Why do people have trouble distinguishing between disliking an idea, and disliking the person who has that idea?

This has puzzled me for years. We’ve had many challenges here discussing theism because there are many people who feel that criticism of a particular belief is an attack on those that hold that belief.

My guess is that two things are going on:

1. People identify with their beliefs or ideas in a way that makes critical analysis impossible without feeling some real pain.

2. There is a strong desire among many people to want to avoid hurting people. This is a good thing. But one byproduct of this has been the dangerous notion that a priority when determining truth and discussing ideas is to set strict limits as to not offend.

In #1, you have people claiming that their ideas are off the table and should just be respected. In #2, you have people asserting that while person #1’s beliefs may not be justified, we must respect their ideas.

But in both cases, they are missing the point. We can believe an idea to be incorrect and vile, yet love and respect the person holding those ideas or beliefs.

It seems a worthwhile exercise to see how fixed we are in our own views. I have found that criticism of ideas that I hold to be important will sometimes cause physical and emotional discomfort. This is exactly where each of us should be turning. We should investigate what the nature of this reaction is and see if we are identifying with ideas and beliefs.

A great deal of effort is required to separate people from their ideas, and there are often legitimate reasons for questioning the motives of those advocating repugnant policies.

I think @hominid makes a good point stating that People identify with their beliefs and ideas…” and in doing so, make the assumption that others are/do the same. Making this assumption intertwines the idea with the person into a single entity, a kind of “you are what you think” personification. By doing this it becomes all to easy to see the idea and person as one in the same. If you don’t like one then obviously you don’t like the other.

Usually not. I know a lot of people who have ideas I don’t agree with and they are still my friends. I still repsect them amd I think they respect me. I think it matters how many things it is. If everything they think is contra to what I think it becomes more difficult to separate the person from their ideas. If we just disagree on certain topics then it doesn’t matter and can make for a good debate or learning opportunity.

Identity is bound by beliefs. I live in a rural community where most people are very conservative and firm believers in the irrefutability of the bible. Despite our very different perspectives I have found most people here to be good, honest and caring. Knowing that my political and religious beliefs would be met with disdain, if not open hostility, I avoid discussing them.

You can’t really separate a person and their ideas. Identity is itself a cluster of ideas. True, some of these ideas are more deep-seated than others, but you would have a very hard time sorting out which constitute a core identity and which are just temporary adhesions. In other words, you couldn’t start peeling away ideas and expect to eventually arrive at some fixed core of personhood that isn’t an idea.

This is why people identify with their ideas; they really are structural to their identity. When ideas change, identity changes. Because we prefer to think of ourselves as something more stable, solid and persistent, we resist fiddling with a set of ideas that we have become familiar and comfortable with. We prefer not to call them into question, and resent it when others do so.

It’s a simple trick, discredit the person and you discredit the idea. The most common is with ridicule. Saul Alinski published his ‘Rules for Radicals’ in 1971 and they are still pertinent today. His rule #5 says it all:

”* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)”

Because people are stupid.

It depends on the idea and the person.

If someone says “Obama is a communist Muslim,” that tells you a) his idea is ridiculous and b) the person saying it is an idiot.

For me, it comes to what the person is doing with their idea that I don’t agree with. If we are just talking about the issue, no big deal. If someone is pushing their idea in a way that would limit my life in some way, I have a problem with that and may come to dislike them because of it. It’s not because they have the idea they have, but that they want to change my life because of their idea.

Following on what @thorninmud said, some ideas are so fundamentally repugnant to me that I cannot separate them from the person who holds them. And I don’t think it’s necessary that I do.

Blind superiority complexes.

Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own actions and ideas—whether their ideas are original, or adopted. If someone, for example, thinks that it is OK to marginalize minorities in their society, I consider that person a personal enemy, because it won’t be long before they find a reason to come after me. I take chauvinism of any kind personally, because it knows no bounds and is the philosophy of bullies. And I don’t separate a bully from his or her philosophy—their philosophy or political beliefs are only vehicles for them to use in order to give their bullying a veilance legitimacy. I don’t buy it, and I usually let them know beyond any doubt that I don’t buy it.

I don’t separate radical Neo-cons or the American version of Libertarian, or Tea Party sympathizers from their political ideas because, as far as I’m concerned, only one kind of person is attracted to such ideas, and that is a sociopath. I also think that anyone who doesn’t take an aggressive attitude toward these assholes is a damn fool and quickly becomes their bitch.

I have no idea. This problem has been the cause of most of the strife I’ve witnessed on Fluther. All of it pointless.

