The more certain we are we're right, the blinder we become to what others say
Carol Tavris, social psychologist and co-author of 'Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me),' argues that wars are not aberrations of human nature but its logical extension — the point at which our universal need to justify ourselves transforms opponents into monsters and conflict into moral crusade. Speaking in Spain upon the book's release, she traces the architecture of polarization back to cognitive dissonance, a biological inheritance that once aided survival but now fuels cycles of dehumanization and violence. The antidotes she names — education, scientific reasoning, philosophical rigor — are real but fragile, especially against the amplifying force of social media. Her warning is not that we are doomed, but that we are not yet honest enough about the machinery running inside us.
- Each side in every war tells itself the same story: we are righteous, they are monsters — and that story, Tavris argues, is not propaganda but a predictable product of human brain wiring.
- Cognitive dissonance hardens quietly over time, turning disagreement into contempt and contempt into dehumanization, making conflict not just possible but feel morally necessary.
- Social media acts as an accelerant, giving anonymous voices a global megaphone for self-justifying rage and misinformation with none of the social consequences that once kept such impulses in check.
- Tavris points to education and the scientific method as partial correctives — teaching children that error is information, not shame, and that certainty must answer to evidence.
- She offers no cure: cognitive dissonance is woven into human biology and will persist, but the difference between a healthy mind and a dangerous one lies in whether it remains open to correction.
Carol Tavris has spent her career asking an uncomfortable question: why are humans so skilled at convincing themselves they are right? Her answer, developed alongside psychologist Elliot Aronson in their newly released book, centers on cognitive dissonance — the instinctive discomfort we feel when our beliefs or actions contradict each other, and the stories we tell ourselves to make that discomfort disappear.
The mechanism is universal, but its consequences scale with the stakes. In everyday life, self-justification lets us sleep at night. In politics, it turns opponents into caricatures. In war, it transforms the enemy into something less than human — evil, monstrous, a threat to everything good — making violence feel not just justified but obligatory. Each side in a conflict constructs this same narrative independently, which is precisely why wars are so difficult to end.
Tavris is careful to note that this is not a moral failing unique to extremists. It is biology — an evolutionary shortcut, like confirmation bias, that once helped our ancestors survive but now traps us in cycles of self-deception. Culture shapes how it expresses itself: in Japan, dissonance is triggered by shaming others; in the United States, by contradicting one's own self-image. The form changes; the mechanism does not.
Education, she argues, offers a partial way out. Children should learn that mistakes are data, not character flaws. The scientific method and rigorous philosophy both demand that we hold our certainties up to scrutiny and accept what the evidence reveals, even when it unsettles us. Social media, by contrast, does the opposite — anonymous, consequence-free, and algorithmically rewarding of outrage, it functions as a megaphone for the very biases we most need to examine.
Tavris does not promise resolution. Cognitive dissonance will not disappear from the human condition. But she draws a clear line between the version that is merely human and the version that becomes dangerous: the moment we decide our story is final, and no new evidence will be allowed to change it.
Carol Tavris, a social psychologist, has spent her career studying why humans are so good at convincing themselves they are right. Wars, she says, are what happens when that tendency reaches its logical extreme. On Monday, a new book she wrote with fellow psychologist Elliot Aronson hit shelves in Spain—"Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)," published by Capitán Swing—and in an interview with Europa Press, Tavris laid out how the mechanism works and why it matters now.
The core idea is cognitive dissonance: the mental discomfort we feel when our actions or beliefs contradict each other. Rather than sit with that discomfort, humans instinctively reach for justification. We tell ourselves a story that makes sense of what we've done or what we believe. The problem is what happens next. "The more certain we are that we are right and they are wrong, the more we need to justify our opinion and turn a blind eye to anything the other side has to say," Tavris explained. Over time, this process hardens. The other side stops being people with different views and becomes something worse: evil, stupid, intolerant—everything we are not.
Wars begin and continue because of this exact dynamic. Each side constructs a narrative in which they are moral, they are defending themselves, they are fighting monsters and inhuman creatures. The enemy is not simply wrong; the enemy is a threat to everything good. This is not a failure of reason unique to warmongers. It is a feature of human biology, baked into how our minds work. Tavris describes it as a universal mechanism rooted in what evolutionary biologists call "blind spots"—mental shortcuts that once helped us survive but now trap us in cycles of self-deception. Confirmation bias is one example: we see and accept information that agrees with what we already believe, and we discard or forget anything that challenges it.
But biology is not destiny, and culture shapes how the bias expresses itself. In Japan, a society organized around group harmony, people experience cognitive dissonance when their behavior shames someone else. In the United States, an individualistic culture, people feel the discomfort when they do something that contradicts their own self-image. The trigger varies; the mechanism is the same.
Tavris sees education as a potential corrective. Children need to learn that making a mistake is not a character flaw—it is simply a mistake, and the real question is what can be learned from it. The scientific method offers one antidote, she argues, because it forces us to compare our beliefs against evidence and accept what we find even if it surprises or upsets us. Philosophy, practiced rigorously, does the same thing. Both demand that we submit our certainties to scrutiny.
Social media, however, works in the opposite direction. Tavris calls it a megaphone for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and rage. Because much of it is anonymous, people post hateful and poisonous ideas without consequence. The technology amplifies the very human tendency toward self-justification and gives it a platform that reaches millions.
Will cognitive dissonance get worse or better in future generations? Tavris is blunt: it will never go away. We are human. Every decision we make, large or small, triggers the need to justify it. Usually that is healthy—it lets us sleep at night. But it becomes dangerous when we close our minds to correction, when we decide that our story is final and no new evidence will change it. That is when the mechanism that once protected us becomes a trap.
Notable Quotes
Wars begin and continue because each side constructs a narrative in which they are moral, defending themselves against inhuman enemies— Carol Tavris
Children need to learn that making a mistake is simply a mistake, and the real question is what can be learned from it— Carol Tavris
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When you say wars are an extreme example of self-justification, do you mean the leaders who start them, or the soldiers, or the whole society?
All of it. The leaders construct the narrative, but the soldiers and citizens internalize it. Everyone involved needs to believe they are the good side. That belief is what makes the war possible.
But surely people know, on some level, that they might be wrong?
They might know it intellectually, but cognitive dissonance is not intellectual. It is emotional and biological. The mind protects itself by filtering out contradictions. You see what confirms your story and you do not see what challenges it.
So education could help? Teaching people to think differently?
It can help, but it has to start young. Children need to learn that mistakes are information, not shame. And they need to practice comparing their beliefs against evidence, even when the evidence is uncomfortable.
What about social media? Does it make this worse?
Dramatically. It removes the friction that used to exist. You used to have to sit across from someone to argue with them. Now you can broadcast your certainty to thousands of strangers, anonymously, with no social cost. The technology is built for self-justification.
Is there any way out of this?
Not completely. Cognitive dissonance is part of being human. But we can be aware of it. We can build systems—education, science, philosophy—that force us to check ourselves. The question is whether we have the will to do that.