Let me begin with two quotes that I often revisit, especially when encountering cognitive dissonance:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence,” he said, “is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” - Scott Fitzgerald
And:
“A broad-minded person, who can see both sides of a question and is ready to hold opposed truths while admitting that they cannot reconcile them, is at a manifest disadvantage with a narrow-minded person who sees but one side, sees it clearly and is ready to interpret the whole world in accordance with their formula.” - H. Maynard Smith
The second quote resonates more with me, as I often find myself unable to reconcile contradictions. I see these inconsistencies everywhere, even within my own thoughts. Yet, there are times when a decision must be made. In those moments, I strive to choose the side that promises the greatest good or benefits the most people—even if it challenges my own views. My ultimate goal in every interaction is to learn and remain open to other possibilities. While I’ve struggled with this approach for years and don’t always succeed in setting aside my ego, I’ve come to realize that doing so often leads to better outcomes for everyone involved.
This journey toward embracing uncertainty reminds me of another quote that resonates deeply with me:
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” - Richard P. Feynman
I too have been focusing on recognizing that a part of me seems to want to work against my own best interests. Simply accepting this seems to go a very long way toward addressing the problem. I think that half the time, if I'm arguing with someone, it's because neither of us is arguing about the same thing, really. Simply paraphrasing what the other person just said has been a godsend, although actually remembering to do this? That's tough!
This comment is a bit of a sidebar based on what you said that really resonated with me, but the blind spot analogy is really useful too, along with the central thesis.
It's super hard to do it that's for certain. The more I write on these topics, the more I realize how much I have to apply to myself before I can ever hope to share insights. It's too easy to see it in others. Classic Bible parable of the Speck and the Plank.
This essay on cognitive dissonance by Michael Woudenberg taps into a deeply relatable phenomenon — that moment when reality taps you on the shoulder, whispers "you're wrong," and your brain panics like a squirrel trapped in a vending machine. We've all been there — in an argument where logic turns to mush, and your fingers hover over the keyboard like you're about to unleash the Rosetta Stone of online comebacks. Then poof — your brain smears the dissonance into a tidy narrative that keeps your worldview pristine.
Woudenberg nails this defensive instinct: the brain’s relentless drive to simplify reality, even at the cost of truth. It’s not about intelligence; it’s about efficiency. Our minds would rather contort facts like a Cirque du Soleil performer than confront contradictions that rattle our core beliefs.
The examples hit home too — the environmentalist who loves luxury, the salesperson who wouldn’t buy their own product, the chronic procrastinator convincing themselves they’ve "earned" that six-hour Netflix binge. These aren’t flaws so much as proof of our brain’s desperate attempt to hold conflicting truths in a truce.
What’s powerful here isn’t just the identification of cognitive dissonance, but the challenge Woudenberg lays out: face it. When that rising knot of discomfort creeps in — that hot flush of "I need to win this argument or I might die" — that’s the signal. Not to fire back with a smug link but to pause, breathe, and actually interrogate what’s happening in your own mind.
The real kicker? Sometimes the contradictions we wrestle with aren’t problems — they’re complex truths that coexist. Woudenberg’s insistence that not all dissonance is bad is crucial. Holding multiple truths — embracing paradox — isn’t a sign of mental failure; it’s a sign you’re evolving.
In a world drowning in partisan noise and social media tantrums, this essay feels like a much-needed call to step back, shut up for a second, and ask: Am I glitching right now?
Let me begin with two quotes that I often revisit, especially when encountering cognitive dissonance:
“The test of a first-rate intelligence,” he said, “is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind, at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” - Scott Fitzgerald
And:
“A broad-minded person, who can see both sides of a question and is ready to hold opposed truths while admitting that they cannot reconcile them, is at a manifest disadvantage with a narrow-minded person who sees but one side, sees it clearly and is ready to interpret the whole world in accordance with their formula.” - H. Maynard Smith
The second quote resonates more with me, as I often find myself unable to reconcile contradictions. I see these inconsistencies everywhere, even within my own thoughts. Yet, there are times when a decision must be made. In those moments, I strive to choose the side that promises the greatest good or benefits the most people—even if it challenges my own views. My ultimate goal in every interaction is to learn and remain open to other possibilities. While I’ve struggled with this approach for years and don’t always succeed in setting aside my ego, I’ve come to realize that doing so often leads to better outcomes for everyone involved.
This journey toward embracing uncertainty reminds me of another quote that resonates deeply with me:
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” - Richard P. Feynman
Great quotes! Those are very useful.
I too have been focusing on recognizing that a part of me seems to want to work against my own best interests. Simply accepting this seems to go a very long way toward addressing the problem. I think that half the time, if I'm arguing with someone, it's because neither of us is arguing about the same thing, really. Simply paraphrasing what the other person just said has been a godsend, although actually remembering to do this? That's tough!
This comment is a bit of a sidebar based on what you said that really resonated with me, but the blind spot analogy is really useful too, along with the central thesis.
It's super hard to do it that's for certain. The more I write on these topics, the more I realize how much I have to apply to myself before I can ever hope to share insights. It's too easy to see it in others. Classic Bible parable of the Speck and the Plank.
It's a bit like teaching jiu jitsu fundamentals: I had better make sure what I'm showing them is right!
It’s why I wrote about Embracing my White Belt.
Haidt quotes Seng'Tsan, "If you want to realize the truth, don’t be for or against." https://innercall.towardthe1.com/seng-tsan-the-mind-of-absolute-trust/
Great add and very true.
This essay on cognitive dissonance by Michael Woudenberg taps into a deeply relatable phenomenon — that moment when reality taps you on the shoulder, whispers "you're wrong," and your brain panics like a squirrel trapped in a vending machine. We've all been there — in an argument where logic turns to mush, and your fingers hover over the keyboard like you're about to unleash the Rosetta Stone of online comebacks. Then poof — your brain smears the dissonance into a tidy narrative that keeps your worldview pristine.
Woudenberg nails this defensive instinct: the brain’s relentless drive to simplify reality, even at the cost of truth. It’s not about intelligence; it’s about efficiency. Our minds would rather contort facts like a Cirque du Soleil performer than confront contradictions that rattle our core beliefs.
The examples hit home too — the environmentalist who loves luxury, the salesperson who wouldn’t buy their own product, the chronic procrastinator convincing themselves they’ve "earned" that six-hour Netflix binge. These aren’t flaws so much as proof of our brain’s desperate attempt to hold conflicting truths in a truce.
What’s powerful here isn’t just the identification of cognitive dissonance, but the challenge Woudenberg lays out: face it. When that rising knot of discomfort creeps in — that hot flush of "I need to win this argument or I might die" — that’s the signal. Not to fire back with a smug link but to pause, breathe, and actually interrogate what’s happening in your own mind.
The real kicker? Sometimes the contradictions we wrestle with aren’t problems — they’re complex truths that coexist. Woudenberg’s insistence that not all dissonance is bad is crucial. Holding multiple truths — embracing paradox — isn’t a sign of mental failure; it’s a sign you’re evolving.
In a world drowning in partisan noise and social media tantrums, this essay feels like a much-needed call to step back, shut up for a second, and ask: Am I glitching right now?
Another one that I'm going to be sharing broadly. Wonderful insight.
Love it!