A pro-democracy mindset proposal

The ideology problem

A prior post here laid out the ideology problem in politics.

In short, belief in an ideology is inherent to the human condition. Practically speaking, it cannot be avoided. The problem is that various political, religious and economic ideologies carry baggage, mental boundaries, that tend to lead toward anti-democratic governance and society.

All of that can lead to some form of authoritarianism or bigotry. Religion can lead to theocracy. The drive for wealth and power can lead to oligarchy or aristocracy. Defense of a cultural status quo is often associated with significant intolerance and bigotry directed at target groups such as racial or ethnic minorities. Similarly, the urge for safety, stability and strong leadership has been a pathway to autocracy such as dictatorship, monarchy or military junta. Usually accompanying authoritarian outcomes is major corruption, sometimes kleptocracy.

A modest proposal: Two Practices to Reduce Ideological Bias in Politics

Over centuries, various proposals to coax humans into being more rational have largely failed. Humans are going to be human. The proposal here is therefore deliberately modest: two research-backed practices that can soften, not eliminate, ideology's worst effects on democratic politics. These acknowledge that ideologies are useful for making sense of complexity and that completely changing human nature is both presumptuous and impossible. The hope here is that meaningful improvement is achievable for at least a significant number of people.

To try to soften adverse ideology impacts in politics and other areas, a few mindset practices could be adopted for political engagement. With time and practice, these could become habits that feel less burdensome.

1. Distinguish fact questions from value questions. Research suggests that reaching agreement on facts is far more common than agreement on morals/values. To reach some potential common ground, try to identify what's actually in dispute, facts, values or both. This slows down the process of engagement. "It allows time for conscious reasoning to exert influence over unconscious biases, including limited open-mindedness.

Political arguments often conflate disagreements over fact vs values. For example: "Should we invest in climate mitigation?" involves both a fact claim ("how serious is climate change?") and an implicit value question ("how much should we prioritize environmental protection vs. economic growth?"). Separating these tends to make disagreement somewhat more productive because it often reduces emotion.

2. Update belief on clear evidence. When a person becomes aware of inconvenient new information, changing existing belief to stay in synch is often difficult and uncomfortable. Brains don't like it. Politics often touches on, sometimes even directly threatens, deeply held beliefs, moral values, or self-esteem or identity. In this regard, taking politics seriously is often difficult or uncomfortable, not easy or fun.

Research shows that people often downplay or reject information that contradicts their ideology or values. This is a natural human trait. Sometimes inconvenient information is fully dismissed as false or propaganda. This isn't conscious dishonesty. It simply reflects how unconscious motivated reasoning works, even for people trying their best to be objective. Although this can be psychologically uncomfortable, the ask is modest from an objective standpoint: when evidence is clear and relevant, let it matter.

The "modest ask" is there for a reason. Specifically, asking for respect for facts is a mental anti-bias incentive. Research indicates that accuracy incentives help reduce bias. When people are nudged toward accuracy, they can often overcome reason- and reality-distorting motivated reasoning to at least some noticeable degree.

Those two practices are exceptionally important because they address the most common failures in political discourse: conflating fact and value disputes, which tends to make dialogue circular, and rejecting or distorting clear evidence, which impairs learning and reasoning from experience.

Discussion

Can adopting these practices actually make a difference, given the historical record of failed rationality projects and the current polarized state of American politics? It seems reasonable to believe that these practices will make a meaningful difference if enough people adopt them, but can that happen?