I came across a scientific proposal to investigate the issue I think you’re responding to: dangerous ideological thinking that breeds
evidence-resistant dogmatism and intergroup intolerance.
Ideological adherents aren’t necessarily a problem until they become militant in their intolerance to dissent & hostility to self-examination.
Their zealotry may lead them to abandon reason (eg, rampant fallacies) & commit injustices for ideological pursuits.
Movements against fascism, theocracy, & persecution of threatened classes can be good at opposing particular problems.
However, adherents who fixate can lose sight of the general failure in humanity—ideological extremism—that got us those problems and indulge in the same kind of flawed thinking that creates the kinds of problems they’re opposing: they’re counterproductive & self-defeating.
A failure to commit to integrity in the pursuit of truth and to scrutinize & justify efforts rationally (eg, by welcoming self-examination & debate) is a sign of problematic priorities.
An interesting part about the research proposal is it suggests ideological thinking is a general phenomenon with essential qualities distinct from the content of any particular ideology and testing is needed to properly define that phenomenon.
It suggests a definition to test that identifies doctrinal & relational components as essential qualities: ideological thinking is
a style of thinking that is rigid in its adherence to a doctrine and resistance to evidence-based belief-updating (i.e., doctrinal) and favorably oriented toward an in-group and antagonistic to out-groups (i.e., selectively relational).
In terms of components
doctrinal component
description: an absolutist explanation for existing conditions
prescription: a set of prescriptions for future thought, behavior, & social relations
relational component
group identification: strong personal identification with the in-group
prejudice & hostility: a rejection of nonadherents that often takes the form of hostility and prejudice
Accordingly, an ideologically extreme individual
is one who (a) possesses a rigid, evidence-resistant description of the world, (b) strongly adheres to inflexible prescriptions for how they and others ought to live and act, (c) exhibits intense identification with fellow adherents, and (d) displays active hostility toward nonadherents
whereas an ideologically moderate individual
is one who (a) adopts a description of the world that is flexible and responsive to evidence, (b) does not rely on or impose on others rigid prescriptive rules for living, (c) displays weak or moderate identification with others who believe in similar worldviews, and (d) does not express hostility or prejudice toward dissimilar others.
The way individuals like this blow up when you criticize problematic thinking is typical of ideological extremism: even if you agree with their cause or are an ideologically moderate fellow adherent, they’ll irrationally treat you with the intolerance & hostility of a nonadherent.
I think intellectual humility that respects truth & integrity demands ideological moderation.
I came across a scientific proposal to investigate the issue I think you’re responding to: dangerous ideological thinking that breeds
Ideological adherents aren’t necessarily a problem until they become militant in their intolerance to dissent & hostility to self-examination. Their zealotry may lead them to abandon reason (eg, rampant fallacies) & commit injustices for ideological pursuits.
Movements against fascism, theocracy, & persecution of threatened classes can be good at opposing particular problems. However, adherents who fixate can lose sight of the general failure in humanity—ideological extremism—that got us those problems and indulge in the same kind of flawed thinking that creates the kinds of problems they’re opposing: they’re counterproductive & self-defeating. A failure to commit to integrity in the pursuit of truth and to scrutinize & justify efforts rationally (eg, by welcoming self-examination & debate) is a sign of problematic priorities.
An interesting part about the research proposal is it suggests ideological thinking is a general phenomenon with essential qualities distinct from the content of any particular ideology and testing is needed to properly define that phenomenon. It suggests a definition to test that identifies doctrinal & relational components as essential qualities: ideological thinking is
In terms of components
Accordingly, an ideologically extreme individual
whereas an ideologically moderate individual
The way individuals like this blow up when you criticize problematic thinking is typical of ideological extremism: even if you agree with their cause or are an ideologically moderate fellow adherent, they’ll irrationally treat you with the intolerance & hostility of a nonadherent.
I think intellectual humility that respects truth & integrity demands ideological moderation.