Cognitive dissonance

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is a consequence of a person performing an action that contradicts personal beliefs, ideals, and values; and also occurs when confronted with new information that contradicts said beliefs, ideals, and values.[1][2]

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. This is done by making changes to justify their stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and/or contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

I did a web search "unity of american society since vietnam war"

As I figured most of what I found was very shallow,as those whom where writing about it, did not have the ability to have a "big-picture understanding" etc. I also ran a search " psychologically why was the Vietnam war maybe the worst war in modern times",,there again,,shallow,like "why didn't we win!" or how many died,compared to other wars etc.,I personally was looking for someone whom had written something about the High degree of Cognitive Dissonance occurred,not only by the soldiers,the military support peoples,nurses,etc,.Yet by the American public,,how it caused Apathy,Diffusion of responsibility, loss of Unity of American Culture(which has been on the decline since). The following site I found at least empathetic to what happened,and the result of.

(The Psychological Effects of the Vietnam War)

Rogers Commission

Simplified cross section of the joints between rocket segments SRB; outside to left.
A – steel wall 0.5 inches (12.7 mm) thick
B – base O-ring gasket,
C – backup O-ring gasket,
D – Strengthening-Cover band,
E – insulation,
F – insulation,
G – carpeting,
H – sealing paste,
I – fixed propellant

The Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, also known as the Rogers Commission after its chairman, was formed to investigate the disaster. The commission members were Chairman William P. Rogers, Vice Chairman Neil Armstrong, David Acheson, Eugene Covert, Richard Feynman, Robert Hotz, Donald Kutyna, Sally Ride, Robert Rummel, Joseph Sutter, Arthur Walker, Albert Wheelon, and Chuck Yeager. The commission worked for several months and published a report of its findings. It found that the Challenger accident was caused by a failure in the O-rings sealing a joint on the right solid rocket booster, which allowed pressurized hot gases and eventually flame to "blow by" the O-ring and make contact with the adjacent external tank, causing structural failure. The failure of the O-rings was attributed to a faulty design, whose performance could be too easily compromised by factors including the low temperature on the day of launch.[63]

Members of the Rogers Commission arrive at Kennedy Space Center.

More broadly, the report also considered the contributing causes of the accident. Most salient was the failure of both NASA and Morton Thiokol to respond adequately to the danger posed by the deficient joint design. Rather than redesigning the joint, they came to define the problem as an acceptable flight risk. The report found that managers at Marshall had known about the flawed design since 1977, but never discussed the problem outside their reporting channels with Thiokol—a flagrant violation of NASA regulations. Even when it became more apparent how serious the flaw was, no one at Marshall considered grounding the shuttles until a fix could be implemented. On the contrary, Marshall managers went as far as to issue and waive six launch constraints related to the O-rings.[9] The report also strongly criticized the decision-making process that led to the launch of Challenger, saying that it was seriously flawed:[19]

failures in communication ... resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers.

— Rogers Commission Report Chapter V[19]

Richard Feynman

One of the commission's members was theoretical physicist Richard Feynman. Feynman, who was then seriously ill with cancer, was reluctant to undertake the job. He did so to find the root cause of the disaster, and to speak plainly to the public about his findings.[64] At the start of investigation, fellow members Dr. Sally Ride and General Donald J. Kutyna gave Feynman a hint that the O-rings were not tested at temperatures below 10 °C (50 °F).[65] During a televised hearing, Feynman demonstrated how the O-rings became less resilient and subject to seal failures at ice-cold temperatures by immersing a sample of the material in a glass of ice water. While other members of the Commission met with NASA and supplier top management, Feynman sought out the engineers and technicians for the answers.[66] He was critical of flaws in NASA's "safety culture", so much so that he threatened to remove his name from the report unless it included his personal observations on the reliability of the shuttle, which appeared as Appendix F.[66] In the appendix, he argued that the estimates of reliability offered by NASA management were wildly unrealistic, differing as much as a thousandfold from the estimates of working engineers. "For a successful technology," he concluded, "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."[67]

"One day [early in the investigation] Sally Ride and I were walking together. She was on my right side and was looking straight ahead. She opened up her notebook and with her left hand, still looking straight ahead, gave me a piece of paper. Didn't say a single word. I look at the piece of paper. It's a NASA document. It's got two columns on it. The first column is temperature, the second column is resiliency of O-rings as a function of temperature. It shows that they get stiff when it gets cold. Sally and I were really good buddies. She figured she could trust me to give me that piece of paper and not implicate her or the people at NASA who gave it to her, because they could all get fired. I wondered how I could introduce this information Sally had given me. So I had Feynman at my house for dinner. I have a 1973 Opel GT, a really cute car. We went out to the garage, and I'm bragging about the car, but he could care less about cars. I had taken the carburetor out. And Feynman said, "What's this?" And I said, "Oh, just a carburetor. I'm cleaning it." Then I said, "Professor, these carburetors have O-rings in them. And when it gets cold, they leak. Do you suppose that has anything to do with our situation?" He did not say a word. We finished the night, and the next Tuesday, at the first public meeting, is when he did his O-ring demonstration...I never talked with Sally about it later... I kept it a secret that she had given me that piece of paper until she died [in 2012].[2]
-General (ret) Donald Joseph Kutyna

The reason I write this,is this type thing ,on a smaller scale,"I see it and have in the building trades,all the time".."threat of losing one's job, if one speaks up!"
 or doesn't comply,and when the wealthy hold the Power,,it is a dangerous game.(cause most likely,more times then not,"The Wealthy are far from being the Wise"..they just have the money!)

