I enjoyed this recent comment on a churchless blog post from "sant64." There's valuable wisdom here. The first paragraph comes from what I said in the post.
"This makes sense in many situations. However, when it comes to solid facts, such as the reality of human-caused global warming, 'trying out different perspectives' isn't the right thing to do. In these sorts of cases, reality almost certainly is a certain way."
The proper perspective that jibes with "reality" is what? Believing that we're in the end-times because there's little hope we can reverse GW, or believing that GW is manageable and not the extinction-level event it's often characterized as? "Science" and "reality" aren't synonyms.
Unfortunately, we live in an age where many believe that scientific opinion is absolute truth. And perhaps just as many believe that scientific opinion is another term for propaganda. The best practice of mindfulness is like the best practice of science. Not looking for reasons why the party line in or outside one's head is right, but constantly observing how it is wrong.
What's being gotten at here, the way I read the comment, is that none of us, I'm pretty sure, is capable of achieving what I recall the detective on Dragnet, a TV show from my childhood (so a long time ago) was fond of saying: "Just the facts, ma'am."
Facts always are part of a certain worldview. They don't stand alone, though certainly some facts are more objectively true than others. As sant64 said, we have a party line that represents our political, religious, scientific, or other sort of leaning -- which could be called an ideology.
We like facts that support our favored ideology. We don't like facts that undermine our favored ideology. Usually. For it is possible, though rather difficult, to enjoy different perspectives, including as sant64 noted, observing how our party line or ideology is wrong.
Today I read a section in David Chapman's book about artificial intelligence, Better Without AI, that addressed the perils of ideologies. Here's some excerpts.
Ultimately, the problem is ideology as such. All ideologies are mistaken about many things, so each has to use underhanded tricks to blind you to realities that conflict with its narrative. However, with experience we've figured out how to keep the traditional ones mostly in check.
Most of the world has driven the nastier ones (absolutist religions and twentieth century totalitarianisms) to extinction. We've learned to live with the relatively benign ones, in part by stalemating them against each other.
Almost all countries now employ mixtures of the better features of socialism and capitalism. That works reasonably well, confining conflict to comparatively minor aspects.
...Everyone can examine their own relationship with ideology. Do you have an ideology? Or does an ideology have you. Do you "belong to" a political party or religious group? Maybe, if so, you are a slave, as the term implies.
Ideology's trick is to convince you that it is True and Good, in absolute senses. Therefore, any evidence that contradicts the narrative can and must be ignored or explained away. Also, therefore, you are Good to the extent that you propagate the ideology (and Bad to the extent that you question it).
Mostly, nobody wants to get free from the ideology that owns them, because it constantly assures you that you are Good, so long you keep retweeting its messages. Everyone wants that cheap method for feeling morally adequate, and wants to avoid the painful shame of violating the sacred dictates.
That doesn't sound like you, of course. Your political opinions are just common sense, well thought out, and obviously true. You are entirely rational about specific issues. Not at all like the Bad Tribe, who are mysteriously possessed by an evil brain-eating quasi-religious fanaticism. If you sometimes make strong statements online, it's because their stuff must be stopped at all costs.
I have mostly avoided naming examples of the new ideologies, because I expect a substantial fraction of readers are possessed by one or another of them. I've used QAnon as the example because I'm guessing few readers of this book are owned by it.
I suggest taking seriously the possibility that whatever ideology you are subject to appears similarly irrational and dangerous to anyone who isn't. I suggest considering what that may imply about that ideology, and about you -- not about its opponents.
The cultural assumption that everyone must "have" an ideology gives them much of their power. If you have any doubts about your ideology, you can reassure yourself that the alternatives are all vastly worse so switching is out of the question. Or, if your faith deteriorates sufficiently, you may switch after all -- and become a slave to Tweedledum rathe than Tweedledee.
You can free yourself entirely, if you realize you want to. I explain how, step by step, in "Vaster than ideology." You can turn the tables, and own ideologies instead. Many are useful for particular purposes in particular circumstances. You can recognize whatever actually is true and good in any of them.
Standing outside and above all ideologies, you can even see why so many adopt QAnon and sympathize. The current American ruling elites, both left and right, are pervasively mendacious, corrupt, self-serving, incompetent, and entrenched. They do need replacement.
...The longer-run solution is broad cultural understanding that being a slave to any ideology is bad for you and everyone else. This observation is startlingly rare; nearly everyone assumes that you must belong to one.
However, it's obvious once pointed out. Most people are also tired of ideological conflict, and understand that it's destructive; yet persist because the alternative seems to be surrendering to the Bad Tribe. I am optimistic that anti-ideological understanding could spread rapidly once it gets going.