Deck+of+Cards

 Author David E. Tucker compares the use of cognitive dissonance as similar to using a deck of cards. He believes that people are afraid of confronting opinions that conflict with their own, so when given the opportunity to discuss beliefs, they will “throw down a card” to try to end the conversation. The “card” is usually an insulting name or some sort of debate ender.

 For example, a card is often thrown down during a discussion of something abnormal, such as terrorism. Modern American society does not consider terrorism to be a normal activity, so once a discussion about the reasoning behind such acts begins, a person may say, “We’ll they’re just a terrorist” and leave it at that.

 Tucker also states that this “card throwing” tactic is notorious among the educated, of all people. The most intellectual people are the ones with the strongest beliefs. They have thought through their beliefs over and over and have lots of reasoning behind them. Upon coming into contact with someone who believes the complete opposite of them, they often refuse to engage with the person of opposing beliefs. Engagement would be a danger to their beliefs, and they can’t stand the thought of being wrong. This dilemma of trying to change the mind of the educated and those who are firm in their beliefs is called the Planck Problem, or is also known as Ideological Immunity.

The tragedy of this form of cognitive dissonance is called, by Tucker, The Law of Unintended Consequences. It is the loss of conversations and realizations that could have happened if one had just continued debating instead of throwing down an ending card.