I’ve heard a similar theory, only it was called ideological versus scientific. The first are driven by slogans and emotions, the latter are logic and data-driven.
All three of us appear to be in the scientific, skeptical, questioning group, while progressives are in the ideological, emotional group, where failure to accept slogans as dogma is a personal attack on their belief system. Science is about abandoning or amending a theory if the data doesn’t fit. Ideology is about hiding or disputing the data if it doesn’t fit the theory. The standard methodology includes denial, ad hominem attack, claims the data has been refuted, and guilt by association:
- Dr Smith once worked for a mining company, so nothing he says about Global warming can be believed!
- Hitler never said that “We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system”, it’s a quote from Gregor Strasser! (The truth is that Hitler did use Strasser’s words and did say them)
- If you don’t believe women are oppressed by the Patriarchy, you are a misogynist!
- Trump was supported by the KKK which proves he’s antisemitic!
- Trump recognised Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel which proves he is a Nazi!
By default the arguments of the left ideological group are emotional, and devoid of supporting data. If pushed, they will recite a slogan as “proof”. “Climate Change is the greatest moral challenge of our generation.” Why do they think that, when they do not understand the science of climate change, and wouldn’t know a moral challenge if it jumped out and bit them?
“Oh, you must be a Denier!, Racist!, Homophobe!, Nazi!” is their answer to everything.