What's So Wrong With Being Absolutely Right by Judy J. Johnson

[carolinayellowdog]

This 2009 publication from Prometheus Books is one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking books I've read in many years. Rather than comment further in an OP, I will just share a link to the author's website and some quotes of special relevance to the Interfaith Group. My personal comments will be in a followup post. The first item in the book website q & a is a definition of dogmatism:

Dogmatism is the practice of pronouncing one’s beliefs with rigid, arrogant certainty. Absolute certainty. Psychologically, it is considered a personality trait in which various aspects of evolution, biology, culture, and social learning predispose people to act as if they were the sole expert on a subject. Even in the face of convincing evidence that should give reason to pause, dogmatic people will not, as Churchill said, “change their minds or change the topic.” They simply refuse to see things any other way, and fail to consider the possibility they might be wrong.

Chapter 5, "Black-and-White Thinking," lists thirteen characteristics of dogmatists:

Cognitive characteristics
1. An Intolerance of Ambiguity
2. Defensive, Cognitive Closure
3. Rigid Certainty
4. Compartmentalization
5. Lack of Personal Insight
Emotional characteristics
1. Belief-associated Anxiety or Fear
2. Belief-associated Anger
3. Existential Despair
Behavioral Characteristics
1. Preoccupation with Power and Status (as evidenced by behaviors)
2. Glorification of the In-group; Vilification of the Out-group
3. Dogmatic Authoritarian Aggression
4. Dogmatic Authoritarian Submission
5. Arrogant, Dismissive Communication Style

And the closing Chapter 16, "Where to from Here?" includes a section entitled "The Sacred and the Scientific," in which Dr. Johnson writes:

To suggest that religious believers are all closed-minded and delusional would counter religious fundamentalism with a neo-atheist fundamentalism that overlooks humanity’s eternal quest for spiritual gratification. It seems reasonable to consider religion an outgrowth of evolutionary or epigenetic rules of heredity that bind genes and culture, in which case religion falls within the purview of science, rather than being separate from it….
Lively, controversial debates about the benefits and shortcomings of science and religion have gained momentum. In the process, open-minded religious believers, atheists, agnostics, and scientists are mindful of the dangers inherent in dogmatic proselytizing of any range of belief systems—pro-religious, anti-religious, pro-science, antiscience, or agnostic. Yet science, religion, evolutionary theory, and spirituality are not necessarily incompatible, and if all of us took a psychological journey inside ourselves to understand how our own anxiety, fear, and self-doubt closes our minds, we would open the door to reason and respect across these boundaries.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

1. I'm reminded of something I read about conspiracy theorists

I stole this from http://ryogam.blogspot.com/2009/02/to-all-conspiracy-believers.html who stole it from someone else:

Tired of the "experts" with their annoying "logic" and "reality" telling you what to think simply because they know more about the subjects then you do and their opinions actually match the evidence better? Of course you are. Think the Kennedy assassination was a massive government cover-up by the Rand Corporation? Think the moon landing was filmed on the back lot of Paramount? Think an advanced alien race conquered the massive scientific problems inherent in interstellar travel only to crash in New Mexico and anally probe rednecks? Think the Holocaust never happened and those 6 million Jews are living with relatives in Madagascar? Think on 9/11 the US Government conspired to slaughter thousands of Americans just so Bush/Halliburton/Zionists/CIA/New World Order/Illuminati could invade Iraq in order to learn the secrets of the lost continent of Atlantis? Do you think the big auto makers are hiding the top secret hybrid engine the Mayans discovered over 2000 years ago that gets 9000 parsecs to a thimble of spotted owl sweat?

Well fret no more! My handy-dandy course will teach you, yes you, how to think like a conspiracy theorist in only nine easy steps!

1: Remember, you're right! No matter what the so-called experts say. No matter what the evidence suggests. No matter what reality, logic, basic cause and effect, or the very nature of the known universe demands, you are right because you think you are. This is the first and most important part of my program.

2: Anyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy. People in conspiracies never admit they are part of the conspiracy, so if someone tells you there is no conspiracy, guess what? That's right, they're part of it, and out to get you.

3: Remember how important you are. You, yes you, are the one who sees through the fog of bullshit that all the fools have fallen for. If ten thousand experts say one thing and you say another, it just means you are that much more intuitive. Remember, the harder they oppose you, the more special you are!

4: Experts are always wrong. I mean really, when in the history of the universe has someone been more right simply because they know more about something? As if. So in keeping with that, make sure you always make the word official sound like it’s covered in a thin layer of slime. Make sure the word theory conveys the idea of something "they" made up after being drunk all night.

5: Never actually make a claim. You don't want to get drawn into a debate here; you're now a conspiracy theorist. Simply say things like "The evidence looks funny" and "Hmmm I wonder" and "Yes that's very convenient." Whatever you do, don't make a solid, verifiable claim that can actually be investigated or proved.

6: Remember they are out to get you! Never pass up an opportunity to remind people how oppressed you are. Remember that opposed equals right. They wouldn't be out to get you if you weren't right. And if people tell you that "They aren't out to get you and you're just being paranoid and in fact no one ever cares about you and for that matter, who the hell are you and what are you doing in my house?", ignore them!

