Sinclair
03-20-2006, 02:33 AM
Just wrote this, it's pretty much fresh out of my ass, and I thought a bit of constructive criticism would help.
Thoughts on Ideology
These are just a few of my thoughts on ideology. They're probably not that original, but they're based primarily on my own experiences, mostly online. Basically some observations on how people set up their ideologies:
One
People, of course, tend to believe that their ideology is the right one. This is natural, how could anybody truly hold a position they don't believe is right? However, they also tend to believe that their ideology has the right people. This usually seems to manifest itself in a belief that one's “side” is the rational one: “Obviously, since rationality is good, our side is the one that's right. We can support our beliefs.” Of course, what gets used to support the beliefs in question? Anything from faulty statistics, to something wholly subjective such as a religious testament. With the former, somebody “calling” a group on faulty statistics can sidetrack a debate into arguing over statistics. With the latter? Well, it's been said that it's impossible to reason something out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
Another thing that's been said before is that some people use facts like a drunk uses a lightpost: Not for illumination, but to prop themselves up. It's possible to hold up a false belief using completely accurate statistics, facts, figures, etc. All that's needed is the willingness to pick and choose these supports.
Two
Of course, the other side must be the opposite of all that is good and right. Where one's own side is the thinkers, the rational types, the sensible types, the opposition must be basing their opinions on feelings. This ranges from “They're all a bunch of over-sensitive, crybaby, feel-good wusses” to “They're all a bunch of bigots, with their hate barely covering their fear and resentment” depending on who you ask, and who you're asking about.
Three
Rationality, real or claimed, is not just a support, it's a shield. If you're advocating something that is at least controversial, it might be useful to adopt the personality of the “Unflinching Realist”. Make your mantra “There's a difference between personal and important”. Make your only moral code “The end justifies the means”. Better yet, put it in Latin: Exitus Acta Probat. If that's not proper Latin, well, it makes my point all the better.
Four
A lot of people have beliefs that seem quite conditional. A lot of talk about “freedom” and “rights” involves mentally adding “But only for me and mine” afterwards. The obvious example would be freedom of speech: A lot of people will favour freedom of speech for the things they're saying, but less so for the other side. The other side's speech will be branded “obscenity” or “hate speech” or “sedition” or “defamation of character”.
However, there are many, many other examples. A more extreme one would be eugenics: Somebody who is a supporter of eugenics will have rationalised away their genetic flaws: For example “Myopia is no longer a problem, thanks to glasses, contact lenses, and laser surgery”.
Five
Many people have a further condition: When they're constructing their beliefs, it is assumed that it is THEIR side that will “win”, without any plan as to how.
For one thing, if asked what their plan for a nation might be, they probably wouldn't include an explanation as to how they will implement this plan. When somebody's asked how they'd run a country, and they sit down, and their points look like “1: Raise taxes to support public works, 2:..” that's the point at which the question of “How will you get the public to support a tax increase?” should pop up. Or if part of their plan were “Implement electoral funding reform”, the question “How would you get that put in place when there are so many important enemies in the way?” would be the obvious one.
Asking questions like this isn't being a naysayer, it's important. How often does somebody succeed at doing something without knowing how they're going to do it?
Thoughts on Ideology
These are just a few of my thoughts on ideology. They're probably not that original, but they're based primarily on my own experiences, mostly online. Basically some observations on how people set up their ideologies:
One
People, of course, tend to believe that their ideology is the right one. This is natural, how could anybody truly hold a position they don't believe is right? However, they also tend to believe that their ideology has the right people. This usually seems to manifest itself in a belief that one's “side” is the rational one: “Obviously, since rationality is good, our side is the one that's right. We can support our beliefs.” Of course, what gets used to support the beliefs in question? Anything from faulty statistics, to something wholly subjective such as a religious testament. With the former, somebody “calling” a group on faulty statistics can sidetrack a debate into arguing over statistics. With the latter? Well, it's been said that it's impossible to reason something out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.
Another thing that's been said before is that some people use facts like a drunk uses a lightpost: Not for illumination, but to prop themselves up. It's possible to hold up a false belief using completely accurate statistics, facts, figures, etc. All that's needed is the willingness to pick and choose these supports.
Two
Of course, the other side must be the opposite of all that is good and right. Where one's own side is the thinkers, the rational types, the sensible types, the opposition must be basing their opinions on feelings. This ranges from “They're all a bunch of over-sensitive, crybaby, feel-good wusses” to “They're all a bunch of bigots, with their hate barely covering their fear and resentment” depending on who you ask, and who you're asking about.
Three
Rationality, real or claimed, is not just a support, it's a shield. If you're advocating something that is at least controversial, it might be useful to adopt the personality of the “Unflinching Realist”. Make your mantra “There's a difference between personal and important”. Make your only moral code “The end justifies the means”. Better yet, put it in Latin: Exitus Acta Probat. If that's not proper Latin, well, it makes my point all the better.
Four
A lot of people have beliefs that seem quite conditional. A lot of talk about “freedom” and “rights” involves mentally adding “But only for me and mine” afterwards. The obvious example would be freedom of speech: A lot of people will favour freedom of speech for the things they're saying, but less so for the other side. The other side's speech will be branded “obscenity” or “hate speech” or “sedition” or “defamation of character”.
However, there are many, many other examples. A more extreme one would be eugenics: Somebody who is a supporter of eugenics will have rationalised away their genetic flaws: For example “Myopia is no longer a problem, thanks to glasses, contact lenses, and laser surgery”.
Five
Many people have a further condition: When they're constructing their beliefs, it is assumed that it is THEIR side that will “win”, without any plan as to how.
For one thing, if asked what their plan for a nation might be, they probably wouldn't include an explanation as to how they will implement this plan. When somebody's asked how they'd run a country, and they sit down, and their points look like “1: Raise taxes to support public works, 2:..” that's the point at which the question of “How will you get the public to support a tax increase?” should pop up. Or if part of their plan were “Implement electoral funding reform”, the question “How would you get that put in place when there are so many important enemies in the way?” would be the obvious one.
Asking questions like this isn't being a naysayer, it's important. How often does somebody succeed at doing something without knowing how they're going to do it?