21 Indications of a Dogmatic Belief

 The word "Dogma" is defined as a strong assent to some proposition about a non-evident matter. In it's most colloquial sense, it is the holding of some belief unquestioningly with a strong degree of conviction, credence, or certainty, but typically on highly questionable grounds (or no grounds at all). The term can refer to a proposition or be used as a descriptor; "that person holds the XYZ dogma" or "that person's adherence to ideology XYZ is rather dogmatic". The term usually has a derogatory connotation, associated with rigidness, stifling inflexibility, and an authoritarian totalizing force. It is a type of belief that is simply "off the table for discussion"; rarely subject to rational or evidential deliberation. Someone can have a "dogmatic attitude" with respect to a certain proposition or entire ideologies. To be clear, we all have some form of dogma with respect to some propositions. Furthermore, to be even more clear, it's not necessarily productive to throw around this label, especially given its broad scope; there are flat earthers who call the scientific community "dogmatic". Obviously I think this is a misuse of the term, but you get the point. All I wish to do here is provide a set of criteria that can aid an individual with identifying a person who adheres to a dogma, and how to proceed in a conversation given the nature of dogmatic belief. Essentially, it is a checklist of sorts, that can help you understand your interlocutor so you can construct an alternative strategy for achieving your conversational goals. I'm not sure where this notion originated but an ancient school of skepticism, known as Pyrrhonism, seemed to be one of the first to recommend suspension of judgement as a remedy to dogmatism. The Pyrrhonists were responding to rival philosophies prominent throughout Ancient Greece who, according to the Pyrrhonists, claimed to have truth about non-evident matters (the dogmatists).  The Pyrrhonists can be divided into:

those who are ephectic (engaged in suspension of judgment), aporetic (engaged in refutation)[6] or zetetic (engaged in seeking).[7] An ephectic merely suspends judgment on a matter, "balancing perceptions and thoughts against one another,"[8] It is a less aggressive form of skepticism, in that sometimes "suspension of judgment evidently just happens to the sceptic".[9] An aporetic skeptic, in contrast, works more actively towards their goal, engaging in the refutation of arguments in favor of various possible beliefs in order to reach aporia, an impasse, or state of perplexity,[10] which leads to suspension of judgement.[9] Finally, the zetetic claims to be continually searching for the truth but to have thus far been unable to find it, and thus continues to suspend belief while also searching for reason to cease the suspension of belief.

It is important to note that the ancient skeptics goal of suspending judgment was to reach a state of ataraxia. This is a very important concept; it refers to a type of tranquility or unperturbedness, characterized "by a lucid state of robust equanimity, consisting of ongoing freedom from distress and worry". According to the Pyrrhonists, Dogmatic philosophies prevent ataraxia from manifesting, so the intended result of this skeptical attitude is to withdraw someone from this state of dogmatism. Pyrrhonists achieve this with their "modes" or "tropes"; these are epistemological questions and means aimed at identifying how it is someone knows their alleged dogma, or how to come to suspension of judgment with respect to some proposition. The modes come in two groups, given to us by Sextus Empiricus in his "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" and Diogenes Laërtius, originating from Aenesidemus and Agrippa, which I will list below (see the wiki page and Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy for the reference):

The Ten Modes

1. The mode depending on the variations among animals (I 40–78); Different animals manifest different modes of perception.
2. The mode depending on the differences among humans (I 79–90); Similar differences are seen among individual men.
3. The mode depending on the differing constitutions of the sense-organs (I 91–99); For the same man, information perceived with the senses is self-contradictory.
4. The mode depending on circumstance (I 100–117); The sensory information varies from time to time with physical changes.
5. The mode depending on positions and intervals and places (I 118–23); The sensory data also varies and differs according to local relations. 
6. The mode depending on admixtures (I 124–28); Objects are known only indirectly through the medium of air, moisture, etc.
7. The mode depending on the quantities and preparations of existing things (I 129–34); These objects are in a condition of perpetual change in color, temperature, size and motion
8. The mode deriving from relativity (I 135–40); All perceptions are relative and interact one upon another.
9. The mode depending on frequent or rare encounters (I 141–44); Our impressions become less critical through repetition and custom.
10. The mode depending on persuasions and customs and laws and belief in myths and dogmatic suppositions (I 145–62). All men are brought up with different beliefs, under different laws and social conditions

The Five Modes of Agrippa

1. Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general.
2. Infinite regress – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity.
3. Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view.
4. Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption.
5. Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs.

