Short Communication | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/VNS.2020/007
*Corresponding Author: James F Welles, PO Box 17, East Marion, New York, USA.
Citation: James F. Welles, (2021) Cultural Dissonance. J Vascular Neurology and Stroke. 4(1); DOI:10.31579/VNS.2020/007
Copyright: © 2021 James F. Welles, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 20 February 2021 | Accepted: 15 March 2021 | Published: 17 March 2021
Keywords: Keywords
Abstract
Cognitive dissonance (cogdis) is defined as an uncomfortable condition resulting when an individual holds contradictory beliefs. Obviously, stupidity helps in the process, in that the dumber a person is, the easier it is for her to hold contradictory beliefs. For us, we expand cogdis to cover the condition of a deeply held belief at odds with relevant behavior as in Crusaders who killed for Christ or a corrupt cop. In addition, we extend the principle beyond the individual to society in general, in that we find a culture may profess a belief which is contradicted by the conduct of its members (culdis), as when the institution of science is set up to protect errant members rather than correct their errors [1].
While it is reasonable to presume that a dissonance creates a psychic tension which humans ache to resolve, this commonly is not the case: people simply live with their contradictions. As Walt Whitman observed, “Do I contradict myself? Very well then. I contradict myself.”[2] This is not much of a stretch, since one can posit that a behavioral system is an expression of an underlying belief system–so you have a behavioral belief system at odds with a theoretical/ethical belief system. The expected dissonance is common mitigated by word games, which reduce cognitive tension by redefining everything to suit the super-ego individual and society. The oddity is that people then get upset when confronted by some aggravating person who, like the honest cop, presumes to act according to the explicit verbal creed and challenges the society to adapt to her, live up to itself or admit its basic ethic is a not particularly amusing self-inflicted joke.
Not so amusing is the plight of music in the 20th century. Barbershop and marches sufficed for the 19th, when a case for cogdis could be made–people tried to make sense of their world or find some common functional relationship between what they said and did. The syncopation of the rags was the first hint at fragmentation. This was followed by deliberate dissonance–flatted fifths, major sevenths, ninths, elevenths, thirteenths and sounds indescribable. The Modernaires of the ‘50's and 60's pop to mind as representative of music of the overpopulated. There just were not enough notes to go around. Someone always had to be and was off. If they hit a perfect chord, something was wrong. It was music for discomfort/dissonance. Not only did it not sound nice, it was not supposed to, and no one wanted it to. Generally, all that remains steady is the most basic element of music–tempo: When we are doomed, constant rhythm will go haywire.
Opposed to cogdis is F. Scott Fitzgerald’s insight, in 1936, that the mark of first rate mind is the ability to hold contradictory ideas at the same time and still function. For my money, Leon Festinger [3]–the original champion of cogdis–was being superegoish: His view was the way a reasonable mind should function. He and his have gathered a lot of supporting data, but to maintain their theory, they have to ignore a lot of street behavior which contradicts their view. For example, as a refutation of the theory of cognitive dissonance, Adolf Hitler was a case study in stupidity in that the more his belief in Providence (i.e., an Aryan God) was contradicted by facts from his environ- ment, the stronger he embraced it [4]–clearly a road map for a disastrous one-way, dead-end street. The test set up by scientist’s show how the mind can function–not necessarily how it does function. More perplexing and confusing is the fact that even a first rate mind or civilization can function well with or based on just a half-baked idea if it is appealing [5].
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,