cognitive dissonance — n. a state of psychological conflict or anxiety resulting from a contradiction between a person's simultaneously held beliefs or attitudes.
[Encarta World English Dictionary, St. Martin's Press, 1999]

 Have you ever found yourself agreeing (or disagreeing) with both sides of an issue? For me, the abortion debate is an ideal example. On one hand, I feel that our individual freedoms are what make us human and a woman's right to choose would seem to be central to that belief. However, terminating a pregnancy (at least somewhere in the course of the nine months) seems to limit the freedoms of another human. Here are two strongly held views that appear to make perfect sense, when viewed narrowly on their own, but come in conflict when they meet.

 Simply stated, cognitive dissonance occurs when a logical contradiction occurs in the mind. It is an internal mental paradox, if you will. These contradictions can occur for a variety of reason. Sometimes the dissonance is transitory when one can quickly explain, discover, or resolve the contradiction. Often, however, the contradiction lingers and becomes a mental black hole.

 It is said that one obstacle for computer scientists to overcome in the creation of artificial intelligence is the ability for a computer to be able to function in a state of cognitive dissonance. We humans are quite capable of walking around believing one thing while the facts continue to prove us wrong. Maybe such contradictions are a part of our intelligence or our humanity.

Types of Cognitive Dissonance

1. Direct Experience vs. Direct Experience — when your own experiences appear to 'prove' two contradictory things. For example, perhaps you have been performing the same pre-exercise stretches for several years and you have successfully avoided cramps. Then, let us presume that, without changing your stretching or exercise routine, you begin having cramps on some days. Are their new factors, has something else changed?
2. Direct Experience vs. 'Fact'— when your own experiences do not match those of a respected source. Recently some scientists released a study noting that sugar does NOT, as was commonly believed, make children more hyperactive. My experience with children (and that of many folks I've spoken with) directly contradicts those results.
3. Direct Experience vs. Belief — when you believe something to be true long after you have data to the contrary. Kidnapping victims can suffer from what is called the Stockholm Syndrome, in which they come to sympathize with their captors.
4. Belief vs. 'Fact' — when a belief or attitude does not match those of respected sources. People of some religious faiths must resolve their faith in Divine Creation with the scientific evidence for evolution.

 There are certainly others implied by the categories above: 'Fact' vs. 'Fact' (when one scientific study contradicts another one), Belief vs. Belief, etc. In a sense, we've established that cognitive dissonance occurs when one way of knowing is at odds with another way of knowing.

 Are these logical contradictions a sign of sloppy reasoning, imperfect knowledge, or both?