R.J. Hankinson offers another taxonomy consisting of eight modes in his book "The Sceptics". From SEP, they are summarized as:

"They are modes in accordance with which we bring the Dogmatists to a halt by raising puzzles about their particular causal explanations—we do this because they pride themselves on these especially. (PH I 180)"

These modes suggest lines of attack that the Skeptic could adopt in response to those arguments of the Dogmatists which attempt to discern causes. For instance,

"according to the second [mode], some people often give an explanation in only one way, although there is a rich abundance enabling them to explain the object of investigation in a variety of ways. (PH I 181)"

The idea here is that the Skeptic can apply pressure to the Dogmatist’s attempted explanation by pointing out that there is an equally good alternative explanation. Sextus himself suggests that the Eight Modes are superseded by the Five Modes (PH I 185), and like the Two Modes, Sextus does not employ them explicitly during the course of his writings.

I think these are fascinating because, contrary to conventional wisdom concerning certainty, adhering to a dogmatic ideology seems to me, more insecure than admitting ignorance. I bring ancient skepticism up because it is a contrast to dogmatism and corresponds with some of the points I will be touching on. Most importantly, I bring up skepticism because, unlike dogmatism, no one has been to war, slaughtered the innocent, or engaged in authoritarianism by withholding asset. Having a skeptical attitude, more often than not, appears to be one of the best defenses against naïve interventionism, unintended side effects of decisions, and human cost of dogmatically asserting something as true. Since this is not a post on skepticism per se, I will move on. 

Obviously, modern uses of the word "skeptic" are inspired by, rather than direct ancestors from, the ancient skeptics. The use of the word now has nothing to do with achieving the Epoche, rather it is an attitude, inspired by the ancients, that we use to withhold assent to a proposition when our standards of acceptance have not been satisfied. No one can actually be a capital "S" skeptic in the sense of the term used by the ancients. Rather, it is a process, mental model, attitude, and set of methods we use when interlocutors appear to be rushing to a conclusion or action. A task of a critical thinker is to gauge when suspension of judgement is consistent with rational and evidential principles; the key is to understand when to accept a proposition, at least tentatively, versus when the burden of proof (Burden of production and Burden of persuasion) has not met some reasonable threshold. Critical thinking is not just a skeptical attitude, but it is a necessary component of a broader skillset which includes strategizing, reflection, evaluation, analysis etc. Our objective as critical thinkers is to achieve a critical path when in a domain requiring action, reservation when presented with dichotomies, creative nuance when pressed with crude dullness, and most importantly self reflection. Doubt is not something to fear. 

Before diving into the list, I want to contrast the notion of an Axiom with Dogma. As noted in the Five Modes, we rely on assumptions to do any form of reasoning. Whether it be the assumption outlined by Hume in the problem of induction, statistical assumptions like normality of errors or independent identically distributed observations, computational hardness assumptions in computational complexity theory, closed-world assumption in knowledge representation systems, tactic assumptions in normative decision making, assumptions underpinning theoretical frameworks such as transitive preferences and utility maximization in most economic models, or literally anything else you can think of; we have to have some starting point for reasoning. In mathematical modeling, we can make explicit all of the required assumptions for some relationship or prediction to hold. We don't normally do this when it comes to dogmatic ideologies; in fact it seems most people can't even state the simple assumptions behind their ideology, they just accept blindly. Stating your assumptions is not a remedy to dogmatism; many people claim that Economists adherence to rational choice theory is a form of dogmatism, something I agree with. All I am saying is that assumptions should be understood as a distinct but adjacent notion to a dogma. Some dogmatists claim their ideologies to be axiomatic or first principles as a way to avoid refutation. Axioms are like assumptions in that they are not proved. But if you consider some of the fundamental axioms used in mathematics, you will see that they are highly more simplistic than claiming a belief system to be axiomatic. For example, in predicate calculus there is the Axiom of Equality which literally states that X=X. Or in probability calculus we have the axiom that probability is non-negative. These are so self-evident that it's hard to argue against them. But more importantly, axioms are more like rules that define and constrain the inference that can be drawn from them. This is much different than someone seeing their political ideology as axiomatic, or definitionally true. In fact, this is one of the biggest indicators of a dogmatic ideology. The more uncertain we are about some of the assumptions in our reasoning, the less confident we should be when making inferences, and therefore the more skeptical we should be. This is why Economists are deemed dogmatic; some of the assumptions in economic models are highly questionable and yet many people take them to be true, aiding decision makers on the basis of these problematic assumptions, effecting everyone within the domain of that decision makers control. More perniciously, these assumptions leak out into the broader population of people who have no experience questioning the assumptions of their favorite economic theories, creating hoards of zealous followers of Market Fundamentalism or Marxism. 

