It's not about it being factual or opinion-based, it's about how you justify a particular choice. If presented with two alternatives and only pick one, your level of desire for the alternative creates varying levels of dissonance (that being torn between separate choices post-decision). If you had less of a real desire to choose the alternative, you would experience less dissonance. If you had a strong desire for the alternative, you would experience much more dissonance. It's not about any external factual or event-driven trigger, the event which triggers it is merely a choice.

I don't know why anyone disagreed with you either. That was a well written post/comment. I agree with... well...I should say here that I don't agree with all of it, now that I read it over. Light of Darkness had a much better argument, especially when I read it over.

Hmm, this article doesn't seem to be working. :/

EDIT: Now it does. Lol, @ that 360 shaven at the back of that guy's head. xD

@LightOfDarkness,

That would suggest that ALL choices are cognitive dissonance. Again, if this is how you want to view cognitive dissonance, then that's your prerogative. I'm just saying that while I agree with many of the things the original author stated, I think that it is over-reaching to refer to console wars as cognitive dissonance. If you're going to call the console wars of 2008 cognitive dissonance, then it only stands to reason that the console wars of 1983 can also be cognitive dissonance. If that's the case, then is anything really being said?

You might as well write an entire article about how gas prices are high because the price of gasoline listed at gas stations are increasing. It goes without saying. Nobody is really bringing anything new to the table or making a discovery, but merely re-packaging common sense in the form of discovery.

Let's come up with a term such as "cognitive olfactory discovery" referring to the unusual circumstances where some people will smell a perfume and think it smells good and other people will smell the same perfume and thinks it smells terrible. Then, after coining the term, several years later someone can write an article about how sales of some flowers are higher due to "cognitive olfactory discovery." I mean, isn't this just a given?

It just seems to me that people are trying to "figure out" the "fanboy" when, in reality, there is nothing to figure out. There is no "one fanboy." Some people are fans of the company because they have had good experience with that company's products. Some people are fans of the brand because they have had good experiences with that brand. Some people are upset with a company or a brand and choose to pick the competitor's brands. Whether you want to call it cognitive dissonance, personal taste, or alignment of the planets makes very little difference to the legitimacy of the opinion.

For this article to make sense... and to fit into cognitive dissonance... is if someone could point out a specific instance of a fan who has been proven wrong, but still insists on being correct. But "proof" requires "fact." You can't "prove" that a food tastes good or not... it's based on opinion or personal taste.

In a good example of cognitive dissonance (when it comes to choice) is when they took a bunch of children and had them pick out toys that they liked. Then, they created two groups. One that was given a mild punishment if caught playing with their toy of choice... the other group was given a severe punishment if caught playing with the toy of their choice.

Afterward, they took away the threat of any punishment. The group that originally was threatened with mild punishment showed no interest in the toys that had previously been their toy of choice. The group that originally was threatened with severe punishment proceeded to play with their favorite toy.

Where cognitive dissonance comes into play is that the children who were threatened with a severe punishment could already justify the fact that they didn't play with the toys, because avoiding severe punishment is justification enough. Once the threat of punishment was removed, the toy was fair game again. On the contrary, the children who were only threatened with mild punishment could not justify their lack of playing with their favorite toy with such a mild punishment that, instead, they created (psychologically) an alternative justification... they convinced themselves that their favorite toy "really isn't all that." So, even after the threat of punishment was taken away, they were still convinced that the toy wasn't anything special.

Now, can anyone really explain in scientific terms how the console wars or fanboys in general really and truly fits into the category of cognitive dissonance? Has a study been done to show this, or is it just a bunch of guess work? I'm only suggesting that a bunch of guess-work is being proclaimed as science. It's a hypothesis without a scientific method to follow up.

Now, if someone gave a PS3 fanboy a FREE XBox 360 with 20 FREE games... and that winner, instead of playing with the XBox 360 and enjoying it, decided to place it (and the games) on a barbecue and burn it, then yes... you could suggest some cognitive dissonance is taking place. That they are refusing any attempt at enjoying the system simply because they have chosen to hate it so much, and have only done so because they made a different choice. If, however, the person simply sells the XBox 360 and games and uses the money to buy more PS3 games, then it could be just as easily proven that it was merely a shrewd financial decision rather than just classifying it arbitrarily under cognitive dissonance.

