by the other. So, what kind of person are you called to become if the goal is happiness, which I believe it is? The answer is, an ethical person. The road to happiness lies in living a virtuous life. Most religions have a key commandment that provides a guideline for living and, remarkably, those guidelines are consistent across borders. • Confucianism: What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others. • Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. • Hinduism: Do not do to others what would cause you pain if done to you. • Jainism: One should treat all beings as he himself would be treated. • Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to others. • Taoism: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. • Sikhism: As you think of yourself, so think of others. • Christianity: Do to others whatever you would have done to you.
thinking styles - StumbleUpon The following is edited and adapted from It is intended to supplement personal understanding and enhance critical self-examination of yourself as a communicator. Styles of Thinking "How do people think about things?" Harrison and Bramson, through their research detailed in their text The Art of Thinking, found that in Western society there are five distinct styles of thinking. Most people show a marked preference for one or two of the styles. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Synthesists "Synthesists are apt to appear challenging, skeptical, or satirically amused, even when you can see no cause for any of that." A Synthesist can juggle both arguments and counter arguments mentally and recognize the validity of each and form new ideas from that conflict. The first common strategy of the Synthesist is that of "Open Argument and Confrontation." Their second common strategy is "Asking Dumb-Smart Questions." Synthesists like to speculate. Idealists
The story of the Gömböc September 2009 Play this movie to see the Gömböc wriggle. This article is also available as a podcast. A Gömböc is a strange thing. Balancing act The defining feature of a Gömböc is the fact that it's got just two points of equilibrium: one is stable and the other is unstable. A Gömböc made from plexiglass. "It's a bit like putting a ball on a hilly landscape," says Domokos, "if you put the ball down at a generic point, it will always roll off in the same direction, down into the valley. To give it its full mathematical description, a Gömböc is a three-dimensional, convex and homogeneous object with exactly one stable point of equilibrium and one unstable point of equilibrium. Doubtful existence An ellipse has two stable and two unstable points of equilibrium. The reason why many people thought that Gömböcs didn't exist is that in two dimensions there is no convex shape with only two points of equilibrium. A geometric stem cell "This is intuitively clear," says Domokos. Mathematical field work
Logic: Logic and the laws of thought G. Logic and the laws of thought There are three: 1. 2. 3. These laws cannot be proved or disproved. Do the laws of thought apply to all of reality? Are they the basic rules of reality, or of thought only? Rationalism holds that the laws of thought apply to everything whatever because they are the most general truths of reality. Empiricism holds that the laws of thought are useful verbal conventions applying only to the way we think or talk, not necessarily to what we think and talk about or even necessarily how we must think or talk. a) The Principle of Identity Simply stated, the first of the fundamental laws is a tautology. b) The Principle of Noncontradiction Simply proposed, this asserts that "no statement can be both true and false." The word "paradox" is used sometimes to describe contradictions -- contradictions that, some would say, must be accepted. Occam would shout "poppycock" to that conclusion. Nature poses many riddles but contains no contradictions.
The end is always nigh in the human mind - opinion - 07 June 2011 Why are we so attracted to prophecies of doom, from religious raptures to environmental collapse? It's part of our psychology IN 1919, William Butler Yeats wrote The Second Coming, an allegory of the atmosphere in Europe after the carnage of the first world war. Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhereThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all conviction, while the worstAre full of passionate intensity. The poem draws heavily on the mythic narrative of the apocalypse - or at least the first half of it, destruction. What usually follows is rebirth and redemption, a second chance, life born anew. The latest incarnation of the destruction-redemption myth is brought to you by numerological number-cruncher and evangelical Christian radio host Harold Camping. Like Camping's rapture, many of these prognostications have failed to unfold. Why, then, do we find the basic narrative so appealing?
How to Stop Worrying Undoing the Worrying Habit Once acquired, the habit of worrying seems hard to stop. We're raised to worry and aren't considered "grown up" until we perfect the art. Teenagers are told: "you'd better start worrying about your future". To the extent that worrying is learned/conditioned behaviour, it can be undone. Centuries-old cultural conditioning has given us a nasty neurosis: the belief that happiness must be "earned". Laid on top of the first neurosis is the idea that spending money will make you happy. So: we never stop working, we never stop spending money, we're never really happy – ideal conditions, coincidentally, for a certain type of slave economy. You won't stop worrying if you think it serves you. The fight-or-flight response (FOF) is useful on rare occasions of real danger. Worrying is never useful. Rearranging the mental furniture This deceptively simple technique is effective because it bypasses the psychological obstacles mentioned above. Accelerator-Brake analogy
&Animals and Psychedelics& by Giorgio Samorini This new book by Giorgio Samorini, one of the world's leading experts on the tribal, ritual use of psychedelics, observes the drug habits of dozens of animals, from elephants to goats, and even a few insects. He tells what they get high on, what they do when they're high, and suggests tantalizing reasons for why they do it. Samorini writes vividly; his 112 page book is like going on a stimulating psychedelic safari. He tells how birds in the Western US, high on the fermented berries of the California Holly, engage in drunken orgies. He recounts how cats get high on catnip, an herb that gives male cats spontaneous erections and makes female cats adopt mating stances. Samorini reveals how mandrills in Gabon, Africa, dig up and eat the roots of the powerfully hallucinogenic Iboga Tabernathe, to prepare for combat to claim a female. Samorini suggests that getting high is an utterly natural behavior, one that helps animals and humans alike to adapt and evolve. ?