This post is particularly dedicated to those kinds of aforementioned ideologies; the types that are highly questionable, coupled with other ideological systems, and diffuse throughout the general public through mediums that make the problem worse by reducing their nuance, ultimately manifesting in their most vulgar forms, and causing untold amounts of harm. This is also dedicated to the dogmatic ideologies that cascade through societies at the grassroots level in populist movements. It is also dedicated to the dogmatic beliefs we inherit from our lack-of-critical-thinking elders in our community who see "doubt" and "questioning" as fundamentally subversive. This post is dedicated to the individuals who truly believe in a cause at the expense of everything else, the zealots who strip the humanity from others for the greater good. Lastly, it is dedicated to the dogmatic ideologies that prevent the individual from growing, exploring, and finding new solutions to their problems by people who are weak, fragile, and controlling; who always claim that it's "because they care" when really "care" is a euphemism for the fear of rejecting their dogma. 

Anyways, here's the list!

1. The ideology or belief is riddled with anti empirical theories. The theories also happen to be incredibly vaguely formed, using imprecise definitions and unclear language. 
2. The set of beliefs rest on concepts, facts, and hypotheses that are unfalsifiable. In principle, there is no standard or test by which to confirm or deny basic claims. This is obviously a problem because then there is no way to evaluate the system as a whole. 
3. The ideology rests upon pseudo-correlations and consistently produces behaviors in accordance with the alleged signs.
4. There is a strong aversion to counterexamples. If they are not immediately disregarded, there is a process of subsuming them under the ideology with minimal modification to the ideology. If this does not work, they are called "outliers", "fake facts", "contrived by the opposition", or evil.
5. There is a strong reliance on unverifiable assertions about motive. Ideologies tend to be very teleological, containing pre-loaded explanatory schemes for why an agent decided to act in a situation. If there seems to be a checklist of explanations, but they don't take into consideration case-specific information, you are likely dealing with a belief system of some sort. If the assertions are completely unverifiable, it's probably a dogma. 
6. When flaws in the ideology are pointed out, there is a tendency to attribute false equivalence to the interlocutor. This is a means of avoiding criticism, mainly because the person does not have a well thought out defense.
7. Generally, the belief is impervious to criticism by a variety of mechanisms in addition to the ones listed above; but furthermore, criticism is viewed as an attack. Someone is called "Anti - X" when X is scrutinized, equating criticism with oppression.
• Siege mentality; the idea that your group is constantly under attack, a form of Persecution complex. Sustaining this mentality requires a constant supply of enemies. There is also an implicit desire to sustain this belief.
• Dissociation from the out-group, taught to fear them perhaps (depending on the internal dynamics of the dogmatic belief system). They are responsible for all of the malevolence in the world. 
• Hereditary guilt, or guilt by association. Someone is born of group X, or associates with group X, or has any sort of affiliation with group X and respects their right to their existence, is seen to inherit all of the flaws associated with the out group.
8. The person denies, distorts, or obfuscates any critiques of their own position instead of representing alternatives in an accurate light. They may also apply this lack of charity to entire belief systems or ideologies contrary to their own. They might even introduce irrelevant points that mislead people. Perhaps they are not doing it deliberately; it might be their only mechanism to reduce cognitive dissonance.
• The person might attribute an exaggerated strawman. For example, if someone makes a moderate claim with qualifications, the person attributes a far more extreme view than expressed. 
• Anything that can fall under the label "Mischaracterization of Opponents" will land here. 
9. Overwhelming reliance on emotional appeals to to get their point across. 
• constant use of loaded language
• constantly using loaded questions to condemn opposition to guilt
• Has no authentic opinions of their own, argues from perceived authority and dismisses testimony from equally credible experts who hold contrary views. There are many ways someone can misrepresent an authority, anything related to this falls under this criteria. 
10. Demonizing the behaviors and individuals of those belonging to the group believed to be hostile to the persons ideology. Writing off the out-group as sick or evil. Reasoning in a circle; "People believe X because they are (sick, evil, twisted etc.) and they are (sick, evil, twisted etc.) because they believe X". 
• Anything related to the mischaracterization of groups falls under this category. 
11. Unjustifiably reducing nuance and complexity into a polarized characterization of the intellectual landscape. 
12. Conflates identity with the group affiliation.
• Worries about second order punishment if they express an opinion contrary to the monolith of which they belong. This includes group behaviors such as social exclusion and other forms of anti social punishment. 
• Engages in applying second order punishment to those doubting the established dogma of the group. Says they were "never a true X" (no true Scotsman) when group members diverge. 
• Ask yourself what the nature of the reward/punishment system is for diverging heterogenous thought; is it valued? 
• Is inquisitiveness punished? If doubt comes from inconsistencies, is it dismissed and redirected back to you as your flaw? Are people defensive when you genuinely ask questions? Is doubting shamed?
