Throughout life, we often stop to ponder how we measure up.
Although this can be a valuable tool for growth, it’s not always an accurate assessment, and rather than being objective, we sometimes lean into distorted filters and subjective biases, mental heuristics, false logic, and distorted reasoning.
But as humans, there is a margin for error. It’s through our inherent perceptions of error that we see the potential for creativity, ideation, and spontaneity.
Life is a fierce act of make-believe.
They say, in our failures, we grow. I say that in our perception of change, we grow. Comparing and contrasting our perspectives is one pathway to that evolution.
Take the concept of a constructed self, it’s associations, and the identities we create as a result. We can sometimes find the occasion to consider and measure these things. These concepts and beliefs.
A captivating enigma, the concept of self is often viewed as an idealization of the various layers of consciousness. Within this construct, we harbor a collection of ideas and beliefs, either embraced or dismissed based on perceived usability or purposefulness.
These layers of consciousness within the concept of self can be categorized into the conscious mind, which encompasses our awareness and immediate thoughts, the subconscious mind, which holds memories, emotions, and patterns of behavior, and the unconscious mind, where deeper desires, fears, and instincts reside. Each layer contributes to our constructed understanding of ourselves and shapes our perceptions and actions in different ways.
Additionally, the concept of self extends to the social and cultural dimensions, where our identity is shaped by external influences such as societal norms and personal relationships.
In shaping our behavior, conscious processes play a more immediate and direct role, as they are responsible for our awareness and immediate thoughts. The subconscious processes, on the other hand, exert a more subtle influence, holding memories and emotions that can subtly guide our actions. Unconscious processes, with there deeper desires and fears, may have a more latent impact on our behavior, often surfacing in unexpected ways.
Together, these layers form a complex tapestry that shapes our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
Paradoxically, the realization dawns that these convictions may be flawed, possibly entirely erroneous. This revelation intertwines with the introspection illusion, leading to a myopic view of self-assessment and perception of others.
The introspection illusion is the tendency for us to overestimate the accuracy and depth of our intropsctive-reflection and understanding of our thoughts and feelings.
Environmental conditioning, cultural influence, and experiential learning all play an important role in shaping the self. Cultural influences on self-reflection can be seen in the way different societies value and prioritize certain emotions, such as collectivist cultures emphasizing group harmony over individual desires. Additionally, cultural norms and values can shape our perception of what is considered "normal" or acceptable in terms of self-expression and emotional awareness.
However, it is important to recognize that our self-reflection and understanding are not solely based on our own experiences. Experiential learning can provide valuable insights, but it is limited by the scope of our own experiences and the biases that may come with them. In contrast, engaging with diverse perspectives and learning from the experiences of others can broaden our understanding of ourselves and challenge our preconceived notions, leading to a more nuanced and accurate self-reflection.
The Backfire Effect exemplifies our tendency to selectively reinforce beliefs, despite contrary evidence.
The Backfire Effect highlights our inclination to cling to existing beliefs even in the face of contradictory evidence, often leading us to double down on those beliefs rather than revise them. This psychological phenomenon illustrates how individuals tend to resist information that challenges their preconceived notions, ultimately reinforcing their original beliefs instead of updating them based on new information.
Here are three examples of how the backfire effect can surface in our perception of self, influence our self-perceptions, and shape our perspectives:
1. Academic or professional competence:
- Everyday circumstance: receiving critical feedback from a teacher, boss, or peer that challenges our perceived level of competence or expertise in a subject or task.
- Effect on self-perception: instead of objectively considering the feedback, the backfire effect may lead us to dismiss or rationalize it, reinforcing a belief in our abilities and knowledge.
- Shaped perspective: we may view the critical feedback as invalid or biased, shaping our perspective that we are more competent or knowledgeable than others perceive us to be.
2. Personal traits or character:
- Everyday circumstance: A friend or family member points out a negative personality trait or behavior pattern that contradicts our self-perception.
- Effect on self-perception: The backfire effect may cause us to become defensive and double down on our existing self-image, reinforcing our belief that we do not possess the negative trait or behavior.
- Shaped perspective: we may perceive the person's feedback as unfair or biased, shaping our perspective that our character or behavior is not as flawed as suggested.
3. Personal beliefs or values:
- Everyday circumstance: encountering information or arguments that challenge our deeply held beliefs or values, such as religious, political, or ethical views.
- Effect on self-perception: The backfire effect may strengthen our conviction in existing beliefs, reinforcing our self-perception as being principled or righteous.
- Shaped perspective: we may view the contradictory information as unreliable or biased, shaping our perspective that these beliefs or values are correct and should not be questioned.
