Few people would describe themselves as ideologues - it’s a pejorative term and almost always describes the other guy. Telling someone they’re an ideologue rarely ends well. The term is just too loaded and categorical. Besides, people are more a shifting collection of tendencies than pure types. And many of us have ideological tendencies. I think it’s useful to recognize these tendencies, the better to weaken their hold on our thinking.
I’ll start this exploration with my long-standing definition of ideology as “an army of convictions about how the world is and how it ought to be.” This definition is remarkably similar to one provided by Cory Clark and Bo Winegard in their paper, Tribalism in War and Peace: The Nature and Evolution of Ideological Epistemology and Its Significance for Modern Social Science:
By ideology, we mean, roughly, a mental model of the world and the social order that is both descriptive (how the world is) and normative (how it should be); and by sacred value, we mean, roughly, a value that is held particularly fervidly and that one is incredibly reluctant to relinquish.
So what are ideological tendencies? Ways of thinking and reasoning that distort reality and which are motivated by ideological beliefs. Some examples:
Motivated reasoning: reasoning that follows a conclusion already reached. Such reasoning is motivated by the desire to justify or rationalize what one already believes is true. As Clark and Winegard (2020) put it, “Reason, from this perspective, is more like a lawyer defending a particular position than a dispassionate scientist searching for the truth.”
Motivated skepticism: being hyper-critical or nitpicking when confronted with information that doesn’t support one’s ideological convictions.
Motivated credulity: embracing information that supports one’s convictions, no matter the quality or source of this information.
Motivated certainty: a tendency to be overconfident, insensitive to counterarguments, and unwilling to acknowledge the downside of one’s political opinions, such as unequivocally supporting open borders.
Intolerance of Ambiguity: a tendency to become more tenacious, zealous, or resolute in one’s beliefs when confronted with information or arguments that challenge these beliefs, i.e., to become even more certain one is right and that the evidence one is right is unambiguous. Intolerance of ambiguity explains a perplexing phenomenon in my debate club: after hearing strong arguments in favor of (or against) a policy position, some of the more ideological club members would respond “now I’m against (or in favor of) that position more than ever”. Say what!! Basically, people double-down on their political biases when confronted with credible information or arguments against these biases. Under threat of doubt, reaffirm one’s faith.
“Ideological Square” Thinking: ideologies are often fueled by a sense of threat - kept at bay through a fortress-like structure called the ideological square (Van Dijk (1995), a nifty construct consisting of two exaggerations and two minimizations
Exaggerate how bad things are now
Exaggerate how much better things will be if We prevail
Downplay the current system’s capacity to make things better
Downplay Our capacity to screw things up
Sacred Values: ideologues tend to hold their values with a quasi-religious fervor. Per Clark and Winegard (2020) sacredness “appears to trigger motivated certainty, reduce utilitarianism, and …increase imputations of “evil” motives to those on the other side of the sacred value debate.” Hence, ideologues tend to dismiss pragmatic, incremental approaches to problem-fixing (too utilitarian) in favor of “the right thing to do”.
Categorical Mindset: the tendency to reduce people and ideas into simplistic categories, which facilitates name-calling and labeling - the better to dismiss people and ideas one disagrees with. Having a categorical mindset reduces appreciation of the world’s complexity,, exaggerates Us-Them differences, fossilizes thinking and undermines creative problem-solving.
—
As I stated at the beginning of this post, people tend to be more or less ideological rather than pure ideologues (or utterly nonideological). Wherever you are on the continuum, if you want to be less ideological, here are a few tips:
Expose yourself to contrary views. Don’t unfriend someone simply because they hold different political views or support a different candidate. Get out of your information cocoon.
Embrace the spirit of science - which is, first and foremost, the spirit of humility in the face of what one does not know. The scientific method is a corrective to motivated certainty and ideological thinking.
Recognize and resist ideological tendencies in yourself. Loosen those chains of certainty and be willing to change your mind.
References:
Cory J. Clark & Bo M. Winegard (2020) Tribalism in War and Peace: The Nature and Evolution of Ideological Epistemology and Its Significance for Modern Social Science, Psychological Inquiry, 31:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2020.1721233
“The 3 dangers of our categorical thinking” by Fred Kimball/Medium April 16, 2020
Van Dijk, TA (1995). Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse & Society, 6(2): 243-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006