Spot a faulty ideology

[BCEmporium]

An easy list to keep in mind each time you come across an ideology, be it political, religious or philosophical.

• A faulty ideology always present itself as the solution to everything, it's like the swiss army knife of ideologies.
• It always present ready made "solutions" for everything, never presents guidelines or principles.
• It would be paradise under that ideology, but... there's always an evil counter-part on which they blame for their ideology's poor performance.
• It requires a set of fanaticism, including death threats, violence or coercion to anyone leaving or attempting to leave the ideology
• It states people has to be compelled, often by force, to accept such ideology

This last two points are the brightest red flag on how faulty the ideology actually is. If you have a good and working ideology people will join it on their own will, you won't need to compel anyone.

A fair example of a faulty ideology is Communism.

Furthermore you get a worsen subset of faulty ideologies, let's call them "Scamlogies". Scamlogies are all of the above but are presented as the an ideology that agrees 100% with you. Obviously nobody agrees 100% even with their own father and mother, leave alone an ideology.
Currently we see that a lot in Islam, just browse some interviews of Imams speaking of Islam and thing goes like this:

Person: "I don't like slavery"
Imam: "Islam is all against slavery"
Person: "I want peace"
Imam: "Islam is all about peace"...

As result if you listen to "converts" you will see they embraced something miles away from Islam, yet call it Islam.
Basically in a scamlogy you are lured by big fat lies from someone already in it to accept such ideology.
I'm yet to understand why people does support these scams, as their members are also losing, my best guess would be like an investor who bought in some crap investment, he needs people to join his investment portfolio to add some value to it. But in this case nobody will cut the loss...

Bottom line: Beware with "one-size fits all" ideologies, they cause more trouble than fix anything! And always READ the actual doctrines and philosophical grounds of the ideology, DON'T EVER think that listen to someone is enough, it may take you a couple of hours to read a book, but save you from a lifetime hooked to bullshit.

[Spendulus]

An easy list to keep in mind each time you come across an ideology, be it political, religious or philosophical.

• A faulty ideology always present itself as the solution to everything, it's like the swiss army knife of ideologies.
• It always present ready made "solutions" for everything, never presents guidelines or principles.
• It would be paradise under that ideology, but... there's always an evil counter-part on which they blame for their ideology's poor performance.
• It requires a set of fanaticism, including death threats, violence or coercion to anyone leaving or attempting to leave the ideology
• It states people has to be compelled, often by force, to accept such ideology

This last two points are the brightest red flag on how faulty the ideology actually is. If you have a good and working ideology people will join it on their own will, you won't need to compel anyone.

A fair example of a faulty ideology is Communism.

Furthermore you get a worsen subset of faulty ideologies, let's call them "Scamlogies". Scamlogies are all of the above but are presented as the an ideology that agrees 100% with you. Obviously nobody agrees 100% even with their own father and mother, leave alone an ideology.
Currently we see that a lot in Islam, just browse some interviews of Imams speaking of Islam and thing goes like this:

Person: "I don't like slavery"
Imam: "Islam is all against slavery"
Person: "I want peace"
Imam: "Islam is all about peace"...

As result if you listen to "converts" you will see they embraced something miles away from Islam, yet call it Islam.
Basically in a scamlogy you are lured by big fat lies from someone already in it to accept such ideology.
I'm yet to understand why people does support these scams, as their members are also losing, my best guess would be like an investor who bought in some crap investment, he needs people to join his investment portfolio to add some value to it. But in this case nobody will cut the loss...

Bottom line: Beware with "one-size fits all" ideologies, they cause more trouble than fix anything! And always READ the actual doctrines and philosophical grounds of the ideology, DON'T EVER think that listen to someone is enough, it may take you a couple of hours to read a book, but save you from a lifetime hooked to bullshit.

Certainly an interesting point of view.

I suggest a clarification - not that all of these factors must be present to define a "faulty ideology" but that most of them will be present.  Similarly with "scamology".   Then I offer a historical perspective.

