What I'm wondering here, is how does compartmentalization occur, also? — Posty McPostface

Does one build the compartments or does one merely fail to build the generalised coherence?

The white nationalist would seem to be the standard thing of back-filling a justification for your actions or attitudes by constructing some story. So you inherit a prejudice from your social context and then explain it whatever way you can get away with.

It is like setting up a small defensive encampment wherever you find yourself with whatever is at hand. Bricolage.

The tougher thing would be to be completely systematic in your thinking - to assimilate everything to a thought-through universal structure.

So it is not that people have to construct a lack of coherent connections. They just get away with not having to live life according to a generally coherent philosophical position.

Does one build the compartments or does one merely fail to build the generalised coherence? — apokrisis

I don't know. Interesting questions though.

The tougher thing would be to be completely systematic in your thinking - to assimilate everything to a thought-through universal structure. — apokrisis

Yes, how do you achieve that systematic whole without having to resort to the compartmentalization of concepts or things?

So it is not that people have to construct a lack of coherent connections. They just get away with not having to live life according to a generally coherent philosophical position. — apokrisis

So, you think it's a matter of performative utility to resort to compartmentalizations of concepts or things?

Whenever we talk about subjects the process of compartmentalization seems to take place. We cannot comprehend the totality of some subject in relation to ourselves. We use, "I, me, you, he, she, it."

An interesting failure of compartmentalization is found in the sentence:

It is raining.

Where is the subject in that sentence?

So, you think it's a matter of performative utility to resort to compartmentalizations of concepts or things? — Posty McPostface

Not sure that you got my point. People don't build a city if they only mean to camp the night.

Was your OP describing someone who had systematically compartmentalised their rationalisations so as to avoid the logical inconsistencies involved? That would take a lot of prior work.

Or did they camp on the edge of a pleasant stream and wake the next morning to find it had become a swamping flood? Was there never a compartment and only a hurried packing up the prejudices to go enjoy them somewhere else less challenging?

Folk who don't like their inconsistencies being fingered just tend to check out because they were never trying to defend some larger coherent territory anyway. Being comfortable is the first priority.

Was your OP describing someone who had systematically compartmentalised their rationalisations so as to avoid the logical inconsistencies involved? That would take a lot of prior work. — apokrisis

Is that even possible, is what I'm asking? Can you check to see if you're beliefs are inconsistent with reality? Am, I just talking about scientism here?

Or did they camp on the edge of a pleasant stream and wake the next morning to find it had become a swamping flood? — apokrisis

In the case of the white nationalist, I think it was just a matter of prejudice getting in the way of reality. His beliefs are simply at odds with the majority of people, and hence his mind is compartmentalized in such a way that it shows when talking about slavery or races.

Folk who don't like their inconsistencies being fingered just tend to check out because they were never trying to defend some larger coherent territory anyway. Being comfortable is the first priority. — apokrisis

So, it's a matter of inconsistencies? In respect to what a compartmentalized mind is inconsistent towards? The world, reality, truth?

His beliefs are simply at odds with the majority of people, and hence his mind is compartmentalized in such a way that it shows when talking about slavery or races. — Posty McPostface

Surely his beliefs are those of the majority with whom he mixes? That's why compartmentalisation hasn't been much needed as a psychic defence.

Not sure about that. It could be bias.

That racist guy is just stupid, by choice (he's blinded himself to the truth). His inability to answer the question proves he doesn't have that compartment. If he truly believed (instead of just wishing) that white people were superior to black people (or other races) then it would have been somewhat convincing towards a case of compartmentalisation.

Surely his beliefs are those of the majority with whom he mixes? That's why compartmentalisation hasn't been much needed as a psychic defence. — apokrisis

Yes. It's more a case of shared stupidity.

It could be bias. — Posty McPostface

It is (personal bias).

I see compartments as constructs with deep-rooted ties of logic (reasonable associations, but according to the person's capacity to reason) and meaning extracted from experience; every compartment with its history of experiences attached to it, whether real (actual) or fabricated (delusional).

Also, from my perspective, it is not compartmentalisation if the 'compartments' do not relate to each other logically. If the person, when focused in one compartment, is not (or cannot be) aware of the others, consciously to some degree, then, it's insanity (an impairment of the mind).

For me, compartmentalisation is, 'when in rome do as the romans do'. It is a distinctive language for each person, occasion or circumstance; not something a serial killer would have to prevent him from coming to terms with his depravity. Even the latter is a kind of compartmentalisation, but it's a coping mechanism born from reaction or response to an impairment (disease) of the mind (as a way to preserve decency, normalcy, right-perspective, etc). It implies an innate awareness of the presence of the disease.

hat racist guy is just stupid, by choice (he's blinded himself to the truth). — BrianW

So, it is the truth that is being suppressed here? The truth of what exactly? That he's a bigoted racist?

His inability to answer the question proves he doesn't have that compartment. — BrianW

Compartment of what?

If he truly believed (instead of just wishing) that white people were superior to black people (or other races) then it would have been somewhat convincing towards a case of compartmentalisation. — BrianW

I think no cognitive dissonance occurred in his mind. It seems to be straight up compartmentalization of some kind.

I see compartments as constructs with deep-rooted ties of logic (reasonable associations, but according to the person's capacity to reason) and meaning extracted from experience; every compartment with its history of experiences attached to it, whether real (actual) or fabricated (delusional). — BrianW

Sounds about right. I don't think compartmentalization only serves as a defense mechanism. It could be implemented in different sorts of situations also.

Also, from my perspective, it is not compartmentalisation if the 'compartments' do not relate to each other logically. — BrianW

That's where we differ. I think in the case of the white nationalist, some compartmentalization accords or (in this case) is in discord with one's perception of oneself. It's just that he doesn't experience cognitive dissonance due to the level of compartmentalization taking place in his mind.

If the person, when focused in one compartment, is not (or cannot be) aware of the others, consciously to some degree, then, it's insanity (an impairment of the mind). — BrianW

Interesting that you put it that way. Typically, insanity or psychosis of some form results in the abberation of compartmentalizations that one has. Every-thing becomes endowed with significance or meaning.

For me, compartmentalisation is, 'when in rome do as the romans do'. It is a distinctive language for each person, occasion or circumstance; not something a serial killer would have to prevent him from coming to terms with his depravity. Even the latter is a kind of compartmentalisation, but it's a coping mechanism born from reaction or response to an impairment (disease) of the mind (as a way to preserve decency, normalcy, right-perspective, etc). It implies an innate awareness of the presence of the disease. — BrianW

What is that disease?

The truth of what exactly? That he's a bigoted racist? — Posty McPostface

The truth that his racist perspective is not born of reason and has not yet settled as a component of belief.

Compartment of what? — Posty McPostface

The compartment which would characterize his perspective as something he believes in. Even people who believe in what they cannot prove know in what form their beliefs exist in and usually have no problem expressing them even in their own words. That guy's silence tells otherwise.

What is that disease? — Posty McPostface

Serial killer = psychopathy, perhaps.