Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
You know why there is such an emphasis on the concept of personal reality here at the Doctrine?
Well, before I answer that, let me go on record as saying that accepting the concept of personal reality avails one of the most immediate benefits of this here personality theory here. It is totally a Pepto Bismal shake, (with crumbled Rolaid topping), to relieve cognitive dissonance. (At least, in the cases of Reflective Cognitive Dissonance*)
We all encounter, or have friends, who at one time or another acquire and/or profess beliefs and opinions that seem to stand in direct opposition of everything they’ve always stood for or believed. For our purposes, we’re referring to opinions on the world and life and such, otherwise they remain the same people they have always been. Except for this one thing.
Because we all are, for the most part, reasonable people, we try to understand how these friends/co-workers/classmates/family members can: believe that/do that/espouse ideas.
And we fail.
But, because they are friends or family members, we don’t want to give up. So we look at what they say, (or do or espouse), and turn it upside down and look at it sideways. No luck. It still doesn’t make sense. To make matters worse, they are still the same person, except for this one little, (but thoroughly aggravating) instance.
Personal reality, (and his really hot partner, Perspective), is the only thing that allows us to resolve this mental/emotional turmoil. (‘Cause they’re not gonna change, no matter how many times we say, “Yeah, but….!”)
The conflict is within us. We are trying to reconcile a conflicting belief/idea with our own personal reality that does not (here’s a total hint) include the ideas of our friend/family that is not making sense. Well, duh.
Allow that, within their personal reality, (a thin layer of translucent colored cellophane through which light must pass, their reality includes facts, principles, inferences, ideas, conclusions and assumptions, both empirical and satirical, reasons, ratiocination and damn-fool stubbornness, all, of course, a priori), they feel no conflict in their beliefs**.
The beauty part of employing the concept of personal reality to this problem is that it does not require anything from you. There is an old(ish) saying here at the Wakefield Doctrine, ‘the Doctrine is for you, not them.’
For some, this, (acquiring an additional perspective), manifests as a threat. If I imagine there is another reality, one that is real as the one I know, then what does it say about my world?! It will destroy the trueness of everything! It can’t be permitted.
It’s worth repeating. If you can allow that the personal reality of another person can account for a particular aberration, then that resolves the conflict within you. And…and! this acceptance does not constitute condoning, agreeing or any ‘ing’ relative to the belief in question. This about you, not them.
So, for cases of Reflective Cognitive Dissonance, (not a ‘real’ psychological condition), more is not less.
Adding, in and of itself, can’t subtract, unless you add a different ….(what did they call it in grade school? operation! yeah! ) a different operation.
* though probably not in any DSM you’re likely to find, we’re using RCG as a term to describe the state of conflict when you observe a friend or family member espousing, sometime joyfully, ideas and attitudes that… that, well, they really must know better than that!! You know them, they’re not like that, except for this one area of their life, they show all the normal and consistent beliefs they’ve always maintained.
** the favored illustration of the normalcy of inconsistency of reality*** is three people standing on the sidewalk of a busy city street across from a popular restaurant. Its lunch hour, the reputation of the eatery is well-established; the line is beginning to extend out the door. The reactions, (lets picture thought balloons over the heads of our three hungry people): “Well, that looks like a wait of fifteen minutes and I’ve got to…” “Awright! Leave it to me, I went out with that person at the door.” “Home.”
*** lol, no, seriously, you should write one of these posts… its totally fun
It also helps to remember read versus true. The monsters under the bed are real to the child, but they are not true.
true (as to the realities of often containing things that are not true, especially with children), however, the key to the use the insights and tools of the Wakefield Doctrine is to remember, the Doctrine is for you, not them.
Using the more adult centric example in the post, the one with otherwise reasonable friends doing and saying (and espousing) that which is not, it is about how we feel, in the example, stressed by the cognitive dissonance. The Wakefield Doctrine does not offer anything that one person can use to change, alter, deter, (well, sure, we’ll allow ‘amuse’) the other person. It is simply one more perspective through which we might can additional insight into the world and the people who make it up.
Thank you for the cognitive medicine, very helpful.