Study shows people with extremist views ‘have poorer working memory and slower "perceptual strategies”’.

[thujone]

This seems a bit... extreme. I can't say I've ever once wanted to send conservatives to camps to be sterilized.

I'm sure there were members of the sans-culottes who thought beheading people was extreme, but the Reign of Terror happened regardless.

 

[MsDiz]

This seems a bit... extreme. I can't say I've ever once wanted to send conservatives to camps to be sterilized.

Yes, it does, hence my “I can see now” comment.

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Deru said:
This seems a bit... extreme. I can't say I've ever once wanted to send conservatives to camps to be sterilized.

This part looks extreme, however I believe the part about the Uighurs because my wife works with a woman who was born in that region of China and is Uighur. She is the only one out of their family who escaped from the re-education camps when she was young.

 

[December Flower]

The scary thing is that I actually believe many Western liberals are perfectly OK with sending conservatives to camps to be sterilized, especially given how convinced many seem to be that Trump was decidedly evil and likewise anyone who voted for him was a Nazi.

It's OK to kill evil Nazis, isn't it? I mean, only the really evil ones are going to be sterilized, most are just going to get re-educated rehabilitated, right?

You know, growing up as a German, one tries to find solace in the fact that despite all the pain, horror and death we have caused, nobody will ever do that again. If all that pain we caused doesn't even stop people from the Allied Forces from thinking like that, ..the fuck did your forefathers die for then?

This makes me fucking sad, I hope you're wrong.

 

[novaveritas]

You can jump down any number of rabbit holes along this trajectory starting from the Wikipedia entry for eugenics.

Or, you could just look directly at what's happening in China right now with the Uighurs. This is only just now starting to be condemned in the West as an ongoing genocide (IIRC it was Amnesty International that uncovered forced sterilization is occurring).

China's official justification is that the "vocational training centers" exist to combat extremism.

I'd wager you could even take this Guardian article, replace every instance of politically conservative with Uighur and end up with something that comes hazardously close to sounding like CCP's official justification for locking Uighurs up in camps.

The scary thing is that I actually believe many Western liberals are perfectly OK with sending conservatives to camps to be sterilized, especially given how convinced many seem to be that Trump was decidedly evil and likewise anyone who voted for him was a Nazi.

It's OK to kill evil Nazis, isn't it? I mean, only the really evil ones are going to be sterilized, most are just going to get re-educated rehabilitated, right?

alternative take is that the Chinese CCP decided that shutting down the Saudi and USA sponsored Islamist BS that had sprung up in Xinjiang was what had to happen. nothing good happens by allowing wahhabi or salafist headchopper bullshit get a foothold. There is a flavor of moderate Islam in western china, and it has a long history of being tolerated by the atheist CCP. Fundamentalist Islam not so much.

China could see that the USA were using their proxy Saudi to stir up ethnic division using Islam as a weapon to brealk the BRI. Islam is easy to weoponize just like they had done to Russia in Chechnya and in the stans.

I am not sure which is worse, a bunch of communist zealots or islamic fundementalists, I say that as someone who has a deep respect for moderate Islam.

 

[thegreenhand]

Quite frankly, after having worked in a psychology lab mysel, I often approach these sorts of things with doubt. For one, there is a huge reproducibility problem in psychology

But what really piques my interests is that in the methodd section of this journal article the sheer amount of “data analysis” they did. While I can’t say for sure if they have a statistician on their team, I am always skeptical of psychology papers, since the filed tends to have a propensity for bad stats.

im not a statistician myself, but having worked with psychologists - most of them aren’t either.

 

[novaveritas]

Quite frankly, after having worked in a psychology lab mysel, I often approach these sorts of things with doubt. For one, there is a huge reproducibility problem in psychology

But what really piques my interests is that in the methodd section of this journal article the sheer amount of “data analysis” they did. While I can’t say for sure if they have a statistician on their team, I am always skeptical of psychology papers, since the filed tends to have a propensity for bad stats.

im not a statistician myself, but having worked with psychologists - most of them aren’t either.

lack of reproducibility in psychology and sociology is infamous and notorious, a cynic would say that psychology is a pseudoscience hiding behind fisher p vaues.

yeah 50 odd out of 100 unreproduceble what is the p value of that? but you get a bunch of psychologists re-examining it and it is all great..who would have thought is eh. I stand with Nosek, Soft science with stats giving a pseudo veneer of respectability fuck em weak science with no power. psychology is not a science.

