Is Ideological Bias a Form of Mental Illness?

[Doctor Cringelord]

No. Maybe.

Just remember to keep your pimp hand strong and it won't matter who is sane or insane.

 

[meowington]

Ideological bias is always present, it comes with being human and having values, but if you can't recognize that you have a bias, that's definitely an opening for mental illness under extreme conditions.

That's 99% of all people right there. People always believe they are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves, or outside of their current context/box, yet, almost everyone I know has a very similar political ideology to that of their parents. To name just one. That includes myself. We grossly underestimate what it takes to consider a topic totally unbiased because of the culture we find ourselves in. Psylocybin can help

OP : I wouldn't call it a mental illness, rather human nature.

 

[Littleclaypot]

It could be a symptom of a mental illness.. All I can really think of is that I do think that someone so extreme in their beliefs might be lacking in some critical thinking skills.

 

[Cellmold]

I think this is a prime example of the failure of rational character planning in people.

When we come upon our constricted choices we are left with a myriad of decisions which are themselves often half-chance in nature. And we tend to overcompensate when we try to bring a level of awareness into the picture that throws off the equilibrium of what we are aware of. Examples such as attempting to overcome fears, anxieties or other perceived flaws in ourselves, to be combated by becoming aware of them, which is dangerously naive but extremely prolific as a methodology.

This can bring into being a whole host of maladaptive consequences as a part of ideological beliefs. It may not be a consequence of the beliefs themselves though and consequence is not in itself necessarily a good indicator of motivation and desire. Even less so an indicator of drive or purpose.

There is a point of distance in our existence that is (apparently) required for any degree of functioning and decision making. If we're too close or too far we become overwhelmed. In that sense, I suppose, an ideology can be part of a mental illness (such as the hyper-conscious awareness of a schizophrenic that perceives an 'all seeing eye' of paranoia in reality).

I wouldn't close the book on that though.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I guess I sound like that guy in a way? Or do you just like what he's saying.

I think Ideological Bias is less a mental illness, and more a self-preservation mechanism.

I think "Ideological Bias as a Form of Mental Illness" is an ideological bias itself.

The best we can do is attempt to reach the truth as best we can.

 

[Lark]

It could be a symptom of a mental illness.. All I can really think of is that I do think that someone so extreme in their beliefs might be lacking in some critical thinking skills.

I think ideology and extremism are antidotes to thinking altogether, usually spurred by strong affects, that doesnt necessarily amount to the same thing as mental illness.

Whether you're using the label of mental illness in a sort of pejorative way, which I suspect this thread is all about, or in some misguided compassionate sense suggesting that the people marked out this way by impairment are deserving of sympathy or empathy.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think Ideological Bias is less a mental illness, and more a self-preservation mechanism.

I think "Ideological Bias as a Form of Mental Illness" is an ideological bias itself.

The best we can do is attempt to reach the truth as best we can.

I agree, but we have to be careful that we make a distinction between truth and fact.

Truth without fact is poison--we all have ideological bias and that is fine, but it becomes problematic when we get to the point we are willing to overlook or ignore fact and all we believe is in service of reinforcing our truths. Verify, verify, verify. If we find our truths do not line up with fact, then our truths need to be reevaluated and augmented, as we have reached incorrect truths.

 

[Zarathustra]

The difficulty with removing bias is that you can't, without erasing personality, bias exists because of the subjectivity of being human. What you can do is work on is limiting bias from obscuring truth, or understanding the scope of a problem.

Do you not see an inherent contradiction in your construction? What if someone's personality is based on removing bias?

In functional terms, your construction would seem to come from an Fi>Te preference. An assumption that the ego (in an ENFP's case: NeFi) is largely based on Fi (subjective preferences).

Someone with Te>Fi preferences, however, would value objective truth (Te) over subjective preferences (Fi).

It becomes tricky, because, in the case of TJs, simply having Te as their dominant judging function doesn't automatically by the grace of god make them perfectly objective (although, they do, on the whole, tend to be more objective than other types) - they must learn to recognize their unconscious Fi biases, which can slip in, unnoticed, into their "objective" decision-making, and then remove said biases (at least if they are not in accordance with reality - there is nothing about an Fi evaluation that means it inherently must not be in accord with reality [hence Jung's famous dictum about wisdom, thinking and feeling]) - but, if they can effectively accomplish this task, they can actually gain a very high degree of objectivity.

