An ideology is generally defined as a collection of principles that coalesce around a central theme from which flows the guiding instructions for all its members. Populism, libertarianism, conservatism, and authoritarianism are the major ideologies. Most religions also fit into this mold. When their principles are used as the means for evaluating concepts that guide behaviors, they all regress into a narrow cult-like view that assumes they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is both a false and a dangerous premise on which to make major decisions. A second false and dangerous premise is this: “You have your opinions, and I have mine. Let’s agree to disagree.” In the marketplace of ideas, an ideologue has only assertions and untested principles masquerading as truth. In contrast, the scientific method employs facts, logic, mathematics, and all the other tools of science in support of limited, accurate, reliable, and useful conclusions. The scientific method never professes to have the truth. What stands as best answers are merely those that fail to be rejected by the best tools known to humanity. That limitation is implicit in every scientific conclusion. Science surpasses every other method known to humanity in terms of the accuracy, reliability, and usefulness of its conclusions.

An ideology may offer a point of view that is worthy of our consideration from time to time. But it is not the way to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth. There are only a pathways to better answers, also known as enlightenment. Ideologies do not seek enlightenment. More often than not, they seek some advantage over others. That advantage too often is wealth. In contrast, the scientific method is the time-honored way to seek enlightenment. It is not an ideology at all. All ideologies are closed ways of perceiving reality, whereas the scientific method is an open way to finding best answers. The scientific method begins with facts, logic, an analysis of those facts; synthesis of the results into what is already known about the subject matter, evaluation of that composite, and then to limited conclusions based on the entire investigation. The result must be as accurate, reliable, and as useful as we can state them. When we defer all that to an ideology, we are almost certainly on the road to our own extinction. An example of that clash with the prospect of extinction looming in the background exists today by the invasion of Ukraine based on faulty premises and an incompetent closed-minded warlord in Russia..

Background: I have lived most of my life under the threat of nuclear war summarized appropriately by the phrase, “mutually assured destruction” (MAD). And so has at least 90 percent of all inhabitants on Planet Earth. Our ideological adversaries were mainly a chronology of autocratic rulers in the Soviet Union, now limited to Russia and China. Long ago I was part of a network of systems designed to annihilate any adversary who would dare to attack us. I was reasonably certain that my counterpart behind the Iron Curtain believed his ideology supported his opposite world view. The dangers of the Cold War were softened somewhat by the constant reminder that MAD was just an abstract issue for philosophers to solve. My continuing task was to help forestall mutual destruction by adherence to the unquestioned notion that we were too rational on both sides of this issue to ever let it happen.

Today, my perspective on MAD has evolved into something very different: MAD is the unintended consequence of self-indulgence and greed that are resident at both extremes of capitalism and authoritarianism. Moreover, if we (humanity) do not solve this dilemma, we are almost certain to die because of it. Vladimir Putin’s bellicose rants about his potential use of nuclear weapons make this point well. Perhaps this essay will be useful in changing the conversation from one based on fear to one based on an examination of facts drawing from the methods of logic and science. We owe it to ourselves to begin that conversation.

          Corollary Facts. We live in an imperfect world with many difficult issues and too few solutions. Climate change, poverty, pandemics, and adequate health care are a few examples. Ideologies provide little toward finding solutions to any of them. They reflect old biases and old beliefs rather than an open-minded search for best answers. Reliance on such themes are therefore an appeal to ignorance. It is foolhardy to believe that the common good is served across the spectrum of any narrow belief system. In the field of management, as a mundane example, there was a time when Theory X (concern for production) was believed to be superior to Theory Y (concern for people). But after many years of struggle, we learned that Theory Z—considering both approaches—held the compromise solution that worked better than either of the two extreme beliefs. Put another way, investigation and discovery are the best way for producing any product or service. Progress means to break from the past, not to rely on it for all time.

The events in Ukraine today show us with great clarity what can happen when two economic doctrines clash that are believed to be mutually exclusive, namely, capitalism and communism. That is because the clash is not about ideologies, per se, rather it is about what is taking place at the extremities of these two doctrines. Rather than being two economic systems concerned with how scarce resources are allocated among diverse needs, both have become ideologies that show how a few participants can and do accumulate outlandish amounts of wealth at the expense of all others. Billionaires and extreme disparities of wealth within both doctrines dispute their asserted intentions. According to the Hunrun Report (2021), there were 1,143 billionaires in China and Russia, and 1,698 in 13 capitalist countries. Based on need, not one of those billionaires can defend such accumulations beyond laws and favoritism that flow from one simple word: greed.

Analysis: The 700 capitalist billionaires in the US are primarily the consequence of inheritance and tax laws. Those limited conclusions are drawn from many facts in the public domain; plus an analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of those facts; and by carefully limiting  conclusions to those that are defensible by their accuracy, reliability, and usefulness—the ultimate objectives of the scientific methods. And in further defense of the scientific method, they are as free from bias and ideologies as my pursuit of enlightenment could make them.

