30 Days - Cognitive Dissonance vs. Revision

Can beliefs change when presented with contrasting evidence? Or does one further cement their beliefs in light of irreconcilable ideas? Psychologist Leon Festinger theorized, tested and documented the disturbing rationalizations we make as humans to support our beliefs. In his 1957 MIT study, "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" Festinger noticed that under certain conditions there can be a psycological opposition of irreconcilable ideas. In other words, people will adjust their beliefs to fit a behavior - instead of changing their behavior to fit one's beliefs (which is the sequence conventionally assumed and furthermore that is more common, that is that it is our default).

Here's a stunning modern day example of dissonance no less dramatic than Festinger's subjects in the 50's. The outcomes and quotes from this episode of the FX series, 30 Days, are telling in which a wife and mother who is a strong proponent of the traditional family unit will have her beliefs challenged when she agrees to spend 30 days with the new face of alternative parenting:



In contrast another episode of the same show with the same belief system under review displays what happens when the subject undergoes a revision instead of a cementing rationalization in the face of contrary evidence:

"What allowed Isaac Newton to exchange the palm of god for gravity, or Columbus to come away with a curved rimless world? Throughout all of history there have been examples of people who, instead of clapping their hands over their ears, pushed into dissonance, willing to hear what might emerge. Who knows what new shapes of faith might emerge from a willingness to withhold rationalization for real revision?"
- Lauren Slater (Opening Skinner's Box)