The process is essentially the opposite in FPs. They start from an entirely different place, of almost complete subjective delusion (not using this pejoratively - there are plenty of wonderful benefits from being a creature whose preference is subjective valuation - but a strong and regular accordance with objective reality is not one of the earliest or primary ones), but can (and must, for the sake of psychological development) learn, as you touch upon in your second sentence, to "clear their lens", so as to not impede the objective truth from making it past the obscuring tendencies of their subjective evaluations.

Or, per Jung's dictum, to gain wisdom by putting feeling in accordance with thinking.

There is no objectivity.

Nonsense.

OJ killed Nicole.

2+2=4

And the Lakers are the greatest sports franchise in the history of the planet.

The thing Disco had right is that he spent very little time on the subject of bias, who's right, because that ultimately can't be answered, but then again, using the power of bias as a method of influence was a tool of his. Which isn't to say there aren't plenty of people using that tool for their own purposes on any given side. The conflict of values is real, though artificially inflated.

That's where Disco went completely wrong.

That's where Disco went from reasonable (albeit a bit ideological) pragmatist to full-blown ideologue.

From the reasonable (albeit sometimes prone to bouts of outbursts) guy we used to know to the foaming at the mouth extremist he sometimes seemed to have become.

A lot of what happened to Disco could be read in terms of him having come under the grip of his inferior Fi.

 

[á´…eparted]

Another click-bait title.

Everyone is bias, and always will be. The issue at hand is when people confuse bias and evidence. It is one of many reasons why I find debates over bias fruitless.

 

[Qlip]

Do you not see an inherent contradiction in your construction? What if someone's personality is based on removing bias?

In functional terms, your construction would seem to come from an Fi>Te preference. An assumption that the ego (in an ENFP's case: NeFi) is largely based on Fi (subjective preferences).

Someone with Te>Fi preferences, however, would value objective truth (Te) over subjective preferences (Fi).

It becomes tricky, because, in the case of TJs, simply having Te as their dominant judging function doesn't automatically by the grace of god make them perfectly objective (although, they do, on the whole, tend to be more objective than other types) - they must learn to recognize their unconscious Fi biases, which can slip in, unnoticed, into their "objective" decision-making, and then remove said biases (at least if they are not in accordance with reality - there is nothing about an Fi evaluation that means it inherently must not be in accord with reality [hence Jung's famous dictum about wisdom, thinking and feeling]) - but, if they can effectively accomplish this task, they can actually gain a very high degree of objectivity.

The process is essentially the opposite in FPs. They start from an entirely different place, of almost complete subjective delusion (not using this pejoratively - there are plenty of wonderful benefits from being a creature whose preference is subjective valuation - but a strong and regular accordance with objective reality is not one of the earliest or primary ones), but can (and must, for the sake of psychological development) learn, as you touch upon in your second sentence, to "clear their lens", so as to not impede the objective truth from making it past the obscuring tendencies of their subjective evaluations.

Or, per Jung's dictum, to gain wisdom by putting feeling in accordance with thinking.



Nonsense.

Hah, well, I can't fault you for bringing up MBTI on an MBTI board. It's an interesting way to frame my point of view, Fi vs Te. And there would seem to be something to be contributed to the subject given the described subjective nature of Fi and the objective nature of Te. But, it's pretty reductionist and also shaky reasoning to describe Te-doms/secondaries as essentially objective and Fi-doms/secondaries as essentially subjective. First of all, we aren't essentially our judging functions, and what those functions do contribute to our cognition is in concert with other function which brings balancing forces into the mix to produce a fully operating human being. And even if we were characterized by our lead function, It could easily be claimed that Ne as a primary function is way more objective than Te as a primary function, given its predilection to accept incoming information as-is, like an information slut. You could say that Ne is better at seeing (a certain type of) reality, Te is better at manipulating it. But I won't really assert these claims, I'm not really interested in them at the moment.

What I'm talking about here perhaps has some connection with Fi, and if it elevates it, it's not my intention. But what I see, in every type, every human, is that we all operate, using Te/Fi/whatever based on unverifiable subjective assumptions, some are biological, some are learned, indoctrinated or through experience. The most primal example of a subjective bias is, "Life is worth living, and I'm worth the resources I take". There's no way this can be reasoned as being true, we can understand why we think this, but there's no Objective calculus that can validate this belief. Some other fun ones are, "Every man is equal to me", or "My group of people are worth more than your group of people." This subjectivity is more than just a cognitive slant, it's what drives us and motivates us, reasoning and objectivity is a slave to this. This is where ideology, what's valued and a framework to justify it and promote those values, attaches. No Te'er is free of it.