Psychology’s reproducibility problem is exaggerated – say psychologists - Nature

Reanalysis of last year's enormous replication study argues that there is no need to be so pessimistic.

www.nature.com

 

[Zephyn]

phineas-philes/cayman-english.md at master · Alekseyyy/phineas-philes

mirroring the zines of phineas fisher. Contribute to Alekseyyy/phineas-philes development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

These people seem pretty smart

 

[Burnt Offerings]

alternative take is that the Chinese CCP decided that shutting down the Saudi and USA sponsored Islamist BS that had sprung up in Xinjiang was what had to happen. nothing good happens by allowing wahhabi or salafist headchopper bullshit get a foothold. There is a flavor of moderate Islam in western china, and it has a long history of being tolerated by the atheist CCP. Fundamentalist Islam not so much.

China could see that the USA were using their proxy Saudi to stir up ethnic division using Islam as a weapon to brealk the BRI. Islam is easy to weoponize just like they had done to Russia in Chechnya and in the stans.

I am not sure which is worse, a bunch of communist zealots or islamic fundementalists, I say that as someone who has a deep respect for moderate Islam.

All that seemed like just a useful pretense for em. Not to say that the threat (of salafi jihadist extremism) wasn't there on some level, just that I think that it was overblown for propaganda reasons by China

Don't know where you're from, but trust me as an American when I tell you that a "war on terror" is often convenient ideological cover for all kinds of atrocities and human rights abuses

 

[MsDiz]

Quite frankly, after having worked in a psychology lab mysel, I often approach these sorts of things with doubt. For one, there is a huge reproducibility problem in psychology

But what really piques my interests is that in the methodd section of this journal article the sheer amount of “data analysis” they did. While I can’t say for sure if they have a statistician on their team, I am always skeptical of psychology papers, since the filed tends to have a propensity for bad stats.

im not a statistician myself, but having worked with psychologists - most of them aren’t either.

Yes but do you realise why they did data analysis like this? It was to reduce bias from team members. They wanted “the data to speak” rather then have any bias in the study. I was kinda impressed tbh, that’s a lot of work and there’s no way I’d choose that method.

 

[thegreenhand]

Yes but do you realise why they did data analysis like this? It was to reduce bias from team members. They wanted “the data to speak” rather then have any bias in the study. I was kinda impressed tbh, that’s a lot of work and there’s no way I’d choose that method.

Yes I understand that, I’m just saying that it can be very easy to be misled by statistics. And psychology as field tends to be one of the worst offenders of bad statistics. Tbh I guess I don’t necessarily a have a bone to pick with this specific paper but I am always cautious around bold claims that psych papers often make.

 

[MsDiz]

Yes I understand that, I’m just saying that it can be very easy to be misled by statistics. And psychology as field tends to be one of the worst offenders of bad statistics. Tbh I guess I don’t necessarily a have a bone to pick with this specific paper but I am always cautious around bold claims that psych papers often make.

I understand what you’re saying and you are right there is an issue with a lot of studies in regards to the interpretation of data.

 

[thegreenhand]

I understand what you’re saying and you are right there is an issue with a lot of studies in regards to the interpretation of data.

Yeah maybe I’m just a pessimist lol

It seems like every few weeks some new psychology paper comes out saying how certain groups of people have worse cognitive function. To which I would say, “define cognitive function” and then as a follow up “how do you accurately measure it”

mechanical Turk surveys are not what I would call very reliable measures. I had to take an intro psychology class last year and part of our grade for the class was that we had to participate in a number of the studies that the university’s psych department was conducting. Personally, I was falling asleep through most of them (esp the “cognitive tasks“) and on the belief surveys I felt I didn’t have choices that allowed me to relay what I actually think. Not to mention the problems with conducting research purely on undergrad students (I.e. generally wealthier and more educated). Mechanical Turk (as this study used) isn’t exactly a representative population either

 

[MsDiz]

Yeah maybe I’m just a pessimist lol

It seems like every few weeks some new psychology paper comes out saying how certain groups of people have worse cognitive function. To which I would say, “define cognitive function” and then as a follow up “how do you accurately measure it”

mechanical Turk surveys are not what I would call very reliable measures. I had to take an intro psychology class last year and part of our grade for the class was that we had to participate in a number of the studies that the university’s psych department was conducting. Personally, I was falling asleep through most of them (esp the “cognitive tasks“) and on the belief surveys I felt I didn’t have choices that allowed me to relay what I actually think. Not to mention the problems with conducting research purely on undergrad students (I.e. generally wealthier and more educated). Mechanical Turk (as this study used) isn’t exactly a representative population either

I get you.

