Huemer Strikes Back

Dogma terminology over "mind virus" terminology in describing woke ideology. Both are acceptable considering the nature of ideological defense systems and our unconstitutional, woke situation

Dan Willams has written a 2,900 word essay encouraging us to stop using the “mind virus” metaphor. He writes,

The ideas you dislike — whether wokeism, religion, or misinformation — are not “mind viruses” and do not spread via contagion. This framing seeks to demonise, not understand, and poisons public discourse.

Okay. Perhaps “mind virus” is not in accordance with standards for respectful discourse? It’s a bit like saying “your thinking is diseased.”

With that said, we might ask whether respectful discourse is the standard that should govern our situation? Our situation being a Congressionally respected, quasi-religious establishment, festering within America’s public universities and federal bureaucracies. Hence, a violation of the First and Tenth Amendments — since education is not an enumerated power, and woke ideology clearly meets the definition of religion. If you’re not convinced, continue reading with an open mind. This post shows that woke is indeed a religion or quasi-religion.

In this case, and with our duty and rights in mind (see the Declaration), we might employ more shaming in our discourse than mutual respect will allow. Remember, we want to avoid violence and civil unrest. Better to use shame than violence. Right?

If the most respectful discourse you can muster at this moment, is “mind virus,” I won’t object. If you feel virus metaphors are appropriate, I have little to say about your choice. Only you know what is best for you, your family, and your situation.

With that said, Williams’ arguments are somewhat persuasive. However, since you’re constrained for time, and 2,900 words is a long read, I’m here to recommend the conclusion of Michael Huemer’s book instead. That book would be Progressive Myths in which he wields the virus metaphor rather eloquently, and it seems appropriately. Huemer writes,

Contemporary woke progressivism is not what it purports to be. It is not a tool for helping women and minorities. It is better understood as a quasi-religious, intellectual virus that has infected the minds of a large portion of Western intellectual elites. Like other religions, the progressive mind virus spreads itself by taking advantage of the human psychological needs for meaning and community, and it deploys intellectual defense mechanisms designed to short circuit critical examination of its tenets. Like other religions, progressivism comes with its own mythology. It is a mythology in which such characters as Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are held up as martyrs, while the "cishet" (cisgender, heterosexual) white man is held up as the world's great villain.

Most of our society's institutions for creating and spreading knowledge have already been corrupted by this virus. Mainstream journalists, academic researchers, and political leaders can be seen shamelessly lying, spinning news, or suppressing information explicitly for the purpose of promoting the progressive agenda. Of this, we have seen many examples in the preceding pages.

Why not let people have their mythology? Two reasons: One, because it is factually false. White people are not holding back blacks from succeeding. Men are not holding back women. The rich are not holding back the poor. Humans are not about to destroy the Earth.

None of that is true. And we need to know what is true if we are to make progress on any of the actual, real problems we face.

Two, the progressive quasi-religion is an extremely divisive and malevolent force in our society. Progressivism actively sows discord by teaching us to identify with some group other than the whole society, then teaching us that another group within our society is our group's enemy. Contemporary progressivism teaches us to distrust our society's norms and institutions. And the belief system defenses deployed by progressivism directly attack the norms of free expression and rational inquiry that are necessary not only for identifying truth but for peacefully negotiating disagreements in a pluralistic society.

All of this is not just bad from the standpoint of conservative values. Contemporary progressivism is counterproductive to the values that progressivism itself has traditionally stood for. Heightened racial consciousness promotes segregation, not equality. Suppression of dissent promotes stagnation and tyranny, not freedom and progress.

Those who value equality, freedom, and progress should celebrate contemporary America. America is among the freest, most egalitarian, and most open-to-progress societies in history — not to mention one of the societies with the highest levels of human wellbeing.

I don't know if there is a way to stop the spread of woke progressivism, since it seems to have taken over our educational system, and the virus, once lodged in a person's mind, deactivates one's truth-seeking capacities. But I suppose that it is up to those of us who have not yet been infected to try to stop the spread, and the only way I can see to do that is through exposing the various myths that progressive information sources have been using to propagate their belief system.

My hope is that this book will act as a kind of inoculation. Some of the myths I have addressed will probably fade from collective memory within a few years, particularly those in Part I. I nevertheless think it is instructive to look at how mainstream information sources treated those myths — and to remember that when the next big progressive claim comes along. This, I hope, will give you a resistance against being taken in by whatever pieces of propaganda arise in the future.

The bold highlight on the phrase “belief system defenses” is mine. Let me remind you that this is the conclusion of Huemer’s book. If we back up, and investigate his reference to “belief system defense” we see that his usage of the virus metaphor is well justified. This should give Dan Williams pause. Huemer backs-up the virus metaphor with a section describing ideological defense systems. Here’s how it begins.

