Read on Twitter
I’ve been thinking about ideologues a lot lately. I’m thinking of intelligent, educated, capable people here - often scientists or economists or educators or professionals in their own right. Who either take an overt stance opposite to reality or ethics - or ignore one aspect.
They use similar defences - you can’t question them because they have credentials (appeal to authority) you can’t question them because they have data (superior knowledge) and your evidence or studies are wrong or invalid (refutation). They form small groups.
There’s a psychological game here - a martyrdom for a cause. They’re bravely taking a stance as a saviour of the people. The economy. I can see how it would be gratifying to be part of the countervailing group.
I think these folks come from different places though - some went into their field with their ideas and through their work sought to reinforce and build them up. Lifers. Others start off countering something genuinely wrong in society and then become radicalised- ignoring nuance.
Puritanical thinking, binary responses to complex problems are the hallmark of the idealogue. And you find it around all of the complex social issues today. For or against - there is no middle ground. No gradation, no limits or boundaries. You are with us or “get in the sea”.
But some things seem to form rapidly around a kernel - one person creates a contrarian subculture ex nihilo. Like Andrew Wakefield did with vaccines. From there antivax thinking has sprawled into conspiracy and paranoia.
Like Wakefield, idealogues are profiteers too; writing books, going on speaking tours, selling products - long after their ideas have been discredited. Or preserved precisely because they’re no longer “mainstream”. Some walk right down the line - maintaining professorships.
And a special mention goes to the evolution of tactics displayed by climate change deniers - to try to paint the mainstream as an ideology rather than science.
So why the thread? I guess I’m calling it to the foreground. If the view you subscribe to is a) counter to the prevailing science b) started or preserved by individuals who stand to profit c) doesn’t allow questioning or ignores broad areas of science; then check yourself.
/end