In all these examples, the backfire effect influences self-perceptions by reinforcing existing beliefs about oneself, promoting a sense of being "right" or "competent." It also shapes perspectives by discrediting or dismissing contradictory information or feedback, leading to a more entrenched and biased view of our abilities, character, or beliefs.
Additionally, the Ostrich Effect and cognitive discounting contribute to emotional avoidance, driven by fear of insecurity consequences, as we seeking absolute certainty in life circumstances.
The ostrich effect is a psychological phenomenon where individuals avoid or ignore negative or unsettling information, much like an ostrich burying its head in the sand to avoid danger. This effect can reinforce belief perseverance, which is the tendency for people to maintain their beliefs even when presented with contradictory evidence.
In the context of belief perseverance, the ostrich effect operates by encouraging us to remain willfully ignorant of information that challenges our existing beliefs. When faced with contradictory evidence, we may choose to ignore or dismiss it rather than confront the discomfort of having these beliefs challenged. This willful ignorance serves to protect and reinforce pre-existing beliefs, allowing us to persist in these convictions despite evidence to the contrary.
Additionally, the plausibility of information plays a role in this process. If contradictory information seems implausible or is perceived as unreliable, we are more likely to reject it in favor of our existing beliefs. The ostrich effect therefore enables belief perseverance by providing us with a psychological mechanism to shield us from dissonant information, ultimately maintaining the stability of established beliefs.
In response, we craft narratives, fables that mirror our perceptions and perspectives. This phenomenon occurs because humans have a natural tendency to seek coherence and meaning in their experiences, including their beliefs.
When faced with evidence or information that challenges our beliefs, we may engage in cognitive processes such as storytelling to make sense of the conflicting information. By crafting narratives or fables, we reinterpret our experiences to align with pre-existing beliefs, creating a cohesive and consistent worldview.
These narratives serve several purposes:
Reinforcement of Beliefs: By creating stories that validate our beliefs, we strengthen our conviction in what we already believe to be true. This reinforcement helps to maintain a sense of security and consistency in our worldview.
However, we often reinforce contradictory or inaccurate information, as we become deeply entrenched or cemented to our values and beliefs. Therefore, we lean heavily into confirmation biases, mental heuristics, and logical fallacies to shield and protect us from the disconfirmation and insecurity we feel when confronting with these contradictory perspectives.
Defense Mechanism: Crafting narratives can act as a defense mechanism against cognitive dissonance—the discomfort that arises when holding conflicting beliefs. By weaving stories that justify our beliefs, we reduce this psychological and physical discomfort.
Perspective Confirmation: Narratives often reflect the our perspective and biases. By constructing stories that mirror our perceptions, we reaffirm our understanding of the world and our projected place within it.
Social Validation: Sharing these narratives with our perceptions of others who hold similar beliefs can provide social validation and solidarity. Collective storytelling reinforces group cohesion and strengthens shared beliefs.
However, these social alliances can also create a false sense of accuracy and also lead to social stigmatizing that overlygeneralizes the reality of social circumstances.
Social stigmas can reinforce harmful or incorrect data and beliefs through various mechanisms. Firstly, when certain beliefs or data are associated with social stigmas, we may avoid questioning or challenging them due to fear of social rejection or ostracism. This can lead to the perpetuation of misinformation or harmful stereotypes within social groups.
For example, if a particular community holds stigmatizing beliefs about a certain group of people (e.g., individuals with mental illnesses), members of that community may be less inclined to seek accurate information or challenge those beliefs. This perpetuates a cycle where incorrect data or misconceptions are maintained and reinforced within the social fabric.
Social alliances can also contribute to a false sense of accuracy and lead to the overgeneralization of social circumstances. When individuals form alliances or groups based on shared beliefs or identities, there can be a tendency to reinforce and validate each other's viewpoints, even if they are inaccurate or overly generalized.
This phenomenon can create echo chambers where we only interact with like-minded people, leading to the normalization of certain beliefs or data without critical examination. As a result, inaccurate or stigmatizing narratives can become entrenched within specific social circles, further solidifying social stigmas and misconceptions.
Moreover, social alliances can amplify the effects of confirmation bias, where we selectively seek and interpret information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs. This selective attention and interpretation can reinforce harmful or incorrect data, perpetuating stereotypes and reinforcing social stigmas.
In this regard, social stigmas can reinforce harmful or incorrect data and beliefs by discouraging critical examination and perpetuating misinformation within social groups. Social alliances, while fostering a sense of community and belonging, can also contribute to the normalization of inaccurate beliefs and overgeneralizations about social circumstances, ultimately reinforcing and perpetuating social stigmas. Addressing these issues requires fostering open dialogue, promoting critical thinking, and challenging entrenched misconceptions within social contexts.