Have you ever emailed the researchers for studies you have queries about? I would encourage you to do so if you have questions such as “define cognitive function”. They should be more than happy to reply to you with at least some sort of answer.

I have done psychology and was into my doctorate when I left so I have good knowledge in that area. I currently don’t have to apply that at my work (I am a researcher but it’s lab stuff with rodent studies) but I should be able to apply it doing my doctorate now, I’m doing pharmacogenomics.

I meant to say, so I get your frustration with those studies at uni. I went through the same and I used to write a good few paragraphs on the comments section when finished with the issues I found within the studies. It’s a learning experience and it’s always good to share your experience even if it’s a bad one.

 

[Bagseed]

Extremism is any position that is either far left or right with respect to any current centrist value.

I dunno... I personally view extremists as people who will use extreme measures to further their political goal, ie terrorism, violence, or approve the use of such measures even if they might not do it themselves. What you are describing is radicalism in my opinion, which is not mutually exclusive to extremism of course, especially on the far right (I believe). I would think some of my political believes are radically left, but I would not view myself as an extremist because I am against the use of violence to further my agenda.

 

[thegreenhand]

I get you.

Have you ever emailed the researchers for studies you have queries about? I would encourage you to do so if you have questions such as “define cognitive function”. They should be more than happy to reply to you with at least some sort of answer.

I have done psychology and was into my doctorate when I left so I have good knowledge in that area. I currently don’t have to apply that at my work (I am a researcher but it’s lab stuff with rodent studies) but I should be able to apply it doing my doctorate now, I’m doing pharmacogenomics.

I meant to say, so I get your frustration with those studies at uni. I went through the same and I used to write a good few paragraphs on the comments section when finished with the issues I found within the studies. It’s a learning experience and it’s always good to share your experience even if it’s a bad one.

Fair point, I never asked any of the researchers what they were trying to do specifically

I took a “cognitive neuroscience” class last semester and the professor was very hand wavy about everything which really put me off the whole field. I probably shouldn’t discredit everything just because it falls under the category of psychology. I just don’t see much math/stats background required in most psych programs (at least in the US) which is why I hesitate at the oh so popular “data driven approaches” considering most members of the team probably do not have a math background

 

[thujone]

You know, growing up as a German, one tries to find solace in the fact that despite all the pain, horror and death we have caused, nobody will ever do that again. If all that pain we caused doesn't even stop people from the Allied Forces from thinking like that, ..the fuck did your forefathers die for then?

This makes me fucking sad, I hope you're wrong.

My theory is the emphasis placed on Hitler and the Nazis is the reason Westerners are blind to the darkness of progressive politics.

Marx advocated slavery, Lenin advocated terrorism, and Hitler borrowed from them. Realpolitik is eternal and democracy is just a means to an end. All that matters is we can be mollified enough to consent to atrocities.

This study "triggered" me because it's part of a pattern of articles coming out lately relating extremism to conservative and the cadence of it makes me suspicious it's more manufactured consent than news in earnest.

To what end is it necessary to convince people that a certain group (conservatives) are an obstacle along the path to a better world? It only serves to drive the wedge between liberals and conservatives deeper.

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

My theory is the emphasis placed on Hitler and the Nazis is the reason Westerners are blind to the darkness of progressive politics.

As in......... US/NATO imperialism as the ''''new''''' fascism?
Plenty more to consider than solely internal politics, although the same principles apply.

 

[w01fg4ng]

The scary thing is that I actually believe many Western liberals are perfectly OK with sending conservatives to camps to be sterilized, especially given how convinced many seem to be that Trump was decidedly evil and likewise anyone who voted for him was a Nazi.

I for one do believe Trump is evil and a Nazi.

However, I'm not showing up at the capitol making murder threats about it.

 

[Zephyn]

My theory is the emphasis placed on Hitler and the Nazis is the reason Westerners are blind to the darkness of progressive politics.

Marx advocated slavery, Lenin advocated terrorism, and Hitler borrowed from them. Realpolitik is eternal and democracy is just a means to an end. All that matters is we can be mollified enough to consent to atrocities.

This study "triggered" me because it's part of a pattern of articles coming out lately relating extremism to conservative and the cadence of it makes me suspicious it's more manufactured consent than news in earnest.

To what end is it necessary to convince people that a certain group (conservatives) are an obstacle along the path to a better world? It only serves to drive the wedge between liberals and conservatives deeper.

Where did marx ever advocate for slavery?