• When you meet someone from the out-group who is typically demonized by your in-group, instead of adjusting your belief that "all people from group X are bad", you instead say "they aren't a true X", and grant them exemption while retaining the unquestioning belief in the original proposition that they are all bad. Or you might selectively cherry-pick; any flaws in the persons character or behavior is turned against them (serving as evidence of your dogma) while the goodness is ignored, in order to alleviate your cognitive dissonance. This is a sort of repacking of someone else's behavior, they couldn't have been good, it was evil all along. You frame their actions in such a way that it was bad all along and you either just couldn't see it or they were manipulative (putting them in a no-win situation). Good behavior is evidence they are bad. As a corollary, you avoid situations that could lead to further dissonance (like hanging out with them or discussing controversial topics with them that might result in you changing your mind). In short, you don't adjust to this new information, you deny, select, avoid, and reframe. 
13. Disdain for belief revision in light of conflicting or contrary information. The group has a tendency to reaffirm this behavior, making it seem like it's correct, and in fact, the noble or righteous thing to do. 
• In the case where contra-evidence is overwhelming, ad-hoc adjustments might be made to the dogma. 
• They will cherry-pick data confirming their views and disregard any disconfirming evidence
• Anything falling under the misrepresentation of evidence falls under this umbrella. 
• Total evidence must be considered and their prior likelihoods and prior probabilities; if the belief system disregards this stage, that is a clear indication of dogma. If they assign high likelihood to prior probabilities without any justification, this is a very clear indication of dogma.
14. The ideology is dependent on a narrative structure. I don't mean this in the loose sense it is currently applied. I mean that there is a beginning, middle and end. A climax, characters, and a resolution. There is a teleology; a directedness to the belief system. All of history can be explained by this telos. Predictions occur due to this telos. Marxism, Abrahamic religions, philosophical romanticism, and even Enlightenment could all fall under this umbrella. Obviously, the degree of rigidness varies from system to system, and person to person. The structure of the narrative also determines the odds of a dogmatic devotion to the core principles.
• Are there fear mongering analogies?
• Does the ideology divide people into humans and sub-humans?
• Is there an urgent sense to act immediately or else everything will be ruined be the group demarcated as evil? 
15. What happens when beliefs are scrutinized? Is the ideology a closed system? Can new insights change the moral landscape of the belief system? 
• If you propose a change and face unreasonable backlash, its probably a dogma you are dealing with. 
• What are the "trigger words" that evoke negative emotions such as hate, anger, suspicion, or disgust? 
• The person usually cannot provide reasons for why simple words evoke such associations. 
• A good sign of dogma are sharp reactions when exposed to the existence of some perceived opposition. 
• You have reflex reactions such as guilt or anxiety at the thought of questioning certain propositions held by your ideological community.
• You automatically comply or deny.
16. The person has automatic defense mechanisms against other ideas without even knowing why or how the defenses are justified. 
• A corollary, they can't even state clearly the opposition (something I've alluded to above), and when you try to (and strawman them), you call them a "liar" for disagreeing with your characterization of them.
• A second corollary; you don't even know anyone from the group who holds opposing views. 
• A Third corollary; the mere possibility of viewing something from an alternative perspective is uncomfortable to you. 
17. The person was not reasoned into belief; it's validity rests on other foundations.
• Typically a product of generations of belief in XYZ, such that it was taken for granted and reinforced by a community who shares similar beliefs.
• They may have attended institutions that are dedicated to the belief. 
• Expected to accept propositions uncritically.
• Corollary: they have dedicated themselves to a lifelong commitment to a set of propositions. 
• Their consent was engineered (See the Engineering of Consent)
• The ideology is the result of a set of compliance techniques
• The ideology can easily be explained by the Asch Conformity Experiments; they most likely yielded to the majority
• When speaking with the person and others from the group, there is a Spiral of Silence; individually they do not seem to adhere as dogmatically to the ideology, but when placed in a group setting there is a strong tendency to exhibit and regurgitate the dogma (despite everyone, or the majority not necessarily agreeing with the extreme view). Strong indication that the ideology is very dogmatic. 
18. When faced with a decision between their in-group and out-group, they automatically select their in-group, and ad-hoc rationalize or motivationally justify the decision after the fact, even when someone in the out-group is suffering. Event at the expense of our common humanity.
19. The person engages in special pleading when someone points out inconsistencies within their ideological system. They obviously do not give this charity to their opposition or other belief systems, calling themselves "The Exception" (capitalized words purposely). 
20. The person recoils or finds "unrealistic" hypothetical thought experiments that might give more credence to their enemies, such as the Veil of Ignorance. There is no "just society" except their own. 
21. The person views debate as adversarial, something to "win". Their conversational goals are not to build partnerships or a collective pursuit of truth. They do not view listening as a better way to understand their interlocutor. Letting the other person speak feels like a "loss". They struggle to charitably represent their interlocutors position out of fear that they might be accepting that position. They cannot distinguish between stating someone else's argument versus accepting the argument. 
• All of this might be amplified by their group membership out of fear of retribution.
• Their goal is "winning" not "understanding"
• They view argument as a zero-sum game. 

