Mistakes were made, but not by me

[keirsey]

Rarely is a book as clear and significant in its message as the recently-published Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me). Written by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, it’s truly a "must" read.

When Leon Festinger’s A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance was published in 1957, it introduced a major theoretical breakthrough in the field of psychology in developing the concept of cognitive dissonance. In fact, my father referred to Festinger's book as "the most significant work in social psychology" in the twentieth century. Elliot Aronson was a graduate student of Festinger’s in the fifties.

In their book, Tavris and Aronson show clearly that we all make excuses for ourselves without knowing it. Self justification, a form of cognitive dissonance, is an important aspect of how we perceive ourselves. People create stories about themselves -- carefully-constructed stories, at that. We are quite selective about what we remember, putting ourselves in the best light possible or self-justifying our actions. As the authors explain in their book -- subtitled Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts -- it’s just part of our nature.

Any person who interacts with other people (in other words, everybody) should read this book. If you don't cringe in self-recognition several times while reading it, you're not being honest with yourself.

To give a brief example of my single mistake when “typing,” I'll discuss why I originally typed Alan Greenspan as a FieldMarshal Rational, rather than a Mastermind Rational.

In Greenspan's new book, The Age of Turbulence, he and his wife, journalist Andrea Mitchell, make it clear that the über-economist is not expressive or extroverted. However, not having this information until recently, I had thought otherwise. When doing research on Alan Greenspan earlier, I read Bob Woodward’s book, Maestro, and observed Greenspan on TV. Based on Woodward's description of Greenspan attending “parties” in Washington—evidence suggesting an expressive (and extroverted) kind of guy—it seemed a good guess to consider him a FieldMarshal Rational. He was decisive; he led the Federal Reserve. Besides, I "needed" a well-known, visible, and "likeable" Fieldmarshal for my website. Bottom line: I let my needs trump all the circumstantial evidence I possessed at the time indicating that Alan was actually a Mastermind.

When questioned by others about whether I was correct in my typing, I resisted. I figured I knew better. I was the only one, after all, who had studied him. I was also the only one who had made a public commitment about him, typing him as a FieldMarshal Rational on the Keirsey.com website. Only when there was inconvertible evidence to the contrary did I finally concede.

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). Alas: now that I’ve read the book, I don't have quite as much conviction in my voice.

[fuzzynavelnot21]

I just re-read this because I am still reading in Brains and came across a mention of this book. I didn't fully grasp what it seems the book is saying, and I am wondering if I am now understanding it correctly. The book proposes that people actually make-up (not always but a decent amount of the time) the stories of, for example, childhood abuse, as a way of excusing or justifying their current perceived 'bad' behavior or failures or worthlessness? That is a huge statement. I have no reason to not believe it; that is not my point. No wonder you said the book's message was significant. So I'm guessing the types given to more vivid imaginations would be more likely to do this? How does that, if that is true, harmonize with an Idealist's, for example, desire to be honest and authentic? They have to completely believe the lie then. The lie is the truth or it wouldn't work. That is some major self-deception! I don't know, just rambling here, but this is quite interesting.

[Earl]

So I'm guessing the types given to more vivid imaginations would be more likely to do this? How does that, if that is true, harmonize with an Idealist's, for example, desire to be honest and authentic? They have to completely believe the lie then. The lie is the truth or it wouldn't work. That is some major self-deception! I don't know, just rambling here, but this is quite interesting.

But that's exactly what we do! I am incapable of lying, but I am very good at leaving out details, putting a spin on it, and basicly distorting the truth without ever saying an untruth.
It became such an ingrained habit that when I was fed up with living my life depressed it took me nearly a year, to break the habit. Oh yeah Idealist's are the masters of self deception when they want to be.

[fuzzynavelnot21]

haha, ok, thank you for sharing Earl!

What I was asking/talking about goes a bit further than what you said.

[crowgirl]

I have not read the book. My comment is just based on what Fuzzy said about the making up childhood abuse. My experience as a Medical worker who is privy to alot of peoples personal issues- is they generally don't make something up out of the blue, but will embelish the experiences they had, to in turn use it as their "crutch" for whatever they are currently going through. Using an external experience to rationalize an internal problem, and place blame anywhere but upon themself.

This sorta goes along with what Earl said about distorting the truth. I am honest to a fault, but definitly know when to omit or make slight adjustments that then put me in a better light. All without ever telling a lie, is that survival of the fittest or survival of the idealist?

Sorry, this is middle of the night ramblings. I should read the book before I comment anymore.

[mkb32]

Every single individual human has their own reality.
Most people don't lie.
They create a reality that works for them.

"Sorry seems to be the hardest word ..."

"I'm the man in the box, buried in my shame ..."

"All we are is just another brick in the wall."

"All in all is all we are."

"Take a look around, nothing much has changed ..."

"She tells you she's an orphan after you meet her family."
"Says she talks to angels ..."

"Everything that you say to me puts me one step closer to the edge ..."


Where the heck is drgiggles or bailey?
I need someone to speak Rock-N-Roll to me.

