In fact, every one has an ideology, a vision of the wordl, and his place in it.
The matters are:
And you ideology does not dictate how you react in front a situation:
For instance, many Magas are pro Putine, but not all of them.
Others factors, including ideological ones interfer.
One of the things Carrier mentioned in the initial facebook post he made about this was that critical thinking leads to liberal choices in politics. I agree, but it’s not an easy to make. Carrier addresses it throughout his work, but I don’t know if he has anything succinct and direct to this point.
Some evidence would be;
Reasonable regulations and laws poll very high, like licensing guns and restricting sales on the more dangerous types of guns. But, when money influences the votes, and fear is used, the outcome of getting those laws passed is what we have.
Except for a few extremists, conservatives will claim to be using science when making a decision. But, for example, on something like gender, they pick biology and only certain biological facts, and call it a scientific conclusion.
Karl Popper’s ideas in Open Society have been shown to lead to a more peaceful and just world, but conservatives frequently twist those ideas, like saying freedom is fine for them but not for “those people”.
I’m trying to make examples about critical thinking, but this thread will probably now go off the rails as people argue whether or not I’m thinking critically, which will prove the point of the opening post.
This is the first line of the book
We say people “have” an ideology, as though it were a suitcase or a banana.
Then she immediately questions that notion
Yet maybe we are mistaken in thinking that ideologies are goods we hold, baggage we carry, that ideologies somehow exist outside of us.
She’s doesn’t define ideology as rigid, she asks, “Does the ideology impose a tight grip on believers’ brains? Or does it let them wonder and wander freely?”
What system of beliefs does Leor regards as misguided or undesirable? Remarkably absent from the discussion.
Some people try:
Great point, and made in a way that gets the mind to engage it. Leor avoided the direct political questions in the interview with Dawson because that’s not her study. She was inspired to do her studies when young women were joining ISIS, so I guess you could imply that she is ideologically opposed to joining ISIS, but did you need to figure that out? She was a grad student in the UK who was not joining ISIS , I think I could guess the political persuasion of 99% of the other people around her when it comes to taking extreme positions like that.
Same goes for the question Dawson asked, it was something like, ‘do rigid thinkers vote for Trump’. She answered by repeating what she had said earlier, that there is a curve, with vehement Trump supporters and UK Brexit people on one end and radical PETA supporters and Jill Stein voters on the other. On both of those extremes are rigid thinkers, people who have adopted an ideology and find it difficult to consider options, to believe they might be wrong, or can’t articulate why they support what they do.
And really, I shouldn’t identify rigid thinking by votes or issues. Someone could be very rigid in their thinking that Eisenhower was a good President. Just like an average MAGA hat wearer, they might not be able to say why they think that.
I can see where you got that, from the first minutes of the interview. She uses the words “ideological thinking” though, not “ideology”. I’m guessing you didn’t listen to the rest, not well anyway.
Her thesis is that the mind is prone to ideological thinking, that we get feelings of being right deep into our bones and it feels good, bodily. It’s comforting. This isn’t a breakthrough but she has added neurological data and is focusing on rigidity instead of beliefs.
I think part of the problem of discussing it will be that rigid thinkers are rigid, so they won’t want to discuss it. They might rigidly believe they are flexible and dismiss the whole program.
And delusional biden supporters on the other
A succinct description of motivated reasoning
Psychologist Kunda wrote in 1990 about motivated reasoning:
The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions.
Leor darling, before you start using the (pseudo)“terms” of political inclination to “left/right”, you should first define them. Without definitions (the criteria to recognize them in the real world) these words are empty. Meaningless.
I don’t know what you are listening to or responding to. Leor’s work specifically avoids left/right distinctions
She clearly says she can tell ones ideology from the structure of the brain .
Junk science. Ideology is shaped by social living period. Its life that shapes consciousness not the other way round
You’re going to cherry-pick from a thousand interviews and believe what you want to believe.