I think @thorninmud has it covered as far as the surface question goes. But we should note that there are also plenty of people who don’t seem to be able to separate their criticisms of an idea (or a way of living) from the people who hold that idea (or live that way). It’s one thing to argue that an idea is false. It’s another to say that only an idiot would hold it. The latter clearly insults all those who do hold it. Similarly, it’s one thing to dislike a particular way of life. It’s another to say that way of life is meaningless, pathetic, or otherwise deficient. That would again be to insult all those who choose to live that way (and apparently on nothing more than the grounds that you would prefer not to do so).

Now, it may be the case that sometimes we have no choice but to go into the more personal aspects of belief and lifestyle. In the case of at least some moral and political beliefs, for instance, it may be quite difficult to separate falsity from repugnance. If someone were to come on here and defend their practice of torturing infants, we could not explain to them that they are mistaken (factually wrong) without also accusing them—even if only implicitly—of being bad (morally wrong). There is no separating the believer from what is believed in this case, and so we must accept that we are attacking the person in attacking the practice. But that we must do so in such a case is no reason to ignore the fact that we are doing so.

I agree that it is the belief that ones beliefs are WHO they ARE. Therefore any disagreement is taken personally, rather than objectively. What I find even more amazing is the massive amount of unconscious projection I often witness. Just this week I have had a person complaining about a family member, and everything they say is exactly what they, themselves do! haha

Bottom line, unless someone has done some serious personal growth work they haven’t a snowballs chance in hell of EVER becoming enlightened enough to SEE when their egos are about to launch like a rocket over perceived threat.
Even those that have done a lot of work will still catch themselves toppling over the mountain, but without a modicum of self awareness that snowball is going to become an avalanche in no time. lol

@thorninmud and others equating ideas with identity:

I can see this point, and to some extent I agree, but the implication is that we should adopt a more fluid concept of identity, not that the ideas should be held on to. For example if it were able to be proved to me that my belief in an idea is misplaced, then being a rational person I should wish to change my belief to something more appropriate. In this process my identity changes somewhat, but it is a change for the better, since I have improved my memeplex.

Taking the expression of dislike of an idea to be an ad hominem attack makes no sense, unless the person has no desire for self-improvement, or a delusion of infallibility.

@FireMadeFlesh if people were wholly rational, recognition of their irrational beliefs and rejecting them would be easy. However, emotional attachments to beliefs unconsciously inclines an individual to reject evidence that produces perturbation. People confronted by conflicting beliefs feel threatened and will often defend their position but denigrating those who oppose it. This is especially true for adults who have such beliefs inculcated since childhood and supported by their community all their life.

@FireMadeFlesh “the implication is that we should adopt a more fluid concept of identity, not that the ideas should be held on to”

Yes, definitely. You know, building a coherent worldview is a hell of a lot of work, and people are pretty lazy. One result of this laziness is that we tend to adopt worldviews that have already been road-tested by others and come equipped with supporting arguments and authoritative endorsement, etc. They inspire enough confidence that we feel safe incorporating them into the complex of ideas that forms our identity.

So suppose someone comes along and calls an element of your worldview into question. . Well, your first reflex is likely to haul out the supporting arguments that came along with this worldview. Your goal in doing this is not necessarily to get at the truth of the matter. It’s to neutralize the challenge. Why? Because revising that one element of your worldview will likely have repercussions on the integrity of your whole worldview, how well it all fits together, and thus on the integrity of your identity. Lots of repair work would have to be done, perhaps a complete overhaul. That’s a shitload of work, but also what does that mean about your identity? It’s all very subversive to the cherished notion of a stable, coherent self.

Much easier and more comfortable to just repel the challenge

It is interrelated. Ideas come from a mind, mind comes from the brain and brain comes from genes – the building blocks.

Whether the idea is one’s own or adopted, it is an expression and a representation of the physical will. If one’s ideas are garbage then the all encompassing person is garbage.

Genes are a starting point for the development of the physical self. The environment of the womb had a significant effect upon which genes are expressed and which are repressed. After birth, genes’ expressions are centered on the infant’s survival, directing its behaviors to elicit care giving by others. This dynamic pairs the self-serving instincts of offspring with altruistic instincts of parents and is common to most if not all animals.

Primal instincts of humans develop into more complex behaviors. Survival and munificence can be extended to family, clan and larger collectives. An individual’s mentally evolves from narcissism to magnanimity as they become increasingly consciousness of others and this awareness is added to their sense of identity. Sadly, a society’s sense of identity seems focused on their survival at the expense of other societies. Political and religious indoctrination reinforces self-serving over other-serving.

^^ !