I believe you would totally dig "Mistakes Were Made", crowgirl.

[fuzzynavelnot21]

Here's the excerp from Brains (p. 241, second footnote) that I was referring to:

"By the way, early in the 20th century, psychologists said that such forgetting was due to 'retroactive inhibition', suggesting that the latest point encountered tends to erase preceding points. And recently social psychologist Elliot Aronson reviewed the research done on memory in the wake of Leon Festingers' theory of cognitive dissonance (1957). In Mistakes Were Made Leon Aronson and Carol Tavris explain how false memories are used by most of us to justify "foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts." In the case of those whose lives have gone awry, leaving them feeling unworthy and inferior, they can with the help of a deframing expert, such as a "memory-recovery counselor", remember horrible things that happened to them when they were young children, such as sexual abuse by a parent, baby sitter, or teacher. Such memories are useful in self-justification. But these memories are far more often than not false. Even so, faced with incontrovertible evidence that no such horrifics could have happened to them, they cling to these false memories, no doubt because they provide an excuse for their failures, while their feelings of inferiority and worthlessness remain hidden from self and other."

The masking from themselves and others the feelings of worthlessness is exactly what the book The Dark Escape will discuss.

[jwetmore]

Readers of this string may also be interested in "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright. He describes the evolutionary advantages of self deception using Charles Darwin as an example. Darwin was a Rational and devoted his life to searching for an original truth supported by empirical evidence. Yet, Wright makes a case of ways that Darwin deceived himself, especially as a rival was ready to publish his own work on a theory of evolution.

As an aside for those who read the Bible, the 9th Commandment states, Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor. The Commandment does not say not to lie, or not to deceive yourself. Perhaps even thousands of years ago it was recognized that self deception was not part of the moral code that was necessary for people to live together.

In high school and in college I had a friend who embellished his memories to an extraordinary extent. His recollection of events were always much more interesting, entertaining, and cast him in a better light than the original event. He was usually carefull to relate events from his past (and he had moved several times) so there were no witnesses.

Having been introduced to temperaments long after I last saw him, I would type him as an Idealist now. Our Artisan friends rarely complained about the lies of the Idealist, but the Guardians were typically very offended. Despite the "enhanced" memories I would say that my friend was honest, and never made a claim that would hurt someone (or even really affect anyone else). To the best of my knowledge he never reduced another person's accomplishments to make himself look better by comparison.

[ENFP123]

I believe self deception is unavoidable, or more specifically the self always takes on a subjective point of view. My favorite philosopher, Zizek, invented a method in order to see the truth of percieved objects; it's called the parallax view, the idea is that when a subject views an object it only gets one perspective, a biased one, however, if the subject changes it's position and views the object again (though the second view is biased on its own as well) then the true position of the object becomes clear.

If you start this video at 3:00 he gives a good example of various ideologies and how they play out in interesting ways, toilets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fv8DJBal ... re=related


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

[jwetmore]

The recent discussions on "Looking at the Whole" are so good I wanted to touch on David's tangential remarka in his first post on this thread regarding Alan Greenspan. (I'm currently listening to "Age of Turulance" but I have been aware of Alan and his writings since the Ford administration.)

Greeenspan is definately not a Field Marshal. In "Age of Turbulance" he makes clear, using examples from his music career and his economics career, that he very much favored a supporting role and an adivsor role. In music he did not seek out solo performances and was not skilled in improvisation. In his consulting firm he did not seek to build and manage a large organization, but to perform detailed empricial studies and do research for select clients. As a political advisor and central banker he did not take on the coordination and management roles (the Federal Reserve had professional managers) but instead focused on analysis and adivsing. I don't think any of these behaviors are consistent with the Field Marshal role.

Now the part where I want to learn more about reading temperaments.

Greenspan appears to have many characteristics of an Inspector Guardian. He carefully examines statisics and empirical evidence and he expends significant effort supporting institutions to stabilize society. Central bankers are preoccupied with stability of the banking system, and the institutions that promote confidence in exchange and investment. Greenspan also was president of several professional associations in the economics profession.

Greenspan appears to have many traits in common with Warren Buffet. Like David, I had hoped that so accomplished an individual as Buffet shared some of my temperament and thought that he may be a Mastermind. David made an excellent case for why Buffet is an Inspector. Greenspan, like Buffet, seems to thrive on detailed examination of statistics, drawing conclusions from empirical research. Both seem to be avid students of past events to understand the present. Developing theories seems unimportant to him compared to spotting trends and imbalances in the numbers.

Now I am examining Greenspans words in "Age of Turbulance" to figure out how abstract versus concrete his communication is. In his autobiographical portion of the book my reaction was toward more concrete communication. In the second portion of the book his analysis of world economics and political theory is much more abstract. So I am becoming convinced of a Mastermind. (Also, anyone who could be part of Ayn Rand's "Collective" and maintain a relationship with her (even as she lost her Objectivisim and became a cult leader) must certainly have a high preferance for abstract thought.

David, can you tie this up neatly for me so I can see the whole of Greenspan rather than working from some (the sum) of the parts?