Again, for cognitive dissonance to exist, there has to be something that doesn't make sense from a logical view-point. The person who insists their car is the best, even if it breaks down 3 times more often than the average car... the person who insists that they aren't a liar, even if they have been repeatedly caught in a lie over and over.

In the case of the console wars, simply having one person say "the PS3 is awesome... the XBox sucks" and another person say "XBox is awesome... the PS3 sucks" isn't enough reason to pull out the cognitive dissonance term. If an XBox owner has his console break down yearly and keeps saying that they love the XBox, aren't they entitled to still have this opinion? Maybe they love the XBox games so much that they are willing to put up with this minor inconvenience. If, instead, they say things like "well, it is only breaking because I play it a lot" and continue to defend the console more than they would defend any other home appliance (i.e., if their television breaks down once in 5 years, they complain loudly, but give praise to the XBox for only breaking down once a year)... then there would be a conflict. An absence of logic (not just a difference in opinion) that justifies a clinical term such as cognitive dissonance.

Not to be insulting, but I don't think you understand what cognitive dissonance attempts to explain. Making a choice is not "cognitive dissonance," making the choice can result in it however. Not all opinions are fuelled by cognitive dissonance, not at all. Cognitive dissonance can merely drive people to completely reject any opposing view or evidence, resulting in outright denial of clear opposing evidence. This is the mind's solution to cognitive dissonance, which can often be characterised somewhat by what we call "buyer's remorse." Hmm, now where have we seen this before?

What this can lead people to do is modify their existing principles continuously to support their decision, all for the sake of consistency. This simply means that rather than learning from their mistakes or accepting an opposing viewpoint, they will continue to deny it and contrive counter points endlessly. This is a preventative measure, to AVOID cognitive dissonance.

In a nutshell, Cognitive dissonance itself is merely that remorseful, uneasy feeling after making a certain decision, which is then remedied by rationalization or justification. This often results in rejection of the other option, and preventative measures such as denial of contrary evidence or ideas.

That's all it is. What you seem to be arguing about is denial and rejection, which can merely be a result of cognitive dissonance. Then you seem to argue about difference of opinion, which can simply be the result of opinion. But that rarely results in the vehemence seen by fanboys. Fanboys make ridiculous claims that are often shot down, yet they continue to use them, even when evidence to the contrary is presented. To be able to properly point it out you need to examine a subject's reactions and interactions over a period of time to see if they are in fact simply denying any contrary beliefs or evidence simply to prevent having to re-examine their beliefs. Fanboys are often "evangelical" as well, attempting to convince other people of their opinion so that they can get further justification for their decision.

Denial and difference of opinion do of course occur naturally without cognitive dissonance. But that's usually when people have intelligent, healthy discussion. It can of course break down into an irrational slugfest, which is usually the result of intellectual pride ("How can you be that stupid?!"; "We'll agree to disagree, I'm afraid, but I know better and you're wrong.")

@LightOfDarkness,

What's funny is, we're both saying the same thing now. From the beginning, I have been trying to clear up that the mere act of making a choice by itself isn't enough for cognitive dissonance. The only reason I brought it up is that it appeared to be the argument YOU were trying to make. Perhaps I misread what you were saying. I know full well what cognitive dissonance is, I just don't understand how you can so easily apply it to this scenario without any study to the fact. The article merely implied that it was possible, and I threw my opinion into the ring. It is my opinion that unless someone actually clinically defines the qualities that determine whether or not someone is fanboy, THEN performs some tests to confirm whether or not the issue is rooted into some other psychological issue, or whether it is cognitive dissonance, or perhaps a combination of different issues, then at this point it is only speculation. And just like it is the author's speculation that it must be cognitive dissonance at work, it is my speculation that it is not. (I can be easily be proven wrong by simply being given a unique definition of "fanboy" that doesn't happen to match my own definition.)