A similar case can be made about communism. Fortune magazine estimates Vladimir Putin’s net worth at $200 billion, despite his claim that he is limited to a $140,000 annual salary and a paltry 800 square foot apartment. His Black Sea residence, alone, is valued at $1.4 billion. Apart from the Black Sea Mansion and 19 other houses and 700 cars, Putin supposedly has a collection of aircraft and helicopters including a $716 million dollar plane called “The Flying Kremlin” that has a toilet made of gold. That is not surprising considering his taste for grandiose, neoclassical architecture.  And to keep his options open by land, air, or sea, he also has a $100-million-dollar mega-yacht designed by a nuclear submarine maker from the Russian navy.  How did he acquire all these toys? He jails members of his oligarchy, and he takes their property once they are behind bars.

Synthesis:  A similar case can be made about capitalism. Do we produce geniuses who can turn water into wine, or silicon into computers? And that explains their great wealth? No. We produce heirs to wealth that they receive untaxed and unearned. But apparently there is no limit as to how much the conservative ideology will seek to give them. And so we have developed an oligarchy and a plutocracy of incredibly wealthy offspring. A 50 year old can inherit $100 billion today, and watch it grow to $800 billion in just 30 years. That is because wealth in the form of stocks, bonds, and real estate collects dividends, interest, rents, and capital gains. All of which comes from the other 90 percent of residents who must be content with just 10 percent of our wealth. The opportunity costs (rarely mentioned by conservatives) is enormous. It appears as a lack of health care and adequate education among the inhabitants in the other 90 percent. Education and health care are the two factors with the highest pay back to society. The US is sacrificing both so that the 10 percent can grow their billions into quadrillions. Is there an insurrection looming in our near future? Yes, without a doubt. The cause is nearly certain to be greed, just like the same outcome that awaits the oligarchy in Russia. Wealth grows and compounds at approximately 7.2 percent annually. The top 10 percent today hold $125 trillion of wealth. At the same compound rate of return, the top 10 percent will hold 32 times at much, or $4 quadrillion. At that level wealth disparities also will be 32 times worse in 50 years than it is today.

Evaluation: Humanity faces extinction from many causes. Some are remote, others are a lot more certain. If we could contain and restrain our impulses to shift more and more into the hands of the few, it could change the course of history. Perhaps a mentally disturbed Russian President will activate the nuclear codes because of a trivial issue such as “stop killing innocent men, women, and children.” One simulation of the activated MAD syndrome puts the dead at 578 million. We keep backing him into a corner, while we simultaneously keep building our own dilemma of taking and taking more from the poor than they cannot sustain. It doesn’t require a genius level IQ to see that “we have met the enemy, and it is us.”

          A Scientific Study. I once conducted a scientific investigation that sought to reveal who was most susceptible to persuasion in group decision-making settings, and if that characteristic led to more or less risk-taking when confronted by issues that portended high levels of risks. The purpose was to spot this trait early and to find the fundamental cause.  

In a pilot study I gathered data on dogmatism; on “open- versus closed-mindedness”; and on “tolerance for ambiguity”, all lumped into a new characteristic that I labeled “susceptibility to persuasion.” My hypothesis was that those who met the susceptibility criteria would also be easily persuaded to change their minds when confronted by others who were open-minded and who could and would generate more and better arguments for or against a given decision when the group was forced to reach a consensus about the issue at hand.

The results were overwhelming and compelling. Open-minded persons (lacking ideologies) consistently made the best arguments toward which the closed-minded persons (with adherence to ideologies) would shift. And the fundamental factor behind open- and closed-mindedness was education levels. The higher the education level, the better were the arguments toward which the closed-minded participants shifted in virtually every setting and every situation.

My Conclusions: There is a very high correlation between open-mindedness and education levels. The worst decisions come from groups that display dogmatism, an intolerance for ambiguity, and closed-mindedness. These factors are all associated with lower education levels. Conversely, the dominant decisions are made and defended by the open-minded participants in every situation tested. Put another way, ideologues can neither articulate nor defend a narrow point of view that open-minded participants will accept. Such a decision-making gap is relatively rare in real circumstances, however, because intact groups tend to be homogeneous. Psychologists call this condition "group think."  Juries are an exception.  They are deliberately chosen to bring open-minded jurors into the mix.

In short, the pathway to best answers is not made behind closed doors and by closed-minded people, rather in sessions and circumstances that must survive and be evaluated on their merits. Education is the key to better thinking, and to better answers. And by inference, if you are ever falsely accused of a crime, you need both a smart lawyer who makes good arguments, but also open-minded jurors who can and will hold their ground against closed-minded, dogmatic jurors. From a broader perspective, education should be a right because it is most likely humanity’s best pathway to survival. But will we survive our own brain-washed motives?  Almost certainly not.