Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when an individual holds two contradictory beliefs, attitudes, or values at the same time. It can lead to mental discomfort and conflict as this discrepancy makes it difficult for the person to reconcile their thoughts. In counseling, cognitive dissonance can be used to help clients recognize and address any conflicting beliefs that may be contributing to their current issues. Therapists can use cognitive dissonance theory to identify areas of tension in the client’s life, create awareness about underlying issues, reduce resistance in treatment progressions, and encourage new perspectives on challenging situations. Ultimately, helping a client become aware of and address any internal conflicts they have through cognitive dissonance theory has the potential to positively influence both short-term moods states as well as long-term behavior change.
legislators would have more motivations to crusade across their entire state, rather than basically battling in their solitary areas as the state vote would decide corresponding seating. Optimistically, Niel Franzese of the Connecticut Regulation Survey brings up “such a circumstance could propel citizens to partake in primaries that they had not in that frame of mind in order to make the most of a recharged opportunity to have their voices heard in another sort of essential political decision,” (Franzese, 274).
Moving to medium term results, ideological groups would turn out to be more divided as differing ideological groups would shape to catch a piece of the democratic portion. Adding to the fracture, parties that were major areas of strength for once start to debilitate, for example, how the Casual get-together has started to remove strength from the Conservative Association. On October 29, 2015, Stephanie Schriock of The Slope, guarantees the Casual get-together has previously been “fixing the legislative guide with safe conservative locale,” getting seats they regularly wouldn’t get an opportunity at winning. This pattern could extend across ideological group limits as “floor crossing” and between party alliances framed to deliver specific political decision results.
At last, the drawn out ramifications of applying Brazilian discretionary approaches to the US could demonstrate terrible. With an all around debilitating party framework, the possibilities of intrigue and pay off will rise dramatically. Moreover, as the US keeps on encountering a wilting working class, there would be cause for more noteworthy social uprisings. Adding into the class structure evaluation, “class structures have become undeniably more energized in cutting edge entrepreneur nations,” (Bastos, 153), and with unlikely portrayal overall, the polarization would keep on declining.
Presently the issue with this speculative situation is only that, it is speculative. The different ramifications that have been expressed lead one down an elusive slant that breeds cynicism and dismisses the chance of a positive result. To the extent that any political specialist can perceive, a relative framework might just be the response to fix the US polarization, taking into consideration better portrayal of regions, for example, the “neglected” moderate Rust Belt, the frank liberal West Coast, and the blended moderate/moderate East Coast. Thus, while examining what is happening, for example, this, it vital to observe that there essentially isn’t sufficient proof to help which type of a majority rules system will be more useful than another. There are many elements that become an integral factor including society, late political and social history, and eagerness to change to give some examples. In help, that’s what niel Franzese considers “an absence of convincing examinations with finding
