We have all known population (some of whom we may be related to, or voted for) who act as if they're the sole expert on a topic. Churchill described them well: "They won't convert their minds and they won't convert the topic." The personality trait that drives their adamant, rigid doesn't come under the radar of mainstream media-not even while elections when we should be most vigilant of its presence. Disrupting the best intentions of politics, science, economics, and religion, its force motivates zealous political ideologues, intolerant religious fundamentalists, and bigots who vent their views on talk shows and the Internet. While it alters the procedure of history, up until 2009, no social scientist had advanced a unabridged psychological ideas of its nature and manifestations.
Dogmatism.
News From Mongolia
Often referred to as closed- or narrow-mindedness, the first psychological treatise on dogmatism was written in 1960 by psychologist Milton Rokeach who wrote The Open and accomplished Mind. This book consists in general of research studies that applied Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale to test his rather loosely organized features of dogmatism. Years later, that same book launched my own twenty-five-year study that resulted in two graduate theses and a book on dogmatism-all of which led me to halt that, as far as I can tell, dogmatism isn't going away anytime soon. In particular, economic and political dogmatism is the bottleneck on freedom's horn of plenty, and although most population connect this trait solely with religion, its arrogant voice impacts all social institutions. At the interpersonal level, it rules out second evening meal invitations.
Given that social institutions are designed to get the results they achieve, if we elect dogmatic politicians we can expect them to pursue rigid agendas that solve complicated problems with simple solutions. It would therefore be helpful to understand dogmatism's key features so that we don't vote for politicians whose minds are like the bed in the guestroom-always made up, seldom used. Few in number but considerable in influence, the clever ones feign open-minded consultation and collaboration, but scratch the exterior of their posturing and they bleed dogmatism. The danger lies in their fundamental beliefs that shape rigid values-values that are seldom clearly articulated yet determine the policies and laws that codify social policies and cultural morality.
During my modern presentation at Cambridge University, Uk, one Q&A participant asked, "Shouldn't we be dogmatic about some beliefs?" This request gets at the heart of the matter. How do we differentiate passionate, open-minded believers from those whose eyes are blinkered by ideology or ignorance? When does commitment to a cause morph into zealous dogmatism?
Oxford defines dogmatic as "given to imposing or asserting personal opinions; arrogant; intolerantly authoritative." As a personality trait, dogmatism is assumed to experience over time and situation-people are not open-minded on Monday but closed-minded on Tuesday any more than they are extroverted only on Fridays. Other traits contain friendliness, conscientiousness, stubbornness, and open-mindedness-to name a few among many. Since a minimum number of related features are commonly significant to determine trait presence, it is recommend that a man has the trait of dogmatism if he or she reveals six out of thirteen subtraits. In this sense, although a preoccupation with power and status is one characteristic of dogmatism, not all dogmatic population demonstrate this obsession. But all of them have one cognitive feature in common-they simplify the complex.
Consider an imaginary Aunt Martha, who grinds her axe about parents who allow their children unsupervised, unlimited time on the computer. She is opinionated about her belief, but she`s not dogmatic unless she consistently portrays at least six of its foremost features. What about Billy-Bob, who emphatically believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old? If his belief, which is an empirically verifiable, factual error, is embedded in the dogma of an entire trust ideas that he implacably clings to in a manner that profiles several features of dogmatism, Billy-Bob's closed-mindedness is a garage trait. I think you'll agree that, after examining some of dogmatism's key features, we're in problem if he becomes an elected politician. Let`s examine dogmatism's core features.
When is the last time you heard a politician comment, "Based on the evidence presented today, I will think my position on this matter?" Dogmatism may construe why such remarks are rare. Anxiety and an inability to tolerate uncertainty are two of its central features that dogmatists cope with by end their minds to conflicting views and pronouncing their "Truths" with unyielding, arrogant, certainty. In so doing, they take off all ambiguity that would otherwise stir up anxiety.
A distinct tactic-compartmentalization-allows them to simultaneously withhold two logically incompatible beliefs. Sealing contradictory beliefs in isolated chambers enables them, for example, to give voice to equal occasion yet deny or sacrifice funding to programs that help the disadvantaged. Politicians with this feature of dogmatism are imposters of speculate who seldom examine or rejoinder their conflicting political values.
Darkening the portrait, dogmatic population often find it difficult to distance themselves far sufficient from their core beliefs and emotions to recognize their own dogmatism, much less understand the psychological and social influences that pushed them in dogmatic directions. We can hardly dream Billy-Bob saying something like this.
"You know, I for real am very narrow-minded and rigid. One of these days I should ask myself what I'm so afraid of. What's so wrong with being for real wrong? And what's so right with being for real right? Why do I get so angry with population who won't admit I'm right and they're wrong? Maybe there's a lot wrong with being for real right."