Many ideologies that were not sufficiently flexible to cope with a changing world have died a natural death, examples are many of the American Indian and South American religions.  However, certain ones with built in principles of adaptation have done well.  Example, Navajo.

[BCEmporium]

Good observation, however I believe that's what the #2 point refers to. Faulty ideologies can't adapt because they've "ready made solutions" which can't be moved or changed. So they always try the very same approach to deal with a problem, ignoring if the context changed.
A good ideology sets principles and guidelines, leaving a buffer to adapt to specific contexts.

Scamlogies here tries to reverse adapt; they don't fit in the planet, they try to make the planet fit in it.

[blablahblah]

Might I suggest that "faulty ideology" is a tautology?

To me it seems that ALL ideologies have a latent potential for flaws, imperfections, internal inconsistencies and so on. This is already accounted for with the word "ideology". By grouping ideas and ideals, putting them into a 'set', calling them 'Communism', 'Islam', 'Christianity', 'Zionism', 'Capitalism' and so on, we're mentally acknowledging that it's just a group of ideas inside a set, and that special exceptions might be possible.

[vokain]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/#WhaFun

The “Twin Earth” scenarios introduced by Putnam (1975) are often invoked to support an externalist individuation of beliefs about natural kinds such as water, gold, or tigers. Twin Earth, as Putnam presents it, is a (hypothetical) planet on which things look, taste, smell and feel exactly the way they do on Earth, but which have different underlying microscopic structures; for example, the stuff that fills the streams and comes out of the faucets, though it looks and tastes like water, has molecular structure XYZ rather than H2O. Many theorists find it intuitive to think that we thereby mean something different by our term ‘water’ than our Twin Earth counterparts mean by theirs, and thus that the beliefs we describe as beliefs about water are different from those that our Twin Earth counterparts would describe in the same way. Similar conclusions, they contend, can be drawn for all cases of belief (and other intentional states) regarding natural kinds.

The same problem, moreover, appears to arise for other sorts of belief as well. Tyler Burge (1979) presents cases in which it seems intuitive that a person, Oscar, and his functionally equivalent counterpart have different beliefs about various syndromes (such as arthritis) and artifacts (such as sofas) because the usage of these terms by their linguistic communities differ. For example, in Oscar's community, the term ‘arthritis’ is used as we use it, whereas in his counterpart's community ‘arthritis’ denotes inflammation of the joints and also various maladies of the thigh. Burge's contention is that even if Oscar and his counterpart both complain about the ‘arthritis’ in their thighs and make exactly the same inferences involving ‘arthritis’, they mean different things by their terms and must be regarded as having different beliefs. If these cases are convincing, then there are differences among types of intentional states that can only be captured by characterizations of these states that make reference to the practices of an individual's linguistic community. These, along with the Twin Earth cases, suggest that if functionalist theories cannot make reference to an individual's environment, then capturing the representational content of (at least some) intentional states is beyond the scope of functionalism. (See Section 4.4 for further discussion, and Searle 1980, for related arguments against “computational” theories of intentional states.)

On the other hand, the externalist individuation of intentional states may fail to capture some important psychological commonalities between ourselves and our counterparts that are relevant to the explanation of behavior. If my Twin Earth counterpart and I have both come in from a long hike, declare that we're thirsty, say “I want some water” and head to the kitchen, it seems that our behavior can be explained by citing a common desire and belief. Some theorists, therefore, have suggested that functional theories should attempt merely to capture what has been called the “narrow content” of beliefs and desires — that is, whichever representational features individuals share with their various Twin Earth counterparts. There is no consensus, however, about just how functionalist theories should treat these “narrow” representational features (Block 1986; Loar 1987), and some philosophers have expressed skepticism about whether such features should be construed as representations at all (Fodor 1994; also see entry on Narrow Content). Even if a generally acceptable account of narrow representational content can be developed, however, if the intuitions inspired by “Twin Earth” scenarios remain stable, then one must conclude that the full representational content of intentional states (and qualitative states, if they too have representational content) cannot be captured by “narrow” functional characterizations alone.

i.e., what you describe an ideology as will always be different than how another might know it, lending room for miscommuication, due to the different experiential inputs we have had that end up colouring our reality. Be thoughtful.

