TRANSLATE THIS ARTICLE

Integral World: Exploring Theories of Everything

An independent forum for a critical discussion of the integral philosophy of Ken Wilber

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY FRANK VISSER

NOTE: This essay contains AI-generated content
Check out my other conversations with ChatGPT

Mirrors of Bias: Dillard, Visser, and Ukraine

How narrative, identity, and cognitive patterns shape both sides of the debate

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Why It Is So Hard to Convince Dillard He Is Wrong About Ukraine

The difficulty in persuading Dillard is not primarily a matter of missing information or inadequate argumentation. It is structural, psychological, and identity-based. Ukraine functions for him less as a geopolitical case study than as a symbolic linchpin within a pre-established worldview. Several interlocking dynamics make revision of that worldview highly unlikely.

1. Narrative capture rather than argument

Dillard reasons within a grand narrative in which the West is the principal aggressor, NATO is an imperial expansionist project, and Russia�s actions are framed as reactive or defensive. Once events are absorbed into such a narrative, facts are no longer evaluated on their own merits but filtered for narrative compatibility. Disconfirming evidence is not refuting; it is reclassified as propaganda, distortion, or omission. This is not inquiry leading to conclusions, but conclusions governing inquiry.

2. Moral inversion as a stabilizing device

A defining feature of his position is moral inversion: Russia, the materially stronger actor, is treated as the victim, while Ukraine, the invaded state, is framed as an aggressor or proxy. This inversion allows for moral self-consistency—opposition to empire, resistance to fascism, solidarity with the oppressed. Abandoning this framing would require acknowledging that these moral intuitions have been systematically misapplied in a major historical case.

3. Identity investment and reputational lock-in

Dillard has written extensively and publicly about Ukraine. At that point, the issue is no longer merely cognitive; it becomes existential. Reversal would not just be an admission of error but an implicit disavowal of a substantial body of work and the authority with which it was presented. The sunk-cost effect here is severe, and human beings rarely revise positions under such reputational pressure.

4. Conflation of explanation with justification

Legitimate contextual factors—NATO expansion, post�Cold War Western hubris, broken expectations—are repeatedly treated not as explanatory background but as moral exculpation. Describing why Russia feels threatened slides into excusing what Russia does. This rhetorical move dissolves the distinction between causal analysis and ethical evaluation, insulating Russian actions from normative critique.

5. Binary, Cold War cognitive framing

Despite an explicitly post-conventional self-image, Dillard�s geopolitical reasoning is strikingly bipolar: empire versus resistance, fascism versus anti-fascism, propaganda versus truth. Ukraine�s complexity—its internal pluralism, corruption, agency, and contradictions—does not survive well in such a frame. Complexity destabilizes binaries; therefore it is minimized, bracketed, or ignored.

6. Motivated skepticism and asymmetric epistemology

Evidence unfavorable to Russia is treated with hyper-skepticism, while Russian or Russia-aligned sources are granted generous epistemic latitude. This asymmetry is not accidental but motivated. Once trust in evidence is allocated ideologically rather than methodologically, rational debate becomes impossible because there is no shared evidentiary baseline.

7. Ironically: the fallacy expert who commits fallacies

Here the irony is especially sharp. Dillard has written at length about logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and the failures of reasoning in public discourse. Yet in the Ukraine debate, he commits many of the very errors he has meticulously catalogued: Straw man fallacies, by reducing mainstream positions to crude caricatures (�NATO forced Russia�s hand,� �Ukraine is just a Western pawn�). False dilemmas, presenting the conflict as a binary choice between endorsing Western imperialism or defending Russia�s actions. Whataboutism, deflecting from Russian agency by endlessly invoking Western sins as if moral comparison erased moral responsibility. Special pleading, demanding absolute evidentiary standards for claims about Russian atrocities while accepting Russian narratives on far weaker grounds. Causal fallacies, mistaking contributing conditions for sufficient causes, thereby absolving the primary actor of responsibility. This is not ignorance of fallacies but motivated deployment of them. Knowledge of logic does not immunize against self-deception; in some cases, it merely supplies more sophisticated tools for rationalization. Dillard�s analytical skills, honed elsewhere, are here subordinated to ideological and moral commitments.

8. The Chamberlain pattern

As you suggested, there is a Chamberlain-like dynamic at work: the belief that recognizing Russia�s �legitimate security concerns� would have prevented war. This retroactive counterfactual supports a narrative in which Western failure, rather than Russian imperial ambition, is the decisive moral cause. Acknowledging the latter would collapse the former, and with it the moral economy of his position.

9. The paradox of the committed contrarian

Finally, there is the paradox of the self-styled anti-mainstream thinker. Long-term opposition to dominant narratives can harden into a counter-orthodoxy just as rigid as the one it resists. When dissent becomes identity, conceding that the mainstream might be right in a particular case feels like betrayal rather than correction.

Epilogue: The Mirror of Bias

It is worth noting that the dynamics outlined above are not unique to Dillard. Frank Visser�s pro-Ukraine positions, while opposed to Dillard�s, are also embedded in narrative, moral, and identity frameworks. Visser interprets facts through a lens that privileges Ukrainian sovereignty and the moral clarity of resisting invasion. He too can exhibit selective attention, motivated reasoning, and rhetorical framing that reinforces a pre-existing worldview. In other words, the same structural mechanisms—narrative capture, binary moral framing, and epistemic asymmetry—apply symmetrically. Recognition of these patterns is crucial for moving beyond partisanship toward genuinely critical analysis, whether one leans toward Russia or Ukraine.

Conclusion

You are not debating isolated claims that can be overturned by better data or tighter logic. You are confronting a worldview in which Ukraine is a keystone. Remove it, and much else destabilizes: moral self-image, intellectual authority, and long-standing ideological commitments. Under such conditions, persuasion is unlikely. The most realistic objective is not conversion, but clarification—making the structure of the argument, and its failures, visible to others and to oneself.

Comment Form is loading comments...