Ideological Integrity-- my attempt to define intellectual honesty

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I want to define a term; the ability to apply the same standards to your ideological/political side that you apply to the other side. I am working with the term "ideological integrity", but if you have a better term for this I would love to hear it.

The concept I am trying to define goes like this...

I mostly agreed with Obama's political values and policy goals. I also liked Obama a lot. I like his intellectual approach to problems, and much of the time I agreed with what he did (with some exceptions). My opinion is that Obama was a pretty good president. Conversely I mostly disagree with Trumps political values. I strongly dislike his intellectual approach to problems. I disagree with his policy goals and with what he is doing (with some exceptions).

This defines my personal ideological bias. Now let's define "ideological integrity".

1. I should judge each policy decision from Trump the same way that I judged policy decisions by Obama. The question... "would I have opposed Trump's action if it had been done by Obama is a fair question"?

2. I can list times when I disagreed with Obama. I have no trouble doing this.

3. I can list times when I have agreed with Trump. I have no trouble doing this. When Trump says something that is correct... it is still correct (no matter who says it).

4. When opposition to Trump is factually correct, I support it. When opposition to Trump is factual incorrect or is acting in a way that is irresponsible (i.e. creating division rather than supporting something worthy) I will stand up against it.

Of course, this works both ways... Trump supporters can also have ideological integrity, being able to say where Obama did good and that Trump is screwing up.

What are the places where you can speak truth to power by challenging your own side?

My real interest on this thread is being able to define the term, particularly the ability to question your own ideological bubble and to challenge the beliefs of your own camp the way you question the other side.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 332 • Replies: 6

No top replies

@maxdancona,

Motivated Reasoning Is Why You Can't Win an Argument Using Facts
curiosity.com/topics/motivated-reasoning-is-why-you-cant-win-an-argument-using-facts-curiosity/

A google search for "why you can't win arguments" finds 147 MILLION links.

1 Reply

@Jewels Vern,

Thank you for that link; https://curiosity.com/topics/motivated-reasoning-is-why-you-cant-win-an-argument-using-facts-curiosity/ (fixed here).

Quote:

"Being a skeptic means that you consciously prioritize having beliefs that are valid over beliefs that are not valid," Novella told us. "You have to care more about the process of how you go about evaluating beliefs than any particular conclusion. You have to relish being proven wrong as an opportunity to change your belief and to make it less wrong."

This is what I am getting at with this thread... the opposite of "motivated reasoning" would be "unmotivated reasoning" which is not the term for which I am looking. They suggest that "skepticism" is the ability to prioritize valid belief, this would imply the ability to question your own belief, I am not sure if most people think of questioning their own beliefs when they here the word "skepticism".

I am proud of my ability to be proven wrong.... anyone can can win an argument, very few of us have ever lost one.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Derrida implied that there is no such thing as 'unmotivated reasoning', since the very selection of 'focus' is a 'privileging', or personal selection of what we see as salient points is relative to what we supress as 'background noise'. He imlied that the 'meaning' of every assertion involved its negation.
Couple these ideas with the dynamic aspects of shifting focus and events, and we might conclude that there is more to 'reasoning' than say classical logic based on fixed axioms.
(There are many Google references to Derrida).

2 Replies

@fresco,

I am not sure if Derrida is relevant to the concept I am trying to define.

- There are people who are able change their beliefs when confronted with new data. This is essential to the fields of science and engineering and I have seen this happen in myself and in others.

- There are people who view an ideological argument from more than one perspective. They can acknowledge the weaknesses in their own ideological argument and point out instances where an opposing view has a valid point.

- There are people who can challenge parts of an ideological narrative while still supporting the main ideology. There are people who can question an argument made by their own side as not being supported by facts or principle.

I am trying to define a trait that I see in some people. These are abilities that are demonstrable.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Thanks for the reference to Derrida... I am reading about him now.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Many people don't have beliefs. They think they are obeying laws of the universe.

0 Replies

Forums
» Ideological Integrity-- my attempt to define intellectual honesty

Read Question
Reply to All

Ideological Integrity-- my attempt to define intellectual honesty

Quick Links

My Account

able2know