Cognitive dissonance is a psychological concept developed by Leon Festinger which suggests that individuals experience discomfort when their thoughts and behaviors conflict (Festinger, 1957). This internal tension creates an urge to reduce the tension by changing one’s behavior or beliefs in order to make them more consistent. In counseling, cognitive dissonance can be used to help individuals recognize patterns of irrational thinking and how they are contributing to their current state of distress.
By understanding this phenomenon, therapists can provide clients with tools needed for developing better self–awareness which eventually leads to greater insight into how certain actions or decisions might be negatively impacting their lives. For instance, a therapist may ask questions related too finding inconsistencies between someone’s values and behaviors so that it becomes easier for them to identify when illogical thought processes are taking place (Kanfer et al., 2012 ). This process also allows clients to challenge any existing preconceived notions thus encouraging personal growth through constructive reflection. In conclusion, cognitive dissonance helps counselors work with their patients on identifying discrepancies between thoughts and behaviors while engaging in meaningful conversations about meaningful topics. By doing so, this approach encourages exploration of any irrational ideas associated with current situations – allowing people greater freedom when it comes to making decisions based on more accurate information.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term used to describe the discomfort experienced when one holds two or more incompatible beliefs, ideas, values or emotions at the same time. It’s an internal conflict that arises from inconsistency between our thoughts and behavior. For example, if someone smokes although they know it is bad for their health, their actions are in conflict with what they believe and this can create cognitive dissonance.
Conservative Alliance. On October 29, 2015, Stephanie Schriock of The Slope, guarantees the Casual get-together has proactively been “fixing the legislative guide with safe conservative regions,” getting seats they typically wouldn’t get an opportunity at winning. This pattern could extend across ideological group limits as “floor crossing” and between party alliances shaped to create specific political race results.
At last, the drawn out ramifications of applying Brazilian appointive approaches to the US could demonstrate deplorable. With a generally debilitating party framework, the possibilities of agreement and pay off will rise dramatically. Moreover, as the US keeps on encountering a shrinking working class, there would be cause for more prominent social uprisings. Adding into the class structure evaluation, “class structures have become undeniably more spellbound in cutting edge entrepreneur nations,” (Bastos, 153), and with implausible portrayal all in all, the polarization would keep on deteriorating.
Presently the issue with this speculative situation is only that, it is theoretical. The different ramifications that have been expressed lead one down an elusive slant that breeds negativity and dismisses the chance of a positive result. To the extent that any political specialist can perceive, a corresponding 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 dissecting what is happening, for example, this, it critical to observe that there basically isn’t sufficient proof to help which type of a majority rules system will be more useful than another. There are many variables that become possibly the most important factor including society, ongoing political and social history, and eagerness to change to give some examples. In help, that’s what niel Franzese considers “an absence of definitive examinations with discoveries subverting the open essential framework is reason to the point of allowing the proposed new framework an opportunity,” (Franzese, 274).
While we might in all likelihood can’t be sure whether open-list relative portrayal would be helpful for the US world of politics, what we in all actuality do know is clear. Right now, the open-list PR is creating some issues inside Brazil’s administration and is bringing about friendly exhibits against the public authority. This has been more than featured by the reprimand of their leader Dilma Rousseff, whose political circumstance likewise reveals insight into what president-elect Trump might look soon. Furthermore, socio-political turm