7: Refer to "they" a lot. Don’t bother actually explaining who "they" are, but passively aggressively blame everything on "them" regardless.

8: Always, always, always demand "more study." They will always try to trick you by claiming that something has already been proven, sometimes proven over and over, but you know what I say, if the facts don't agree with you they haven't been proven enough! Make it sound so reasonable. "Well sure the 'experts' say that it hurts to poke yourself in the eye, but what's the harm in a little more study? I mean if you're right it will only prove you are right. What are you so afraid of?"

9: Every once in awhile, attack another conspiracy theory. Say things like "Listen, I'm not one of those idiots who say we didn't land on the moon; I'm just saying we never proved it wasn't made of green cheese."

[carolinayellowdog]

2. Online dogmatists

I should consider myself lucky in real life, having had just a single unpleasant personal encounter with an aggressive dogmatist in the last twenty years. Not bad considering how much active involvement in various organizations, conferences, etc. But the online world has been a nightmarish dystopia by contrast.

In the mid-90s on Usenet I frequented several discussion groups where scholars of religious history and believers in various "alternative religions" mingled freely and had spirited conversations about many related topics. Three groups in particular I'd studied stand out as memorable-- one in the Abrahamic tradition, another Indic, another hybrid. In each of these Usenet fora, there was a steady increase in dogmatic aggressive behavior by believers towards unbelievers, until all the scholars were driven out. Later it was revealed that there were various underhanded attempts involving organizational leaders encouraging the subversion and targeting particular scholars. All these discussion groups were eventually destroyed by the dogmatists. After 2000, political interests dominated my online discussion participation and there were several places where friendly, mutually supportive conversations among progressives were available. But they were all destroyed, or at least ruined for me, by dogmatic aggression. Some are shadows of their former selves and one was completely taken over and then destroyed by a gang of true believing extremists. By the end of that decade, my online interests again shifted elsewhere. For the last several years, racial rather than religious historical topics have been my major interest; and now Facebook is the major place one can go to find discussion opportunities online. But again, time after time initially friendly and welcoming groups have been disrupted by aggressive dogmatists driving out the more thoughtful and kind members, and I foresee the same result ahead for others.

So even though in the real world, obnoxious dogmatists face a lot of blowback for their behavior and tend to be isolated rather than welcomed in most social settings, the online world is a creepy mirror image in which the bad guys always seem to win. The friendly, sensitive, empathetic types get mocked and bullied and driven out and then the predatory creeps turn on one another and the whole thing collapses. Have seen this in more than ten different settings now, from Usenet to Yahoo groups to Facebook; involving religious, racial, and politlcal topics. What's especially creepy is the way authoritarian submission encourages authoritarian aggression-- the biggest bullies online have the biggest fan clubs egging them on with high fives whenever they display their charms.

One hypothesis related to evolutionary psychology suggests itself to me. Our bonobo cousins are much more empathetic and much less violent than our chimpanzee cousins, which is very well documented and has some physiological basis in brain differences. For humans, our ability to empathize with other humans is strongly related to body language as well as tone of voice. So when we come together in person, we are more like the caring and playful bonobos. But when we meet online, the predatory, threatening, violent side of humans is more likely to express itself. We become more like the unpredictably aggressive chimps because we are not perceiving one another with all the visual and auditory cues that bring out empathy in face to face communication.

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. Sounds like fascism.

Aggressive authoritarians need an Other to blame to keep themselves together and the attention off their own internal problems. When the Other disappears, so does the illusion of unity.

[TM99]

4. Excellent thoughts on the subject.

I have experienced the same.

A thread in the other forum has a classic example of this for me. Dogmatists of this sort discussed here will often push inaccurate information or complete distortions of words, meanings, and ideas in order to push an agenda. Naturally that drives away the scholars or those educated in such topics be it religion, psychology, history, etc. I find it ironic that the authoritarians are not 'authorities' on the topics they push. They are often dogmatic and yet not truly educated in the subjects they preach about.

Study after study has shown that the internet & social media promote this type of behavior. It can bring out the worst of our narcissistic sides. How do we really show empathy and compassion on a static page with only words and occasional emoticons? Do scholars and those educated in topics simply cede the 'rooms' to the bullies and the agenda driven rage-filled instigators?

[el_bryanto]

5. There are elements of that for sure

I mean at a certain point if it just makes you angry to see something all the time, and you don't like being angry why keep going back to a place.

There's also the pack mentality as well; if you can find people who share your views and who constantly reinforce your surety of your rightness and the toxicity of anybody who disagrees with you, than it's very easy to justify anything you want to do.

Bryant

[cbayer]

6. I love the definition of dogmatism

and the Churchill quote.

And I very much appreciate the summary. While this is not the kind of reading that really draws me in, I like the summarized concepts.

Self-reflection is very, very hard. It's particularly hard when you are getting lots of slaps on the back for being exactly like you are.

I think the best way to get some people to reflect is to not give them what they are looking for. Until it no longer works, they will have no reason to change.