By playing, you agree to uListen's Terms and Privacy Policy and YouTube's Terms of Service.
Peter Attia MD#130 - Carol Tavris, Ph.D. & Elliot Aronson, Ph.D.: Recognizing and overcoming cognitive dissonance
Summaries, chapters, transcripts, and FAQs on this page are made by uListen, not YouTube.
CHAPTERS
- 0:11 – 11:17
Meet Carol and Elliot and the Origins of Their Book
Peter Attia introduces the guests and recounts how he first got in touch with Carol after reading Mistakes Were Made. Carol and Elliot describe how they met around 1972 at Psychology Today and how a conversation about the Iraq War led them to write the book together.
- •Peter explains the guests' backgrounds and why the book is one of his favorites
- •Carol and Elliot met through Psychology Today, bonded over communicating social psychology in plain English, and have collaborated for nearly 50 years
- •The book grew from a conversation about George Bush holding onto his Iraq War decision
- •Elliot stresses that dissonance reduction is unconscious, not conscious cherry-picking
- 11:17 – 17:00
What Cognitive Dissonance Is: Smoking and Self-Justification
Peter asks for real explanations of dissonance, and Elliot uses Festinger's smoking example to show how people reduce the tension. Carol adds the example of pregnant smokers who justify continuing.
- •Dissonance is described as a negative drive state, like hunger or thirst, but in the mind
- •A smoker who can't quit works on the other cognition, for example by calling the evidence merely correlational
- •Pregnant women who keep smoking said they had cut down, which they took to make it less hazardous
- •Dissonance reduction lets us sleep at night, though some sleepless nights are called for
- 17:00 – 28:28
Festinger's Breakthrough and the Cognitive Revolution
Elliot explains how Festinger's study of earthquake rumors led to the theory, and describes the $1 versus $20 lying experiment and a catharsis experiment. Carol places this in the context of a psychology dominated by psychoanalytic and behaviorist schools.
- •Rationalization was a pale precursor to dissonance theory
- •Rumors after an earthquake in India led Festinger to the theory
- •People paid $1 to lie about a tedious task came to believe it was more interesting than those paid $20
- •Behaviorism and psychoanalysis were challenged by looking into the black box of the mind
- •Elliot's explanation of an aggression experiment also accounts for blaming the victim
- 28:28 – 36:06
Brain Imaging, Evolution, and Cultural Differences
Carol discusses fMRI studies of dissonance and political loyalty, and notes cultural differences between the U.S. and Japan. Elliot and Carol then give their evolutionary account of why dissonance reduction is hardwired.
- •Drew Westen's studies showed brains in a state of dissonance settle down once consonance is restored
- •What triggers dissonance differs between the U.S. and Japan
- •Elliot argues dissonance reduction is hardwired because it let early humans sleep and stay vigilant
- •The more important a belief, the more tenaciously we hold it, and smart people are in particular danger
- 36:06 – 43:30
Wrongful Convictions: Amanda Knox, Duke Lacrosse, Central Park Jogger
Peter notes that those entrenched in their fields find it hardest to walk back beliefs, and Elliot describes prosecutors who reject DNA exoneration evidence. The group discusses the Amanda Knox, Duke lacrosse and Central Park jogger cases.
- •Prosecutors may reject exonerating DNA evidence because they see themselves as competent and good
- •Peter recounts the prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case moving the goalposts
- •Carol describes the Duke lacrosse case and the district attorney who withheld exculpatory evidence
- •Elliot and Carol describe the Central Park jogger case and the 'sixth man' explanation after the fact
- 43:30 – 56:44
The McMartin Preschool Case and the Danger of Early Judgments
Peter frames the McMartin case through today's accusation climate. Carol explains how early decisions harden under dissonance and recounts her own embarrassing op-ed, and the group discusses how a presumption of guilt colors every behavior.
- •Once we decide whom to believe, we look for reasons we were right and dismiss contrary evidence
- •Sarah Silverman's video about Louis C.K. shows a person living with dissonance
- •Carol wrote an op-ed arguing children don't lie about this and was later embarrassed when Steven Ceci used it as an example
- •Anatomical doll testimony was later shown by controlled experiment to be meaningless
- •Hundreds of daycare workers went to prison in the wave of similar cases
- 56:44 – 1:06:19
Believing Accusers, Ideology, and the Limits of Memory
Elliot argues ideology distorts science and public opinion and proposes listening but keeping skepticism rather than automatically believing. Carol discusses recovered memory therapy and multiple personality, and the group turns to fallible memory, including Carol's story about The Wonderful O.
