Dogmatic people confidently cling to their beliefs, even when experts disagree and the evidence contradicts them. New research from Case Western Reserve University may help explain the extreme perspectives - on religion, politics and more - that seem to be increasingly prevalent in society.
Two studies examine the personality characteristics that drive religious and nonreligious dogmatism. They show that there are similarities and important differences in what drives dogmatism in these two groups.
Dogmatism in society
In both groups, higher critical reasoning skills were associated with lower levels of dogmatism. But these two groups diverge on how moral concern influences their dogmatic thinking. Suggests that religious people may cling to certain beliefs, especially those that seem to disagree with analytical reasoning, because those beliefs resonate with your moral sentiments.
Emotional resonance helps religious people feel more secure: the more moral correctness they see in something, the more it affirms their thinking, "said Anthony Jack, associate professor of philosophy and co-author of the research. By contrast, moral concerns make non-religious people feel less secure.
This understanding may suggest a way to communicate effectively with the extremes. Appealing to the sense of moral concern of a religious dogmatist and the unemotional logic of an anti-religious dogmatist can increase the chances of getting a message across, or at least some consideration of them. The research was published in the Journal of Religion and Health.
Extreme positions
While greater empathy may seem desirable, empathy without restraint can be dangerous, according to the study. The terrorists, inside their bubble, believe that it is something very moral that they are doing. They believe they are correcting mistakes and protecting something sacred. In politics today, with all this talk of fake news, the Trump administration, by emotionally resonating with the people, appeals to members of its base while ignoring the facts. Trump's base includes a large percentage of self-declared religious men and women.
At the other extreme, despite organizing their lives around critical thinking, militant atheists may not have the idea of seeing anything positive about religion; they can only see that it contradicts their scientific and analytical thinking.
The studies, based on surveys of more than 900 people, also found some similarities between religious and non-religious people. In both groups, the more dogmatic are less adept at analytical thinking, and they are also less likely to look at problems from the perspective of others.
In the first study, 209 participants identified themselves as Christian, 153 as non-religious, nine Jewish, five Buddhist, four Hindu, one Muslim, and 24 another religion. Each completed tests evaluating dogmatism, empathic concern, aspects of analytical reasoning and prosocial intentions.
The results showed that religious participants generally had a higher level of dogmatism, empathic concern, and prosocial intentions, while non-religious participants performed better on the measure of analytical reasoning. The decline in empathy among the nonreligious corresponded to growing dogmatism.
The second study, which included 210 participants who identified themselves as Christian, 202 non-religious, 63 Hindus, 12 Buddhists, 11 Jews, 10 Muslims and 19 other religions, repeated many of the first but added measures of perspective taking and religious fundamentalism. .
The more rigid the individual, religious or not, he or she is less likely to consider the perspective of others. Religious fundamentalism was highly correlated with empathic concern among the religious.
Two brain networks
The researchers say the survey results further support their earlier work showing that people have two brain networks. One for empathy and one for analytical thinking, which are in tension with each other. In healthy people, their thought process alternates between the two. Choosing the right network for different problems they consider or the context in which they find themselves.
But in the mind of the religious dogmatist, the empathic network seems to dominate, while in the mind of the nonreligious dogmatist, the analytic network seems to rule. While the studies examined how differences in worldview of religious versus non-religious influence dogmatism, the research is widely applicable, say the researchers.
Dogmatism applies to any core belief, from eating habits, whether it be to being vegan, vegetarian, or omnivore. Even political opinions and beliefs about evolution and climate change. The authors hope that this and other research helps to improve the division of opinion that seems to be more and more frequent.
The dangers of dogmatism
Dogmatism has been defined as unfounded positivity in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths. Throughout history, and certainly in more recent times, we have example after example of dogmatic beliefs that result in unfortunate results.
We see it in our government, in our religion and in our relationships. When we hold dogmatic beliefs, we essentially close our minds to alternative perspectives and opinions.
Rational emotional behavior therapy suggests that irrational beliefs are dogmatic in nature, inconsistent with empirical reality, illogical, and prevent people from achieving their goals. Dogmatism gets people in trouble when they ignore evidence that doesn't support their line of thinking, when people engage in confirmatory bias (they filter out evidence that goes against one's beliefs).
The healthier alternative way of thinking is a flexible and more preferential philosophy about life. We can all have our opinions, it is when we elevate them to dogmatic demands that we find ourselves in trouble. The question we all need to ask ourselves is: "Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?" Answer the question and you will know if you are dogmatic or not!