[BCEmporium]

No, not all ideologies are faulty. Some ideologies just deal with a small set of issues and are good doing it, like ecology. The too widen ideologies made to sort out all the evils on Earth however are usually faulty, unless they set by guidelines and principles instead of direct orders.

[Spendulus]

No, not all ideologies are faulty. Some ideologies just deal with a small set of issues and are good doing it, like ecology. The too widen ideologies made to sort out all the evils on Earth however are usually faulty, unless they set by guidelines and principles instead of direct orders.

Here's an example of a definitely faulty ideology.

http://www.kcra.com/national/teen-killed-after-goat-falls-on-him-from-roof/29027882

[username18333]

An easy list to keep in mind each time you come across an ideology, be it political, religious or philosophical.

• A faulty ideology always present itself as the solution to everything, it's like the swiss army knife of ideologies.
• It always present ready made "solutions" for everything, never presents guidelines or principles.
• It would be paradise under that ideology, but... there's always an evil counter-part on which they blame for their ideology's poor performance.
• It requires a set of fanaticism, including death threats, violence or coercion to anyone leaving or attempting to leave the ideology
• It states people has to be compelled, often by force, to accept such ideology

This last two points are the brightest red flag on how faulty the ideology actually is. If you have a good and working ideology people will join it on their own will, you won't need to compel anyone.

...

According to "th[a]t last two points," most generally accepted political ideologies are "faulty ideolog[ies]."

[Ekaros]

What if the first 3 apply to a ideology?

[Snail2]

• A faulty ideology always present itself as the solution to everything, it's like the swiss army knife of ideologies.
• It always present ready made "solutions" for everything, never presents guidelines or principles.
• It would be paradise under that ideology, but... there's always an evil counter-part on which they blame for their ideology's poor performance.
• It requires a set of fanaticism, including death threats, violence or coercion to anyone leaving or attempting to leave the ideology
• It states people has to be compelled, often by force, to accept such ideology

Well, this list above fits for practically all ideologies religions and political systems in human history. Including our very advanced western type democratic system .

[BCEmporium]

What if the first 3 apply to a ideology?

You still can leave it or move to a place where another ideology is in place.
Because an ideology to be faulty has to not let you chose. You will NEVER agree 100% to anything, it's impossible, so in that part all of ideologies are somewhat faulty if you look them that way, but if you are given a choice that makes a whole difference.

@Snail2
About modern Democracy, it doesn't fit in a single point of the list. Democracy is a hollow ideology, all it states is to let people vote. The parts you are referring to as fitting the list are the political parties that reside inside a Democracy.

[Snail2]

About modern Democracy, it doesn't fit in a single point of the list. Democracy is a hollow ideology, all it states is to let people vote. The parts you are referring to as fitting the list are the political parties that reside inside a Democracy.

Agree not really an ideology more like a framework. But:

- This framework is portrayed as the best available system and solution for almost everything.
- This framework provides ready made models (quite natural for a framework).
- This framework is portrayed as a paradise as opposed to the autocratic systems, and there are always some sort of evil antidemocratic or irresponsible economic   groups to blame for its poor performance.
- This framework handling "non compliant" elements on not a same but a similar way as any other ideology. The only differences are using legal, economic and social "violence" instead of waterboarding and "corrective hard labor". But nowadays as ppl who leaving or attempting to leave the ideology are often condemned as domestic terrorist or extremists.
- This framework "states people has to be compelled" or democracy will be exported. By force if needed...

Soooooo... I'm afraid our mighty western democratic framework isn't that far from any random rogue ideologies than it should be... or your list isn't complete yet .
Probably any human made or human propagated ideology fits to this list. I think mathematics and physics are the only good "ideologies", but not quite that amusing for the average believer/voter .

