In PATH TO POWER, ROAD TO RUIN, I identify two of the most predominant kinds of thinking in vogue today. The most pervasive one, by far, is ideological thinking. But, the most effective one is analytic thinking. A comparison of these two approaches follows, starting with ideological thinking.
An ideological approach has certain well-defined characteristics that highlight its limitations as a belief formation tool.
Ideologies are typically constructed using top-down processes. They are presented as fixed packages of beliefs, constructed by leaders and aggressively disseminated to their followers, without discussion or debate.
Ideologies are popular because they address powerful human needs, including the elimination of doubt and uncertainty, the reduction of existential anxiety, and the support of human ego and belonging requirements. As a result, they are typically constructed from ideas that we want to be true or need to be true, not what has been proven to be true.
Unfortunately, ideologies are built from unreliable sources, such as supposed revelations from God and his prophets, quotes from “sacred” texts, personal testimony, faith, feelings, and hopes or the God-like pronouncements of certain populist leaders. These are all things that cannot be verified or falsified, which means that ideological positions have to be accepted without proper foundation, and therefore, have to be considered untrustworthy.
Additionally, ideologies are principles-based, not consequences-based. When people create or endorse beliefs in this manner, they start by subjectively asserting a set of principles that become the basis for all their thought. They are not concerned with the consequences of implementing these principles. They merely accept them as prima-facie-true, without understanding the outcomes that will flow from their acceptance and implementation. This makes them very dangerous.
Further, ideological thinking is inherently inflexible. Once established, it is almost impossible to effect changes in people’s beliefs or to modify their ideologically-based positions. The problem is, that if an ideologue concedes that it is acceptable for followers to doubt or reject some of his beliefs, then he would be effectively undermining his own authoritativeness and credibility. It would be tantamount to admitting that his ideology and his core beliefs are flawed.
Finally, ideologists do not want people thinking for themselves. They want followers to blindly accept their dictates and turn responsibility for their lives and their beliefs over to them. They consciously seek to retard followers’ ability to reason for themselves. Many ideology leaders consider human reasoning to be the ultimate evil act. They often say “reason is the tool of the devil.” To be successful, ideologues need their followers to be passive recipients of whatever they are told; and to follow and obey the ideologies’ dictates to the letter of the law.
Analytical thinking, on the other hand, is the antithesis of an ideological approach and has distinctly different characteristics.
Analytic thinking proceeds from the ground up, not from the top down. It is developed by individuals or groups working together cooperatively on an issue by issue basis to come up with valid, fact-based beliefs.
Analytic approaches require a commitment to doing investigative work and fact gathering to make certain that all beliefs are grounded in real data and are tested cooperatively in conjunction with others. Ideas that are not rigorously tested in this way are rejected as just personal, faith-based positions which cannot be verified or falsified and, therefore, have little validity.
Analytical methods reject principles-first approaches, typical in ideological thinking, in favor of those that require an assessment of outcomes before accepting any belief. How an idea works out when implemented in the real world is fundamental to establishing its validity or invalidity. To embrace and support beliefs without understanding their impact and their ability to cause real human suffering is criminal.
Analytical thinking acknowledges the reality of life and tries to operate within that reality. It is therefore concerned with knowing the truth about life and building beliefs that are consistent with objective reality and facts, not opinion, guesses, faith-based propositions, and other unsubstantiated claims.
Analytic thinking processes are specifically designed to be subject to continuous change and alteration as new and better information comes to the fore. They recognize that the truth advances as belief positions and processes get developed, modified, and improved over time. Valid beliefs incorporate new information and new knowledge as they arise. They adapt to a changing world instead of locking their ideas in place. Superior evidence-based belief systems adjust. Inferior ideological ones do not.
The importance of having accurate beliefs is most powerfully demonstrated by looking at the successes achieved by people who use fact-based analytical approaches to deal with life, as opposed to those who use anecdotes, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and other subjective approaches to making decisions. Several examples of the benefits of analytical approaches will be provided in the next post in two weeks.