Ideological Defense Systems

There is one more piece of the puzzle of how political myths thrive. Most political myths appeal to particular ideologies and are rejected by other ideologies. But people with conflicting ideologies often interact with each other. This interaction can force people to confront objections to their beliefs. How do ideologues ensure that they won't wind up being forced to change their political beliefs by people from rival tribes annoyingly citing contrary facts and evidence?

One "solution" is to develop an ideological defense system. This is a set of beliefs that, once incorporated into an ideology, make it extremely difficult for anyone to erode your ideology through evidence and reasoning.¹

[…]

I won’t share the whole thing, but I encourage you to buy and read the book. I very much enjoy Michael Huemer’s writing. It is clear, easy to understand and helpful. And more concise than Williams.

However, I understand if you find his words unhelpful. If you voted for someone other than Donald Trump, keep in mind that Michael Huemer wrote a strong piece against Trump right before the election. If you don’t like what Huemer has to say about progressives you might like what he has to say about Trump. Though, I think overconfident in his assertions about Trump, he makes the best against Trump that I’ve seen. And even Huemer’s friend Bryan Caplan agrees with me on this. Or to be honest, Caplan got me to see this. Thanks Bryan.

My summary of Huemer’s Ideological Defense Systems section (mixed with some of my own ideas) is as follows.

Questioning the orthodoxy of the belief system is considered heresy, apostasy, sinful and immoral. Uniformity of belief is enforced by ad hominem attack, labeling doubters as racist, sexist, homophobes or transphobes. Similarly, orthodox believers will accuse dissenters of hate speech or intellectual violence.

These attacks on character not only blunt questioning, they blunt thinking and feeling. This is a form of thought control, powerful enough to cause group members to abstain from inner dialogue, reflection and introspection. This is the nature of self-deception.

Here is Huemer again,

Once one accepts this idea [that it’s morally wrong to question woke orthodoxy or any other religious orthodoxy], it becomes extremely difficult for one to correct errors in one's belief system, should any errors exist. As soon as any doubts start to creep in, or one starts to hear evidence counter to one's existing beliefs, one is meant to shut down the process for fear of falling into immorality. It is very hard to objectively evaluate an idea if you start out with the presumption that it is immoral to doubt it. This short-circuits reason by substituting moral disapproval for rational judgment.

So the ideological defense system is like an intellectual virus that shuts down thinking. Pretty straightforward. And their tactics often stray far from our standard of respectful discourse. So is the “mind virus” metaphor really so awful?

Let’s remember what Williams said about the “mind virus” metaphor: “this framing seeks to demonise, not understand, and poisons public discourse.” True, it does do a bit of demonizing, or demonising. That “s” should give us a hint as to origins of possible differences between Williams and us. We are American. He is British. We fled Britain, while his ancestors remained. But no need to rehash the revolution. No need to get tribal. He seems to be on the right track, and moving along rapidly considering his ideological origins on the left.

Let’s move on.

Here are some more examples of ideological defense system tactics — some from Huemer’s book, and some from my own experience in living around devoutly religious people.

• Do not invite non-members or dissenters to speak. Shout down speakers, or stop the conversation by calling “time.” If you ask to continue the conversation, they often say it’s against the rules. If you ask for a reason for the rule, they say, “casual conversation” is frowned upon.

• Understanding the orthodox belief system requires special insights that can only obtained with sufficient “lived” or “revealed” experience. Members may refer to this as revelation — revealed personally and uniquely only to them. To obtain such revelation requires special circumstances and/or character.

• Doubters may be reminded that Satan lurks and exerts opposition against our efforts to join the “true church.”

• Another tactic is to label doubters as very philosophical, or overly analytical.

In my own writing and conversations I prefer describing the ideological defense system in one word: dogma.

What might be wrong with my dogma terminology? Why might it be less effective than other terminology?

Dogma hinders learning, but encourages group cohesion.

Dogma exists with us today because it tends to promote a culture of cooperation among group members. This cooperation can increase chances of raising children to adulthood. And if these children have been sufficiently well-raised, they will likely have, and successfully raise, their own children. Thus the group survives even though their belief system contains falsehoods and inaccuracies. There is an important trade-off here.

Too much dogma prevents learning and reduces innovation, discovery, entrepreneurship, thinking, and Socratic dialogue. Prophecy and revelation can be thought of as entrepreneurship. Think Jesus Christ and Steve Jobs.

Without these helpful behaviors and outcomes, the group’s population is likely to diminish relative to other human groups. This weaker group may suffer losses in business, trade or in war. This could result in death, slavery, or “cultural extinction” by being subsumed into the stronger group through marriage, sex, and rape. For this last point think Neanderthal. They were most likely subsumed into human lineages.

On the other hand, too little dogma inhibits group cohesion and cooperation. As cooperation among group members diminishes, children rearing tends to be more difficult, leading to less children being born. Fertility may decrease. Hence, some dogma might be helpful. Can you think of examples? I will share one in an upcoming post.

