Bill O Reilly refused to believe the findings of a poll conducted by his own news organization on Thursday night, because it was simply too bad for him to contemplate. According to the poll, Democraict candidate Bernie Sanders would beat ALL current GOP contenders for President.While endorsing all other sections of the poll, which supported his views, O Reilly flat out loses it with the section which doesn t. The section shows that that Sanders beats Trump by 14 points, Ted Cruz by 12 points, and narrowly defeats John Kasich by 4 points.  It s also not the first poll to show this sort of result.Nevertheless, O Reilly wasn t willing to tolerate such information, which flies in the face of his own views on the electability of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He appeals to his fellow Fox News veterans Geraldo Rivera and Dana Perino to join him in denouncing the results. Rivera immediately obliges, calling the findings:  pie in the sky,  while Perino makes sympathetic noises.But it s not enough to quell the perplexed O Reilly, who turns to camera saying: I don t believe it, And I have to say, with all due respect the Fox News poll has been good I don t believe this. I just don t. The incident is a perfect example of the phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance. As Chris Mooney explains in Mother Jones:the concept of cognitive dissonance has been well established in psychology and even, to some extent, embedded in public consciousness. Basically, when the mind is faced with an idea that is threatening to one s identity or sense of self an idea that induces unpleasant dissonance one tends to try to either avoid the thought or, perhaps, reinterpret it into something unthreatening or positive.This urge is also known to affect conservatives to a far greater degree than liberals.This doesn t mean every conservative is less likely to open their minds to information which challenges their world view than every liberal, it simply follows the overall trend.It is a major obstacle in the way of liberals seeking to change the minds of conservatives, as whichever way they appeal   it is rejected. If liberals appeal in terms of reason and evidence   their case is rejected the moment it creates cognitive dissonance. However, if liberals move into more emotive arguments, these are often rejected on the basis of confirming to  naive idealism  stereotypes by conservatives. So liberals are painted as either policy wonks with no humanity, or airy fairy liberals with no common sense.Meanwhile, the most ridiculous arguments put forward within the normalised conservative worldview go unchallenged, requiring minimal or no evidence, such as Mexico paying for Trump s border wall for example. Mexico has stated on the record this will not happen, and yet it remains fact among Trump supporters. There is little doubt that if the Fox poll had shown Donald Trump or Ted Cruz beating Sanders and Clinton in a head-to-head   O Reilly would have considered it water tight.This is something for us to all watch in our own behavior. Do we demand the same level of evidence for arguments that conform to our world view, as those which do not? If the answer is no, then we are no better. If we want a cleaner, better politics   it starts with us. Featured image via Screengrab