Aquest lloc utilitza galetes per a oferir els nostres serveis, millorar el desenvolupament, per a anàlisis i (si no has iniciat la sessió) per a publicitat. Utilitzant LibraryThing acceptes que has llegit i entès els nostres Termes de servei i política de privacitat. L'ús que facis del lloc i dels seus serveis està subjecte a aquestes polítiques i termes.
Two distinguished psychologists look at the role of self-justification in human life, explaining how and why we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility and restore our belief in our intelligence, moral rectitude, and correctness; assess the potential repercussions of such a course of action; and reveal how it can be overcome.… (més)
espertus: Two interesting books filled with case studies demonstrating how trained professionals make incorrect decisions based on various types of cognitive errors.
I enjoyed the 3rd edition until the last chapter. I am in no way defending Trump, but I think the authors lost their persuasive arguments by using him as an example of how people can live with dissonance. Is he a good example? He is an excellent example. Will their arguments persuade anyone in the pro Trump camp that they were wrong? No. They will just shoot down the valuable information that is shared before the last chapter. Oh well. ( )
A brilliant analysis of why people persist in mistaken notions, fallacious thinking, self-destructive behaviour, and so on. The repercussions are quite serious, including persisting in criminal convictions even when contrary and incontrovertible evidence comes to light, creating spurious memories of childhood traumas at the hands of teachers and family members, unnecessary and ill-advised wars, and so on. The authors describe how difficult it is for the average person to come to terms with cognitive dissonance, by accepting that one has been mistaken; the temptation is to justify past actions by doing more of the same, blaming and shaming the victim, rationalising by scapegoating, creating false histories, and so on. ( )
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield. --George Orwell (1946)
A great nation is like a great man: When he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers. --Lao Tzu
Dedicatòria
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
To Ronan, my Wonderful O' --Carol Tavris
To Vera, of course --Elliot Aronson
Primeres paraules
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
(Introduction): As fallible human beings, all of us share the impulse to justify ourselves and avoid taking responsibility for any actions that turn out to be harmful, immoral, or stupid.
It's fascinating, and sometimes funny, to read doomsday predictions, but it's even more fascinating to watch what happens to the reasoning of true believers when the prediction flops and the world keeps muddling along.
Citacions
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
Along with the confirmation bias, the brain comes packaged with other self-serving habits that allow us to justify our own perceptions and beliefs as being accurate, realistic, and unbiased. Social psychologist Lee Ross calls this phenomenon "naïve realism," the inescapable conviction that we perceive objects and events clearly,"as they really are." If they disagree with us, they obviously aren't seeing clearly. Naïve realism creates a logical labyrinth because it presupposes two things: One, people who are open-minded and fair ought to agree with a reasonable opinion. And two, any opinion that I hold must be reasonable; if it weren't, I wouldn't hold it. Therefore, if I can just get my opponents to sit down here and listen to me, so I can tell them how things really are, they will agree with me. And if they don't, it must be because they are biased. (Chapter 2: "Pride and Prejudice . . . and Other Blind Spots", p. 42)
Darreres paraules
Informació del coneixement compartit en anglès.Modifica-la per localitzar-la a la teva llengua.
Two distinguished psychologists look at the role of self-justification in human life, explaining how and why we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility and restore our belief in our intelligence, moral rectitude, and correctness; assess the potential repercussions of such a course of action; and reveal how it can be overcome.
)
)
)
Google Books — S'està carregant…
(4.11)
2