Overall, the act of crafting narratives or fables in response to belief perseverance is a cognitive strategy that helps us reconcile conflicting information with our existing beliefs, thereby maintaining a consistent and coherent sense of self and worldview. However, this process can also contribute to the perpetuation of misconceptions and biases if it inhibits openness to new information and alternative perspectives.
However, the Solomon's Paradox illuminates the benefits of healthy social comparison in dispelling misconceptions and embracing outside feedback. Solomon's paradox refers to the phenomenon where we demonstrate wisdom in advising others but struggle to apply that same wisdom to personal situations. This paradox highlights the importance of healthy social comparisons for gaining perspective and making sound decisions.
Healthy social comparisons involve evaluating our perspectives in a constructive and balanced manner. It can provide valuable insights, motivational factors, and benchmarks for gainful insight, growth, and improvement. For instance, we might look at a peer's success in their career and feel inspired to assert our efforts and set similar goals. This kind of comparison can foster healthy perspectives and personal growth as we leverage this data and feedback responsibly.
Conversely, unhealthy social comparisons can lead to recalcitrant emotions like envy, doubt, or dissatisfaction. For example, constantly comparing appearances or material possessions on social media can breed feelings of inadequacy and low esteem.
-
Here's a brief example of a compare and contrast analysis related to healthy social comparisons.
Healthy Social Comparison:
Imagine two colleagues working in the same industry. They both admire a successful entrepreneur who started a similar business and achieved significant growth. Instead of feeling envious or discouraged, they use this comparison to identify strategies and best practices that could be applied to their own ventures. They learn from the entrepreneur's journey, however similar or different, and adapt relevant techniques to their unique circumstances, using it as a source to realize motivational factors while reaching their own values, goals, and sense of purposeful intentions.
Unhealthy Social Comparison:
On the other hand, imagine two friends who constantly compare their lifestyles based on social media posts. One friend frequently posts pictures of luxurious vacations, designer clothes, and fancy dinners, while the other friend feels inadequate about their own life in comparison. This unhealthy comparison may lead to feelings of jealousy, insecurity, and discontentment, ultimately damaging esteem and the bonds of the relationship.
Solomon's paradox emphasizes the importance of healthy social comparisons, where we can learn from our experiences and achievements—gaining shared value without succumbing to recalcitrant emotions or unrealistic standards. Healthy comparisons can inspire growth and improvement, whereas unhealthy comparisons can foster recalcitrant emotions and hinder personal development.
Our experiences offer an opportunity for insight, evaluation, and feedback, however, the Mere Exposure Effect cautions against overvaluing experiential learning, highlighting its limitations in unlocking potential.
Heuristic shortcuts, such as the IKEA Effect, guide quick conclusions about self and others, often leading to disproportionate confidence and the Hard-Easy Effect.
Heuristic shortcuts, such as the IKEA Effect, play a role in guiding quick conclusions about ourselves and others, often leading to disproportionate confidence and the Hard-Easy Effect.
IKEA Effect: The IKEA Effect is a cognitive bias where we tend to place a higher value on products or creations that we have personally invested effort into building or creating. This effect extends beyond physical objects to include ideas, beliefs, or even aspects of our identity. When applied to self-constructs, we may overvalue our abilities, achievements, or traits simply because we have invested effort or work into them. This can lead to an inflated sense of confidence or worth.
However, conversely, we can also falsely perceive healthy confidence as arrogance or inflated egicentrucidm, rather than perceiving a true sense of egosyntonic confidence and assuredness based on earned experience, open assessments, vulnerability, and inward trust.
Disproportionate Confidence: Heuristic shortcuts, like the IKEA Effect, can contribute to disproportionate confidence in our judgments or abilities. For example, if we have invested a lot of effort into a project, we may become overly confident in its success or quality, despite objective feedback suggesting otherwise. This bias can lead to errors in judgment and decision-making.
Hard-Easy Effect: The Hard-Easy Effect refers to a bias where we tend to overestimate our ability to perform well in difficult tasks while underestimating our ability in easier tasks. This bias can be influenced by heuristic shortcuts which lead us to rely on mental shortcuts or generalizations about task difficulty. As a result, we may exhibit overconfidence in challenging situations and underestimate simpler tasks.
Therefore, heuristic shortcuts like the IKEA Effect influence our perceptions of constructed self and others by shaping our confidence levels and value-based judgments. These subjective biases can lead to overvaluation of personal efforts, overconfidence in difficult tasks, and underestimation of easier tasks, ultimately impacting decision-making and self-assessment. Understanding these cognitive biases can help us make more balanced and accurate evaluations of our shared skills and traits, leading to a more unified perception of conscious coexistence. Rather than creating a segregated sense of self, we realign with our unified perception of conscious interconnectedness.
