CBDC Bitcoin Dissonance – Bitcoin Magazine: Bitcoin News, Articles, Charts and Guides

[ad_1]

Bitcoin has a lot of criticism. And while it’s never constructive to simply dismiss reviews for the sake of dismissing, a large amount of criticism against Bitcoin is often so blatantly untrue that it’s hard to believe it’s possible for seemingly intelligent people. to perpetuate itself.

Criticism can lead to improvement and it is often our biggest criticisms that drive us to make our most important decisions. Case in point: Bitcoin itself is inherently critical. There are deep loopholes in the dominant monetary and governance systems around the world, and Bitcoin was designed specifically in response to this. It would be somewhat hypocritical of Bitcoiners to dismiss the reviews for no other reason than the fact that they are targeting Bitcoin.

That being said, Bitcoin FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is circulating to satiety. And most, if not all, are repetitive nonsense. You can choose your own poison, but as a fun example I would suggest Senator Elizabeth Warren’s recent remarks, which included an all-time old favorite: the idea that “Bitcoin is only useful for criminals.” This point has been debunked so well that it is not really worth repeating. But for what it’s worth, it’s even been indirectly debunked by his own government.

Enter Exhibit A and the report released by blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, which shows that in 2020, cryptocurrency-related criminal activity fell to just 0.34% of total transactions. The funny thing is that one would expect Senator Elizabeth Warren to at least be aware of this report compiled by Chainalysis, given that her own government is one of the biggest clients of the companies.

Agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Internal Revenue Service have spent millions of dollars on blockchain monitoring tools developed by Chainalysis and have investigated and charged people based on the evidence. collected using Chainalysis. To say that the US government has a good working relationship with Chainalysis would be a very fair assessment. But that a prominent figure in the US government then completely ignores one of the most important reports compiled by his partner organization is somewhat misleading at best.

Let’s take a step back here. Personally, I think the world will eventually adopt a Bitcoin standard, sooner rather than later. And I believe Bitcoiners want to speed up this process for the benefit of humanity. Therefore, it is helpful to understand how seemingly intelligent people like Senator Warren can maintain their grossly inaccurate beliefs around Bitcoin, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Of course, let’s call it mental gymnastics or old stupidity. But does it really help to understand what’s going on here? And can understanding this phenomenon help Bitcoiners navigate the situation without wasting their energy where there is no point?

Question: Why do smart people so often make illogical, repetitive, and blatantly false arguments? And not just when it comes to Bitcoin.

While I don’t think we can paint all of the individual designs with the same brush, there is one particular explanation that I believe has not been widely discussed and may be helpful to be aware of: the cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a well-defined term in psychology, studied since the 1950s. It is used to describe the reaction of an individual when faced with a new reality that contradicts their core belief system at its most basic level, to some extent. such that the individual simply cannot adapt to this new reality. This causes intense discomfort and stress to the mind, which then prompts action to restore internal coherence, with the goal of maintaining basic mental functionality.

In acute situations, it is crucial to understand that the primary and immediate goal of the response is to keep the individual functional. Having specific beliefs about reality is (for now) of secondary importance. In the long run, of course, an individual with more specific beliefs about reality will be better suited to survive. But of a more immediate concern is the basic mental functioning of the individual, which requires internal mental coherence. Thus, very often, the line of conduct adopted is that of rationalization and / or confirmation bias, which will either produce a new cognition, and / or avoid information likely to reinforce the new contradictory reality.

Like sleeping, breathing or beating the heart, the response is automatic and is not under the control of the individual. And like the fight-or-flight response, it is an immediate but ultimately temporary solution to preventing the person from having a mental breakdown.

It takes a monumental amount of mental effort to consider ideas that alter reality and that are at odds with one’s established belief system. And in a world where people are often already overwhelmed, overwhelming information can become the “straw that breaks the camel’s back”. This is why their response blindly leads them to believe everything they need, in order to temporarily resolve an unbearable internal conflict. Simply put, for the sake of immediate survival, denial is the name of the game.

Seen in this light, Senator Warren’s remarks may make much more sense. “Digital currency of central banks [CBDC] shows great promise … Legitimate digital public money … could help improve … [the] security of our financial system. Reading between the lines here, it should be pretty obvious that Senator Warren (probably very strongly) believes in the role of government. It is also very likely that she has the fundamental belief that people cannot – and therefore should never, govern themselves. So what can one expect when faced with a real world example that contradicts her basic belief system? It is impossible to determine whether or not she suffers from cognitive dissonance. But we know for a fact that cognitive dissonance is a very real phenomenon. It follows then that there will inevitably be a lot of people who will suffer, especially in response to Bitcoin, a life-changing invention if ever there is one. And if Senator Warren happens to be one of those people, that means she’s grabbed by a fight-or-flight type automatic response. It just does whatever needs to be done, and says whatever needs to be said, to stay functional.

My point is this: if Senator Warren, as a possible case study, suffers from cognitive dissonance, she is also unlikely to logically respond to factual information (like the Chainalysis report mentioned above. ) that a person with depression is unlikely to respond positively to the good news. If she suffers from cognitive dissonance, there is no point in trying to counter her arguments with factual information. Because, in her case, the facts may not matter. This is the whole point of the confirmation bias and / or the rationalization response induced by cognitive dissonance.

And like so many other automatic human responses, if held for long periods of time, the same thing that saved your life could end up destroying it. A person can run to escape a hungry lion fueled by a sudden rush of adrenaline, but eventually the body must rest or it will eventually collapse and die of exhaustion.

And that is why it is useful to understand this answer. If a person suffers from cognitive dissonance, they are essentially (and desperately) trying to survive. As such, any form of factual and logical engagement or debate will have no positive effect and will only serve to further escalate the denial effort.

The only constructive thing that can be done is counterintuitively to avoid direct engagement with the individual and to be assured that his approach is ultimately temporary. And as long as good content is continually being produced, they will come when (and if) their minds are ready to make a change.

And luckily, in the case of Bitcoin, up until that point and even though it never happens, that’s not much of a concern as there is nothing they can do to affect the inevitable outcome of a Bitcoin standard.

This is a guest article by Hermann Vivier. The opinions expressed are entirely theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

[ad_2]