I do not think this list is exhaustive or necessarily "the right" set of criteria to identify dogmatic beliefs and people. It is more of a starting point; a set of qualities that might help you understand if you are engaging with a block-head who doesn't care to assess arguments, think about possibilities, or consider that they might be wrong. But here is the thing, this category is not really a category. Not every person who appears dogmatic is polluted. We cannot assume the worst. Here are some possibilities:

1. Some people swallow the ideology completely and unquestionably
2. Some people exploit the ideology for personal gain. They don't even believe it, or find it advantageous to express belief in it. 
3. Some people are just trying to see the good side of the ideology. They might be aware of some of the dark implications of the ideology, but do not want to engage. It is a sort of wishful thinking. They think that some other authority in the ideology will be able to resolve the problems. 
4. Some people are in a process of beginning to question the ideology. Perhaps they are vulnerable. Perhaps they are confused and want immediate closure. 
5. Some have serious doubts about the ideology, but still give it a chance for other motivating factors such as fear of social exclusion, fear of loss of identity, or fear of disappointing their loved ones. They have a hard time rejecting it because they know there are plenty of good people who adhere to the ideology, and want to give it a chance. 
6. Some people have already rejected the ideology but associate with it for other reasons; such as loyalty to loved ones, financial or monetary constraints, and timing.

I think we can stop here. These are just some thoughts I've had brewing over the past couple of years dealing with dogmatic people from all over the ideological spectrum. I understand it, times are confusing. We all have lost friends because of some rigid adherence to some weird trending beliefs percolating through the information realm. It has been tough. But nevertheless, we must resist dogma and remain critical thinkers.