Each of us espouses a variety of beliefs. Such beliefs can vary with regards to their magnitude, their scope, and their subjects. What I am addressing here is when a person chooses to embrace two beliefs that are in direct conflict. Sometimes people don't realize that they have done this until something occurs to put the two beliefs into direct conflict. Usually, this espousal of two opposing ideas lasts only for a short time because the beliefs eventually come into a very explicit conflict and, once this happens, whichever one is significantly stronger will "win out" in the person's mind and the issue will be over. At this point, the "losing" belief will then either have to be adjusted or discarded entirely.
However, when two beliefs of equal or roughly equal strength are in direct conflict, cognitive dissonance may result in which a person feels severe anxiety and fear. The internal argument between the two beliefs can escalate as long as the person determinedly holds on to both positions. This can create an inner conflict that gradually becomes dominating within a person's mind such that it resists being put on the "back burner" and demands constant, immediate time and consideration.
Such a condition cannot last indefinately because a mind "divided against its self cannot stand". However, if this state of affairs is prolonged, a "pendulum" effect may occur such that, in the interest of seeking an end to the internal conflict, a person may just arbitrarily settle on one side of the argument and do so, not because that side has truely "won" the argument, but for the sake of "finally" having some inner, mental peace about it. Such a choice does not solve the conflict but it appears to do so initially and it does offer some temporary relief. However, it also merely delay the conflict until the desperate need for peace on the part of the person in question has subsided. At that point, because the opposing belief was never truely changed or discarded, the argument may then resume.
Sometimes, in the interest of balance, a person suffering from such a condition as I have described in this essay may then decide to come down on the other side of the issue and "try out" the other method of thinking. After all, the previous position didn't work out. Maybe the opposite will. However, if it doesn't, then, when their need for peace has lessened, they may resume the argument again and the whole thing will repeat it's self - back and forth, back and forth. Until this process is resolved, a person may find him or her self going back and forth over and over again which can create a sort of "pendulum" effect which is simpy an effort to figure out which of the two positions is correct.
If a person ever finds him or herself in this "pendulum" dynamic, they will probably find that it will severely injure their confidence if prolonged over time. It lessens the credibility of firm decisions as one decides on one side of the issue "finally", then reniges and decides on the opposite, then reniges and so forth.
Though people may occasionally wrestle with personal "pendulums", my belief is that life does eventually overwhelm a person with evidence in favor of one of the two positions - or a third possibility that resolves the two previous positions effectively. At such a juncture, accepting reality may necessariliy involve personal epiphanies that carry with them a more differentiated, articulated, and correct understanding of how things "work". Thus, the discomfort of the pendulum is transcended by the new realizations and understandings that resolve the previously painful conflict.
In contrast, some people may allow their fear to keep them from accepting the evidence life presents. Perhaps accepting the truth about something is painful or perhaps it implies the need for personal change that can seem quite daunting or overwhelming. Either way, the truth will receive more verification from a wider variety of sources than a false position and we then must decide in favor of the true position regarding the issue at stake. Otherwise, we must knowingly choose a false one.
If a person knowingly chooses a false position, then the most likely scenerio is that the new purpose of that person's life (or at least one of the new main purposes) will become defending that false position. I phrase such a defense as a life "purpose" because defending a lie in the name of it actually being the truth requires constant devotion, energy, and vigilence. Without such devotion, the verification of the real truth that life naturally presents will start to peek through - which can be very painful and unbearable for a person who chooses to be desperate enough to defend a lie.
Back to My Observations.