 

[Mal12345]

I think Ideological Bias is less a mental illness, and more a self-preservation mechanism.

I think "Ideological Bias as a Form of Mental Illness" is an ideological bias itself.

The best we can do is attempt to reach the truth as best we can.

By what means though?

 

[Mal12345]

Honestly, I think they're shades of a similar position, with the exception of Beorn the posters which I would have thought of as conservative who havent deserted the forum would all have rapidly gravitated to the extremes which you're treating as distinct from conservatism, so I dont really feel like extending any sort of charitable recognition to the moderate positions of conservatives in the past.

That said I dont like liberals either. My politics are pretty unique. Most of the time I just wish I had enough money to build a fall out shelter with enough books and just leave them all to it.

- - - Updated - - -



Its self-evident to the people who arent their apologists.

Appeal to Self-evident Truth

 

[Zarathustra]

Hah, well, I can't fault you for bringing up MBTI on an MBTI board. It's an interesting way to frame my point of view, Fi vs Te. And there would seem to be something to be contributed to the subject given the described subjective nature of Fi and the objective nature of Te.

Not only that, but you are a self-proclaimed ENFP.

So the dynamics I described would reflect your psychological dynamics, if you are indeed an ENFP.

Considering they were your views I was dissecting, this would certainly be relevant.

But, it's pretty reductionist and also shaky reasoning to describe Te-doms/secondaries as essentially objective and Fi-doms/secondaries as essentially subjective.

I don't disagree.

But I thought from my post, and from my long history here, it was rather obvious that I wasn't taking, and don't take, that position in a reductionistic nor shaky manner.

First of all, we aren't essentially our judging functions, and what those functions do contribute to our cognition is in concert with other function which brings balancing forces into the mix to produce a fully operating human being.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was describing with my explanation of one aspect of what is required for psychological development in TJs and FPs.

There are obviously others as well - some, non-typological, and some depending on exactly which types they are.

And even if we were characterized by our lead function, It could easily be claimed that Ne as a primary function is way more objective than Te as a primary function, given its predilection to accept incoming information as is like an information slut.

What you're describing there is actually Se.

Ne doesn't take information in "as is" - it takes in "how it could be".

The point about perceiving functions being more "objective" than judging functions, well, I've written about this extensively.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/private-blogs/33710-spake-zarathustra-7.html#post1450136

You'll find in that post (and many others I've written) from several years ago, that, long story short, there are three ways of thinking about objectivity vs subjectivity in typology:

Introverted vs Extroverted
Judging vs Perceiving
Feeling vs Thinking

You could say that Ne is better at seeing (a certain type) reality, Te is better at manipulating it. But I won't really assert these claims, I'm not really interested in them at the moment.

Or you could say Te is better at judging what is true.

While Ne is better at perceiving many different possibilities.

What I'm talking about here perhaps has some connection with Fi, and if it elevates it, it's not my intention. But what I see, in every type, every human, is that we all operate, using Te/Fi/whatever based on unverifiable subjective assumptions, some are biological, some are learned, indoctrinated or through experience. The most primal example of a subjective bias is, "Life is worth living, and I'm worth the resources I take". There's no way this can be reasoned as being true, we can understand why we think this, but there's no Objective calculus that can validate this belief. Some other fun ones are, "Every man is equal to me", or "My group of people are worth more than your group of people." This subjectivity is more than just a cognitive slant, it's what drives us and motivates us, reasoning and objectivity is a slave to this. This is where ideology, what's valued and a framework to justify it and promote those values, attaches.

Fair enough.

But you are over-elevating Fi here.

Which is a symptom of the postmodern mindset.

Postmodernism is basically NFPism.

No Te'er is free of it.

No Te'er is completely free of it.

Some might be completely enslaved by it.

As I pointed to in my original post: if they have not developed, if they have not "become wise", then they have not learned to recgonize how unconscious Fi seeps into, even underpins, their judgments.

But if they have become wise, if they have developed, then they have done this.

It still must constantly be beat back, tho, like a demon would.

Any Te'er may be more or less free of it, at any moment.

Even for extended periods of time.

Years, decades, lives, even.

As can any other type.

It's actually more about wisdom than type.

What needs to be overcome for each type is a bit different, tho.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

By what means though?

Recognizing nuance, for one.

Not being socially retarded is complimentary to the first.

 

[Zarathustra]

Recognizing nuance, for one.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Haha Nice.