Such close encounters with their own accomplished minds are too close for comfort, which brings us to the emotional features of dogmatism.
It is only within the last 25 years that psychologists have closely examined the impact of emotion on speculate and accomplished that when we're anxious, frightened, or angry, we're dumber. As Joseph LeDoux and others note, strong emotions bombard the mid-brain and block high-road pathology and reasoning-the work of the neocortex, or new brain. When we're emotionally threatened it's natural to believe that what we feel is right, is right, especially when we're angry. In dogmatic minds, anxiety is oftentimes converted to anger in order to conceal the very anxiety that generated it. The mistaken assumption here is that dictatorial bravado will mask their fears and bolster their identity as man who for real knows what they're talking about. Anger can be a safe place to hide.
Another feature embedded in dogmatism's clump of features is a preoccupation with power and status, which reflects a glorification of the "in" group and vilification of the "out" group. The considerable and wealthy are carefully virtuous and deserving; their very presence can leave dogmatists awestruck, ingratiating, or for real intimidated. Conversely, they may denounce the poor as social burdens who lack morals, intelligence, and self-discipline. These stereotypes work because absolute categories sacrifice ambiguity that, in dogmatic minds, generates anxiety.
Among politicians, a more serious question related with dogmatism is dogmatic authoritarian aggression. Abundant research concludes that authoritarians view the world as a dangerous, fearful place-a consequence of what George Lakoff calls "the strict-parent family" in which authoritarian parents request respect, unquestioning obedience, inflexible self-discipline, and literal, adherence to approved escort and family values. These parents operate their children with harsh punishment and many grow up to be mean-spirited toward population they judge inferior. As Bob Altemeyer notes, they feel entitled to make their own rules, which they inflict without mercy. Some are self-righteous moralists who obey a higher authority that, according to their twisted logic, legitimizes violence and violations of conventions and laws.
In positions of political power, their explicit goal may be to provide citizens equal opportunities, advance democracy, or bolster the economy, but their implicit goal is to gain power in order to fortify and withhold their identity, or achieve what Robert J. Lifton calls "revolutionary immortality." Kim Il-sung, who declared himself the Eternal President of North Korea, is a superior example of dogmatic authoritarian aggression. Such leaders are doubly dangerous; so too are their dogmatic authoritarian submitters.
Attracted to the bold certainty of authoritarian aggressors are the dogmatic authoritarian submitters who do their bidding. Submitters parcel out their identity to authority figures whose orders to aggress against others they blindly obey, thus reinforcing their aggressors' dogmatism, authoritarianism, and grandiose self-importance. As such, both submitters and aggressors play interdependent roles that advance their dogmatic allegiance to a cause.
Finally, communication (verbal and nonverbal) is derivative of thought. Anxiety impairs the ability of both. We're all familiar with arrogant pronouncements that may plainly be gauche attempts to communicate, but arrogant, dismissive communication-another behavioural feature of dogmatism-is a serious problem. This characteristic has, as Simon Blackburn suggests, a thunder and conviction that betrays anxiety. Examples include: "Oh c'mon! anything with half a brain knows that...." Or, "Look! I need you to understand that...." And this one, guaranteed to short-circuit romance, "Right! Of procedure I`m right! What`s the matter with you? " Believing that verbal audacity will advance their credibility, adamant assertions of incontrovertible truths indulge the captive mind that pronounces, not the captive audience that hears. Complicating matters, arrogant, dismissive communicators may be unaware of the gestures and facial expressions that transcend their words and provide their more socially attuned, insightful listeners with additional, unintended psychological information.
In the final psychological analysis, dogmatism is not about the superiority of one trust ideas over an additional one or one leader versus another. And it's not about ideology per se, or what population believe. Rather, dogmatism of any stripe is about how population adopt, communicate, and enact their trust systems. More importantly, it is about personal identity-fragile, fragile identity that is externally authored by influential authority figures. As such, if we are to clear much of the debris that clutters the road to peace and democratic progress, it would benefit all of us if politicians and the electorate that grants them power, recognized and understood the nature of dogmatism. Perhaps we could then monitor and convert dogmatic tendencies within ourselves and our institutions-especially the political socialization and militarization of youth.
Failing that, dogmatism will stall social progress, reignite past injustices, and escalate hereafter conflicts. Yet despite its heritage and ubiquity, I am all but unavoidable that if we confront dogmatism from wide angles we can convert its risky bark to a faint whimper. And elect open-minded politicians.
Beyond a Shadow of Doubt: Political Certainty in Uncertain TimesVisit : todays world news headlines
0 comments:
Post a Comment