![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusThe trouble with the ideologue is not his ideology but the fact that he is indeed an ideologue. It doesn't matter what his ideology is; once having chosen it, it becomes inviolable.
But then he sees opposition to his ideology from others. Being in possession of the "correct" ideology, the fault must therefore lie within the opposition. Knowing his ideology to be correct, he must then search for the "true" reason such opposition exists.
There are a few paths such search for the "truth" goes. Generally, the ideologue convinces himself that he alone is in position of all the facts. Thus, he reasons, if he can share the facts with others they must inevitably come around to his point of view. This only leads to frustration as his carefully selected set of factoids does not bring about the reaction "Oh, wow, you must be right" as often as it does, "Yes, but what about...", which he interprets as a perverse rejection of his facts. It will not occur to him that with the addition of these other facts, a different conclusion might be reached.
Seeking deeper, then, he must wonder why someone would reject the facts as explained to them and cling to a belief that, in his mind, has been proven incorrect. Inevitably the conclusion he reaches is that either the other person must somehow personally benefit from his false belief, or that they wish the ideologue and those like him harm.
In either case, it is then easy to convince himself that the opposition actually believes him, but pretends not to in order to lead others astray.
Inevitably, this leads to him cataloging people into only three categories. Firstly, the “good guys”, who know the truth and try to spread it. Secondly, the “bad guys”, who know the truth and attempt to suppress it, and thirdly the ignorant middle who await only enlightenment from the ideologue and his colleagues to either come to his side or perversely join the other.
The idea of another group, people whose awareness and knowledge of the subject is equal to or greater than his own but, through considered reason, have come to a different conclusion, does not, and indeed cannot, occur to him. If brought up, he will ignore or quickly dismiss all data and any arguments presented by that group as an attempt to muddle the question or justify their own rejection of the clear and simple answer.
But then he sees opposition to his ideology from others. Being in possession of the "correct" ideology, the fault must therefore lie within the opposition. Knowing his ideology to be correct, he must then search for the "true" reason such opposition exists.
There are a few paths such search for the "truth" goes. Generally, the ideologue convinces himself that he alone is in position of all the facts. Thus, he reasons, if he can share the facts with others they must inevitably come around to his point of view. This only leads to frustration as his carefully selected set of factoids does not bring about the reaction "Oh, wow, you must be right" as often as it does, "Yes, but what about...", which he interprets as a perverse rejection of his facts. It will not occur to him that with the addition of these other facts, a different conclusion might be reached.
Seeking deeper, then, he must wonder why someone would reject the facts as explained to them and cling to a belief that, in his mind, has been proven incorrect. Inevitably the conclusion he reaches is that either the other person must somehow personally benefit from his false belief, or that they wish the ideologue and those like him harm.
In either case, it is then easy to convince himself that the opposition actually believes him, but pretends not to in order to lead others astray.
Inevitably, this leads to him cataloging people into only three categories. Firstly, the “good guys”, who know the truth and try to spread it. Secondly, the “bad guys”, who know the truth and attempt to suppress it, and thirdly the ignorant middle who await only enlightenment from the ideologue and his colleagues to either come to his side or perversely join the other.
The idea of another group, people whose awareness and knowledge of the subject is equal to or greater than his own but, through considered reason, have come to a different conclusion, does not, and indeed cannot, occur to him. If brought up, he will ignore or quickly dismiss all data and any arguments presented by that group as an attempt to muddle the question or justify their own rejection of the clear and simple answer.