[BCEmporium]

Democracy is taken as the currently best available system by experience, itself states nowhere it is the "perfect ideology". Like Churchill said "Democracy is the worse of all systems, except for the others we know". When we get something better, we will go for it. <- this is an important statement for all ideologies, a good idea today may be a lousy one tomorrow.

Also provides no models, if the Anarchy Party wins it will be an Anarchy during its mandate, if the Fascists win it will be Fascist... the only requirement is that none of those totalitarian groups removes the limitation of their mandate to try to stay there ad eternum.

Democracy can't be exported, that's why all you've on Afghanistan or Iraq are failures. It also has high requirements about the people, or you'll end up with people voting for "God" like at Egypt or Libya.

Still, Democracy doesn't lock you in. You are free to leave at any time. Want Anarchy? Fine! Just drag your bones to Somalia and be happy. Want a "big daddy" (now chubby too) taken care of everything? Fine! Get to North Korea... Believe on delusions and want to go preach for the return of Middle Ages? Fine too, join ISIS or go to Saudi Arabia (if this is the case just make sure you don't return, please).

[username18333]

Democracy is taken as the currently best available system by experience, itself states nowhere it is the "perfect ideology". Like Churchill said "Democracy is the worse of all systems, except for the others we know". When we get something better, we will go for it. <- this is an important statement for all ideologies, a good idea today may be a lousy one tomorrow.

Also provides no models, if the Anarchy Party wins it will be an Anarchy during its mandate, if the Fascists win it will be Fascist... the only requirement is that none of those totalitarian groups removes the limitation of their mandate to try to stay there ad eternum.

Democracy can't be exported, that's why all you've on Afghanistan or Iraq are failures. It also has high requirements about the people, or you'll end up with people voting for "God" like at Egypt or Libya.

Still, Democracy doesn't lock you in. You are free to leave at any time. Want Anarchy? Fine! Just drag your bones to Somalia and be happy. Want a "big daddy" (now chubby too) taken care of everything? Fine! Get to North Korea... Believe on delusions and want to go preach for the return of Middle Ages? Fine too, join ISIS or go to Saudi Arabia (if this is the case just make sure you don't return, please).

No one seems to have "[gone] for" authoritarian anarchism, yet it is conspicuously "something better."

[DhaniBoy]

I think a perfect ideology today compared to the other ideology is the ideology of Islam, Islam as a religion and ideology, Islam is a religion falsifies previous yan, so the lack of previous religions perfected in Islam, be claimed that all religions and their ideologies the most correct, but in fact if they want to be honest, they would admit the perfection of Islamic teachings, as well as the teaching and ideology ... Hopefully ... 

[BCEmporium]

I think a perfect ideology today compared to the other ideology is the ideology of Islam, Islam as a religion and ideology, Islam is a religion falsifies previous yan, so the lack of previous religions perfected in Islam, be claimed that all religions and their ideologies the most correct, but in fact if they want to be honest, they would admit the perfection of Islamic teachings, as well as the teaching and ideology ... Hopefully ... 

If you live in the VII Century... today is a "scamlogy" and you actually said nothing to vouch for it. Your sentence lacks meaning or rational explanation.

[beetcoin]

ancaps - the ones i've met have said something along the lines of "we'll fix most of the world's problems if we get rid of government." it's not as simple as that.

[username18333]

ancaps - the ones i've met have said something along the lines of "we'll fix most of the world's problems if we get rid of government." it's not as simple as that.

Indeed, but by that anti-governance known authoritarian anarchism may one so reasonably hope for those spontaneous procession.

[Spendulus]

I think a perfect ideology today compared to the other ideology is the ideology of Islam, Islam as a religion and ideology, Islam is a religion falsifies previous yan, so the lack of previous religions perfected in Islam, be claimed that all religions and their ideologies the most correct, but in fact if they want to be honest, they would admit the perfection of Islamic teachings, as well as the teaching and ideology ... Hopefully ... 

No.