So here is my rule: Too much dogma stifles learning. Too little dogma leads to lack of group cohesion. Some dogma may be good. And possibly some dogmas might actually be referred to precepts. The libertarian dogma of freedom for example! Though freedom is very important, we should be skeptical of “libertarian cranks.” Libertarian cranks might be infected with “mind viruses!”

The scientific method can be useful here. We can think of science as “improved religion” for determining what works best for the group. Science requires what to be effective? Empirical evidence.

There is one more point I want to make, and that is the fragility of a dogmatic belief system. Belief systems that depend on inaccurate and false beliefs are fragile. Members will be exposed to tiny truths and facts. Little doubts will creep in. They may loose faith. We call these “faith crises.”

Dogma not only inhibits learning, it tends to place members in less stable positions. Think of placing a marble on top of your computer mouse. We would say it has potential to seek a lower energy state. And depending on the nature of the group and its dogma, that marble will be more or less likely to roll off the mouse.

If members can find a better overall situation — that includes a feeling of belonging in another group — they can safely exit the cult. Yes, cult. This is nearly impossible for certain members however, because their entire family may be inside the cult. Leaving the cult means losing important family benefits - namely cooperation and resources for raising children.

Don’t get me wrong. Not all cults are the coercive, manipulative, and scary kind. Cultism is a continuum. And there are good cults and bad cults, or more accurately put, better cults and worse cults. See my exchange below with Bryan Caplan.

Scott: “Hi Bryan - I’m curious whether you think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a cult? And if so, what makes it a cult?”

Bryan: “Cultism is a continuum. I guess I'd put Mormonism at about the 80th percentile of all religions.”

Where would you put wokeism in this spectrum? And do you agree with Bryan in his 80th percentile comment about Mormons?

Until member defection occurs, if it ever occurs, what matters is loyalty to the group and maintaining pace with the slowly shifting group narrative. Old dogmas may be replaced with new and improved dogmas. Polygamy disappears from the norms of the group in the case of the Saints. Progressives will likely shed some of their ugliest woke branches.

Shedding “worn out” dogmas brings the group’s belief system closer to reality. Group competition motivates improvement. Using the “mind virus” metaphor against the woke group might help bring about improvement. How would we find out? Through experimentation. If it works you, do it.

I prefer dogma terminology however.

I like to encapsulate all of this ideological defense mechanism stuff into the word dogma because it has the:

1. Longest history in our culture;

2. It is a religious term that can be applied to ideology, just as easily as religion; and

3. Christians are familiar with it, which is helpful in talking about the U.S. Constitutions and U.S. state constitutions.

In summary, it can appear as if the orthodox thinker is infected with a “conformist bug.” In my experience, this conformity is self-deception inspired by group dogma. What is self-deception? See above.

Those that partake in dogma, signal loyalty and feel belonging to the group. This can improve their status within the group, and confer benefits for their family. This is very similar to Rob Henderson’s idea of luxury beliefs and Arnold Kling’s ideas in Three Languages of Politics.²

To read more from Progressive Myths, see my posts here on “George Floyd’s Cause of Death,” and here “Where Does Woke Ideology Come From?”

Have a good weekend, and remember to love your children. They need you.

1. For discussion of belief system defenses in the context of Christianity, see Armstrong 2023, ch. 2.

References

Armstrong, Ari. 2023. Getting Over Jesus: Finding Meaning and Morals Without God. Self in Society.

2. Kling writes,

Taking a charitable view of those with whom we disagree is rare in the political media. Many of the most popular newspaper columnists, radio talk show hosts, bloggers, and pundits using cable TV or social media do exactly the opposite. They take the most uncharitable view possible of those with whom they disagree, and they encourage their followers to do likewise. They achieve high ratings, but they lower the quality of political discussion. If you have a dominant political language, then chances are that both your favorite public intellectuals and your most hated demagogues are guilty of doing this.

The strategy of being uncharitable focuses on finding the weakest arguments of opponents and denouncing those arguments and characterizing the opponents as having relied entirely on those weak arguments.

[…]

Few pundits of any persuasion attempt to be charitable. Instead, they play this game of "Gotcha." The net result for most people is that reading their favorite pundits actually reduces and narrows their understanding of issues.

Consider three goals that a political pundit might have. One goal might be to open the minds of people on the other side. Another goal might be to open the minds of people on the pundit's own side. A third goal might be to close the minds of people on the pundit's own side. Nearly all the punditry that appears in the various media today serves only the third goal. The pundits act as if what they fear most is that their followers will be open to alternative points of view. To me, these media personalities appear to be fighting a constant battle to keep their followers' minds closed. The saddest part is that I believe they are succeeding. Political polarization has risen.

This is just another example of dogma. Again the goal is to maintain orthodoxy. The difference is the context. In this case, Kling is examining political ideology, but the same phenomenon occurs within religious contexts.