For instance, regarding cognitive dissonance, you stated "it's not about any external factual or event-driven trigger, the event which triggers it is merely a choice." While an external fact or an event isn't needed to TRIGGER cognitive dissonance, an external fact or event IS needed to prove cognitive dissonance. In the case of the UFO Cult, the fact or event that was needed to prove their cognitive dissonance was the fact that the world DIDN'T end. If they had been humble at that point and said, "oops, our bad... I guess our information was wrong..." then there wouldn't have been a case of cognitive dissonance. The fact that, instead, they insisted that the aliens changed their minds and decided to spare Earth proved that there was "something else" at play rather than "logic" (in this case, cognitive dissonance.) In the case of the children playing with toys, the threat of punishment needed to be removed from both groups in order to see the two groups act differently. The outcome of this test was classified as cognitive dissonance. If both groups of children had acted the same, and in an expected fashion, cognitive dissonance would never have been considered in this case.

So, in the case of a fanboy... if you can create a study, and separate people into groups, and run some tests, you can prove cognitive dissonance. In the meantime, it is merely speculation.

In your example, Xbox fanboys always pointed out that the PS3 could not provide graphics nearly as good as Gears of War and was doomed. Then Uncharted came out and UTIII after that. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they simply became more vehement and attacked the less attractive games, focusing their argument on third party games.

Now, to be clear, I am a PS3 owner... I don't think the XBox 360 is crap... I just don't have time for two consoles, so only play one. However, couldn't it be reasonable to assume that some XBox 360 fans had more than one reason to like the XBox? Maybe the first reason was the amazing graphics and the second reason was the huge library of games. Maybe many just focused more on reason #1, never feeling much of a need for a one-two-punch, so-to-speak. Then, when #1 was no longer relevant, they started focusing on reason #2. Also, couldn't one person say they think that Gears of War has better graphics than Uncharted? You may disagree, but again, we're not comparing numbers here.

It can easily be said that 20 is greater than 10. However, to say "better graphics" might mean different things to different people. What is the definition of "better" when it comes to graphics? More polygons? Higher resolution? Faster frame-rate? More artistically designed worlds? Is it a combination of all of these and, if so, which is more important compared to another? And might some see the Mona Lisa and think it is wonderful and others see it and think it is ho-hum? Is there a standard out there that says one group is wrong and the other group is correct? Or is it a matter of personal taste? Some people might not like games with colors that are too vibrant, whereas others only like vibrant colors and think that darker tones make games look washed out. These differences in opinion alone could turn the tide between thinking a game has better or worse graphics. During the times of CDs versus vinyl records, there were constant debates about sound quality. Many said CDs sounded better. Others said vinyl records sound better. Scientifically, one could argue that vinyl is analog and will always be superior to the digital encoding of a CD. On the flip-side, others could say that a laser (and an encoding scheme with error-correction) is more precise at gathering and playing back sound information than a record player's needle and a dust-laden record. Again, unless there is a clear guideline to prove that one side is, in fact, scientifically correct and the other side is, in fact, scientifically wrong... you can't suggest (in a scientific-sounding article) that cognitive dissonance is at play. It MIGHT be... but it has just as much of a chance of being true as it has at being untrue. If there is only a 50/50 chance, why write an article claiming one side is true unless it is merely to strike up debate about both sides? Maybe one day such a study WILL be performed... and either I will need to say "looks like I was wrong"... or "I guess I was right." Until that day comes, it is my opinion that I am correct and that cognitive dissonance is not a factor (or is not the only factor) in the case of fanboyism (as I believe it to be defined.)

Funny I was going to add that we won't ever be able to determine the root of the behaviour, as I'm not about to petition a college for research funding to carry out double blind studies, to my last post. Not for sure, at least. But as a good observation, it can be well applauded. I'm pretty sure we can agree, purely via speculation and observation, that it could very well be the cause. No, we won't know for sure backed up by mountains of empirical data and research papers, but it's a damn good observation nontheless that provokes discussion. I think somewhere along there we began arguing semantics and wires were crossed. What you are arguing is that it's not fact and should not be treated as such, but no one really did anyway. It's just a good observation and a pretty good way of explaining the phenomenon. We could even call it a good hypothesis. But it's not really a topic that warrants vast amounts of research either. Just an interesting point. What I was arguing is simply that. As well as how much of their behaviour (constant denial, rejection) points towards cognitive dissonance as a possible cause for it.