I have be doing quite of bit of research on what I call (as the term is new) "Psychological Homeostasis",,closest term I found is "behavorial homeostasis"

Alison Bonds Shapiro's  article above only thing I found similar to my idea of.↑ "Getting out of the way"

,and it is a very good on the point,,,Yet here it is aimed at the Wealth/and holders of Power,..We assume everybody knows what it means to "Live paycheck to paycheck" or be without a job, a means to pay for a place to live ,a way to eat,survive!. There are many,many Wealth/power holders whom have no clue!,,,thus they are "Comfortable" thus in a state of " "Psychological Homeostasis".

T.S. Eliot, “Preface,” to Simone Weil, The Need for Roots:

As a political thinker, as in everything else, Simone Weil is not to be classified. The paradoxicality of her sympathies is a contributing cause of the equilibrium. On the one hand she was a passionate champion of the common people and especially of the oppressed — those oppressed by the wickedness and selfishness of men and those oppressed by the anonymous forces of modern society. She had worked in the Renault factory, she had worked as a field laborer, in order to share the life of people of town and country. On the other hand, she was by nature a [xii] solitary and an individualist, with a profound horror of what she called the collectivity — the monster created by modern totalitarianism. What she cared about was human souls. Her study of human rights and human obligations exposes the falsity of some of the verbiage still current which was used during the war to serve as a moral stimulant. Not the least striking example of her shrewdness, balance and good sense is her examination of the principle of monarchy; and her short review of the political history of France is at once a condemnation of the French Revolution and a powerful argument against the possibility of a restoration of the kingship. She cannot be classified either as a reactionary or as a socialist.

This book belongs in that category of prolegomena to politics which politicians seldom read, and which most of them would be unlikely to understand or to know how to apply. Such books do not influence the contemporary conduct of affairs: for the men and women already engaged in this career and committed to the jargon of the market-place, they always come too late. This is one of those books which ought to be studied by the young before their leisure has been lost and their capacity for thought destroyed in the life of the hustings and the legislative assembly; books the effect of which, we can only hope, will become apparent in the attitude of mind of another generation.


September 1951

T S Eliot Simon Fieldhouse.jpg

Homeostasis Psychology


John Montgomery, Ph.D.

Homeostasis Psychology is an exciting new psychology

model that is both a unifying theoretical framework for understanding human behavior, and a powerful new therapeutic and coaching method that can profoundly impact nearly every aspect of your life.

Developed by John Montgomery, Ph.D., and based on

extensive, cutting-edge research in neuroscience and psychology, the Homeostasis Psychology method is a powerful integration of psychodynamic therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and mindfulness. John is also a certified therapist in Advanced Integrative Therapy, a comprehensive mind-body therapy that he integrates into his practice, which operates out

of both New York City and Westchester, NY.

John is the author of numerous professional and general

articles, for publications such as the Washington Post, the Economist, and Psychology Today, and is the primary author of two books. He is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at New York University.

Homeostasis Psychology proposes that as we live our modern lives, we typically alternate between two opposing forces or internal 'drives': a destructive 'addictive' drive that sabotages our goals and creates unnecessary pain and emotional distress; and the healthy 'homeostatic' drive, the guiding force within us that is always trying to move us into states of peace, well-being, vitality, and true aliveness, and to lead us on a path of growth and fulfillment.

                   The destructive addictive drive arises because, under the typical circumstances of modern life, we are all highly prone – perhaps surprisingly – to begin deriving unconscious biochemical rewards in our brains from distressing states such as anxiety, anger, regret, and self-pity. These unconscious rewards can generate true biochemical addictions to these painful emotional states, which reinforces the thought and behavior patterns that repeatedly generate these states. The addictive drive, much like a thought and behavior 'parasite,' can begin to effectively colonize our brains and bodies, and appears to be directly responsible for the great majority of the psychological and physical illnesses that we suffer in modern life. The homeostatic drive, on the other hand, is the force of all love and self-love, the force that directly guides the healthy and vital 'flow' of our lives.

       Based on cutting-edge research in neuroscience and psychology, Homeostasis Psychology uses a variety of powerful methods to help people disengage from the destructive addictive drive, and to fully connect with the healthy, healing, and loving homeostatic drive. Homeostasis Psychology is an extremely powerful method for addressing a wide variety of psychological ills, including anxiety disorders, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, and alcoholism.

Homeostasis is a term that refers to psychological and physiological balance achieved when one's needs and desires have been met. In a physiological context, homeostasis is disrupted by what is referred to as a need state, which is an innate need, like hunger.

Concepts of Systems Theory

A system is characterized by a group of parts that interact to form a coherent whole. Systems have distinct boundary separating them from external elements and distinguishing between inputs, or factors that impact the system, and outputs, or effects and products of the system. Systems may also have feedback loops, which occur when outputs of a system return as inputs, forming a circuit. Changes in one component of a system will affect other components as well as the overall entity. This dynamic makes it possible to predict what might happen when a system experiences a known change.

Systems theory has been applied in the field of psychology, where it is called systems psychology. People who view psychology through the lens of systems theory see individuals as seeking homeostasis within their systems or groups. To create a system that works for all members, the expectations, needs, desires, and behaviors of each person within it must be considered. When issues arise, these are attributed to breakdowns in systemic interactions rather than deficiency of one person.