- •Elliot suggests 'always pay attention, always listen, but keep an open mind' instead of 'always believe'
- •Carol is skeptical of any uncritical 'believe X' movement, citing recovered memory and multiple personality epidemics
- •A person making an allegation need not be lying to be wrong, and an accused person can be self-justifying
- •Memory is not a tape recorder; Carol's false memory of her father reading her a book illustrates this
- 1:06:19 – 1:09:10
The Downside of Certainty
Peter notes that society rewards confidence over doubt, and Elliot and Carol discuss why people want certainty. They argue that scientists speak in probabilities and that true certainty freezes the ability to change one's mind.
- •Patients and the public tend to prefer confident, certain authorities
- •Elliot recounts being mocked on the stand for the phrase 'all other things being equal'
- •People often prefer pseudosciences that offer certain answers
- •Carol says someone who is certain has almost certainly lost the ability to change their mind
- 1:09:10 – 1:17:10
The Pyramid: How Two Students Diverge After a Cheating Decision
Peter asks about the pyramid metaphor, and Carol explains how two students tempted to cheat end up far apart after justifying their choices. Elliot adds that dissonance is unavoidable whichever way one chooses, and they cite Judson Mills' experiment and the Stuyvesant cheating scandal.
- •Two students with similar attitudes diverge once each justifies the decision he or she made
- •The pyramid shows how hard it is to climb back up after many steps of justification
- •Whichever choice is made, the person experiences dissonance followed by self-justification
- •Judson Mills' experiment found almost no overlap in attitudes between cheaters and non-cheaters
- •Stuyvesant students gave self-justifications such as redefining cheating as taking a risk
- 1:17:10 – 1:27:36
Police, Planted Evidence, and Systemic Racism
Peter raises police planting evidence as a stepwise slide down the pyramid, and Elliot says it is never justified. The discussion covers ostracism of ethical cops, police racism, the George Floyd case, systemic racism in drug enforcement and military culture in policing.
- •A first small act such as planting evidence makes the next steps easier
- •An ethical cop is dissonant to unethical colleagues and gets ostracized
- •Elliot traces police racism to an illusory correlation between crime and minority neighborhoods
- •Carol describes a Seattle study in which definitions of drug crime led to over-arrests of African Americans
- •Individuals take cues from their social network and justify behavior to stay part of it
- 1:27:36 – 1:36:21
Stories of Breaking Out and a Toolbox for Self-Reflection
Peter asks for success stories of people who halted their slide. Elliot describes Wayne Hale's acceptance of responsibility for the Columbia disaster, and Carol describes Shimon Peres separating friend from mistake, along with the advice to distinguish mistakes from identity.
- •Wayne Hale stopped himself mid-sentence and took blame for the Columbia decision
- •Understanding dissonance gives people a toolbox for dealing with their own beliefs
- •Elliot says 'I made a stupid mistake' does not mean 'I am a stupid person'
- •Peres said when a friend makes a mistake, the friend remains a friend and the mistake remains a mistake
- •Self-reflection is harder than self-justification but is what they recommend
- 1:36:21 – 1:42:02
Political Polarity, Identity, and Reader Stories
Peter asks whether Carol and Elliot are more or less optimistic than in 2007. Carol describes how political identity has become central, and shares a reader's story of changing his view in a family inheritance feud, while Elliot talks about blind spots.
- •Carol notes the shift from seeing the other party as an opponent to seeing it as an enemy
- •Political identity has become so central that evidence from the other side is hard to accept
- •Readers write in with stories of applying dissonance theory in their lives
- •A man with an inheritance feud rereads the book, recognizes his own greed, and apologizes to his siblings
- •Elliot says the ultimate blind spot is believing one has none
- 1:42:02 – 1:47:44
Separating Identity from Behavior and the Future of Critical Thinking
Peter links the discussion to DBT and describes his daily practice of separating performance from worth. He worries about progress when political identity dominates, and Elliot argues critical thinking must be taught in schools.
- •Peter describes dictating a daily message to separate his archery performance from his self-worth
- •He worries that when political identity becomes personal identity, progress in thought stalls
- •Elliot stresses rooting for the null hypothesis and the Enlightenment tradition of experiment
- •Elliot says critical thinking should be taught in junior high and high school
- •Carol adds that distrust of institutions undermines democracy
- 1:47:44 – 1:59:43
Teaching the Next Generation: Modeling and Storytelling
Peter asks what he can impart to his 11-year-old daughter. Elliot stresses modeling and tells how he broke from his father's angry pattern, while Carol emphasizes storytelling in science, using the Semmelweis story.
- •Elliot says modeling the behavior you want in the home is a very powerful tool
- •He recounts catching himself walking out angrily like his father and returning to apologize and talk
- •Carol says humans think in stories and science tells us which stories are better
- •The Semmelweis story shows both the excitement of discovery and colleagues' resistance to it
- •Peter closes by saying we are better off being conscious of dissonance than ignoring it