The Law of Instrument underscores the fallacy of applying uniform measurement principles to diverse life situations, skewing the perception of self-construction.
The Law of Instrument, also known as Maslow's hammer, refers to the tendency to rely excessively on familiar tools or methods, often leading to the application of uniform measurement principles to diverse life situations. This approach can skew our perception of self-construction by limiting our understanding and assessment of complex human experiences.
Rather than assessing personal traits and characteristics from a diverse perspective, we view them from an imbalanced and skewered perspective.
In essence, the Law of Instrument suggests that when we have a particular way of viewing or evaluating things (our "tool"), we tend to apply it universally, even when it may not be the most appropriate or effective approach for different situations.
For example, imagine someone who primarily measures success in terms of financial wealth. They may apply this same measurement to assess our overall well-being, ignoring other important aspects such as personal relationships, mental health, or fulfillment in life. This narrow focus on a single metric distorts our perception of self-construction, leading to an incomplete and potentially misleading understanding of life’s circumstances.
Another example is the tendency to use standardized tests or academic achievements as the sole indicators of intelligence or worth. This narrow view neglects other forms of intelligence, creativity, or emotional intelligence, leading us to underestimate our capabilities and potential.
Furthermore, the Law of Instrument can cause us to overlook or downplay aspects of our constructed self that do not fit into our preconceived notions or measurement frameworks. We may fail to recognize personal growth, resilience, or inner strengths because they are diverse and cannot be easily quantified or measured by our chosen tools. However, as a result, we sometimes undersell, or downplay these assets when emotionally triggered by insecurity, or a fear of harsh feedback or judgements. Especially when we’ve buried past trauma, or unresolved childhood wounds, such as abandonment, or abuse.
The Law of Instrument highlights the fallacy of applying uniform measurement principles to diverse life situations. By relying too heavily on familiar tools or metrics, we risk oversimplifying our understanding of self-construction and neglecting important aspects of our lives that defy standardized measurement. Being aware of this bias can encourage us to adopt a more holistic and nuanced approach to our assessments, embracing the complexity and diversity of conscious human experiences.
A rule of measure operates as a biased heuristic or logical fallacy by oversimplifying complex phenomena, leading to erroneous conclusions or judgments based on incomplete or skewed information.
In our everyday experiences and interactions, we frequently employ a wide range of rules of measure, including heuristics and cognitive shortcuts, to simplify complex situations and make decisions more efficiently; one example is parataxic distortions, where we unconsciously overlay past experiences onto present ones, influencing our assessments and estimations across various contexts.
To create further context, an example of parataxic distortion is explanatory depth. As a rule of measure. We call into play this parataxic distortion when we lack sufficient data sets to provide an accurate account of circumstances, situations, and experiences. Conflicts are empirical representations of events that have limited information.
The law of the instrument and a rule of measure both influence our cognitive processes and decision-making, particularly when considering parataxic distortions. The law of the instrument refers to the tendency to use familiar tools or methods, even when they may not be the most appropriate for a given situation, leading to cognitive rigidity. In contrast, a rule of measure involves employing mental shortcuts or heuristics to simplify complex situations and make decisions more efficiently.
When parataxic distortions occur, our past experiences unconsciously influence our perceptions and judgments of present situations, shaping our cognitive appraisals and biases. These biases and heuristics, influenced by both the law of the instrument and rules of measure, can lead to cognitive errors and distortions in our beliefs and perspectives. For example, if we have previously had negative experiences with a certain type of person or situation, we may apply those past judgments to similar but unrelated situations, resulting in biased or inaccurate assessments.
Overall, the interaction between the law of the instrument, rules of measure, and parataxic distortions highlights how our cognitive processes are shaped by past experiences, biases, and heuristic shortcuts, ultimately impacting the outcomes of our beliefs and perspectives.
Here’s the thing about conscious perception—it can always be considered from another aspect or perspective of consciousness.
Therefore, empiricalness is statistically improbable, and as such, a complete state of objectivity is always influenced by the conditional nature of existence.
In short, its essential to remain open, vulnerable, and conscientious as we flexibly and fluidly compare and contrast.
In conclusion, embracing openness, flexibility, vulnerability, and fluidity fosters perpetual growth and adaptation of self-conceptions. Dialectic reasoning challenges entrenched beliefs, facilitating broader feedback exploration. More on that later!
Ultimately, navigating the complexities of self requires a willingness to evolve, transcending rigid constructs in favor of dynamic exploration and growth. We frequently hold on to things that no longer serve us, despite our longing to change and evolve.
But it’s okay. Humanity is a diverse act of comparison and contrast as we perpetually change, evolve, and grow. Go easy on the self you are constructing.
It’s merely a connection and conduit of the ephemeral.
