As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can attest, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalisations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?
But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true.

What does the part in bold mean?
1 2
Comments  (Page 2) 
TakaTo define what 'the mind' in 'in the mind' really means? Is that what you mean,
That's certainly part of it.

Your author is developing a concept called "choice blindness." I have absolutely no idea what it's about, but it seems to play a key part in the "wedge" image.

If it's your intention to persue this, I should think you'd want to get clear on what kinds of dynamics are at play. Are you looking at "the mind" from a Freudian perspective, or some other psychological point of view, or perhaps from a physiological point of view.

In other words, as a general statement for general readers who are not familiar with psychology or physiology, that 'in the mind' is even unnecessary, right?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
That's right.

We'd really have to read much more of your piece to decide what type of audience it's directed to.
Good! I think everything is clear now.

I always enjoy having conversations with you. Thanks, Avangi!