The emotions fueling the ego has always been a toss up for thought before action, especially for the person being tested. People will never admit when they are bested, nor will they ever admit that they have no ammunition left to win a war of debate.
Case in point #1:
Politics is the dirtiest chess game in existence and there is always a blurred line between doing what is ethical and “questionably” what is legal. The pressure to maintain the GOP status quo, in what appeared to be a losing battle, lead to the dissonance that, “not voting for me means that you hate God and your country because the other guy does…”. The other guy happened to be a former Attorney and Marine though…. #ricksaccone
Case in Point #2:
It has become common place, in our current environment of social disparity, to feel that you hate someone’s opinion because it makes you feel (unexplainable) some type of way, yet you refuse (or can t) present your reasoning or offer some suggestion that will lead to understanding. A scholar publishes a disposition and his so-called “peers” feel threatened. Instead of explaining their feelings or coming to understanding, they cowardly wrote a letter dismissing the scholar as “irresponsible”. The fear of bureaucratic “branding” by association appears to have increased intensify and thankfully this scholar is a true entrepreneur, who needs neither acceptance, nor approval, from those still bound by “endowments“. #boycewatkins
I choose to dismiss cognitive dissonance as a psychological dysfunction of those who can t internalize the formidable intelligence of their competition. You can never change the way people think about you, but you can influence their strategy in acting on them. The best defense is knowing thine enemy and that the battle is already won before the first arrow. – Sun Tzu