We touched upon this subject in one of my comm classes.  Basically there are 3 options an individual can do to correct the dissonance:

lessen the importance of the belief

avoid information that heightens dissonance

abandon conflicting beliefs

It's a good interview.

From what I could tell, she was advocating the following strategies for reducing the backlash reaction when trying to challenge cognitive dissonance:

1. Understand the purpose of the dissonant belief.

2. Subdivide within the framework of the purpose to allow rational choices within the cognitive dissonance.

3. Widen the circle of influence.

I think this is a good strategy. Interestingly, the essay that I wrote on this topic mirrors some of what she is saying, but in a slightly different way.

My three steps:

1. Widen the circle of influence

2. Take them away from the religious influence as much as possible.

3. Only after steps one and two, challenge their beliefs without attacking them directly.

In other words, let the potential deconvert see that there is a large, happy group of atheists living meaningful, fulfilling lives.

There are two very interesting facts about human prejudice and adaptability. First, if you show me someone who is blatantly bigoted against a certain type of person, I'll show you someone who has seldom if ever known this type of person in any meaningful way. If you were to go into a random church and do a survey, you would find that the people who were most skeptical about the church's stance on gay marriage were almost always the people who had either gay family members or close friends, or at the very least, had had such friends in the past.

Second, even the most bigoted people usually soften their views when they widen their perspective. In other words, a white racist will likely become less racist after spending six months living in an African town, or attending a nearly all black college. He will adapt, and will likely adopt many of the practices and language of those he originally hated. Notice, though, that this is a drastic change of environment. One person from the hated group usually does not make that big a difference.

So, by making friends with borderline theists, and taking them out of the church environment, we weaken the potential social hold on them by giving them an alternative. Even if we never actively challenge their religious beliefs, they will become less important as the people spend time with others who do not even acknowledge the dissonant beliefs.

Lastly, by challenging the belief without attacking the person, I mean something similar to what the speaker was saying. Find ways to ask them pointed questions while leaving them an out that does not make them appear foolish.

What she meant (I believe) by subdividing within the framework is that you can ask questions that lead to more logical conclusions, but still allow the possibility of the umbrella belief which is a cognitive dissonance.

1. John, a Christian, does not believe in evolution.

2. Bob, a Christian, believes in evolution.

3. John should not be asked to give up Christianity right away. Rather, he should be challenged to examine Bob as objectively as possible, so that he can see that Bob shares the primary tenets of Christianity. Once John sees that it is possible to stay a Christian and question creationism, the door is open for him to make a rational decision about the reality of evolution.

4. Once John believes in evolution, you can introduce him to Sally, a Christian, who believes that not everyone who is non-Christian is going to hell. Perhaps those who didn't get a reasonable shot at becoming a Christian are judged on their moral merits.

And so the chain continues until the barest thread of Christianity is left. At this point, Bob has been gradually pulling away from his previous social network (Fundie Church) and has a much smaller shield up against the cognitive dissonance that is Christianity itself.

Understanding the purpose of belief is a friggin' huge topic, and I don't think I have the time or the energy to get into it now.

Anyway, great post. Hopefully my input is helpful.

In the interview, they offer the example of G.W. Bush surrounding himself with like-minded politicians, which is most likely one of the reasons why he can't admit a wrong or change a course of action. He is consistently able to justify his actions with a few nods of approval from his yes-men. They contrast him with Lincoln who actually filled his administration with people who disagreed with him so that he could have more perspective.

Maybe not the shining example you were looking for, but it's another nonetheless. 

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is basically a name for the mental reaction to two beliefs that are essentially "A and not A."  In other words, when a person believes something that is contrary to something else he believes, he feels a sense of mental discomfort.  There are essentially three things that can be done about the discontinuity.

1) Ignore it.

2) Reason it away.

3) Change beliefs.

There is significant evidence that option 1 is a very poor option.  This is basicaly the same as living in delusion, and as we all know, people who are under delusions can have severe problems functioning rationally.

Number two is what the overwhelming majority of people do when faced with cognitive dissonance.  (Fecal reference intended.)   In the example of the shrub (Little Bush), when there were no WMDs, no parades, and no mission accomplished, he reasoned away the cognitive dissonance by blaming military leaders, faulty intelligence, and anyone or anything else he could think of, rather than admit his own mistake.

This is where the interview got to talking about how outside influences can sometimes help people avoid #2 and move to #3, which is generally the healthiest of options.