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

[Xorkoth]

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

Yeah I didn't think there are very many who would advocate for what you're saying. That's just some divisive rhetoric convincing you that anyone but an extremist on the left would advocate for conservatives to be sterilized or sent to camps. The vast majority of people who lean left are no different from most people on the right, except they believe in the other side of some issues.

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.

This I can understand, I have a problem with their blatant equating of conservatism and extremism together, one as an example of the other. I mean a segment of the right IS an example of it, but so is a segment of the left.

 

[Burnt Offerings]

Where did marx ever advocate for slavery?

I'd be interested to know too. Slavery as it existed during Marx's day (such as in the American South prior to the Civil War) was something he was very much opposed to.

I'm no expert on Marx, though, who wrote an insane amount of content...so maybe there is something in there somewhere where he advocated for slavery, I dunno. Personally I don't see that much of a connection between Marxism and Nazism...you could point to certain documents that Marx wrote and make the argument (as some have convincingly done) that you can see anti-semitism in them, despite the fact that Marx was of Jewish descent himself...or look at some of the commentaries from Engels, who referred to the Slavs as "rats" or whatever...but those are kind of superficial things IMO. The foundations of Marxism were internationalism and a materialist philosophy, while Nazism was centered around nationalism and a mystical-vitalist philosophy...even the "socialist" wing of the Nazi movement, like the Strasser brothers etc, violently condemned "Jewish" materialism.

Or perhaps you could make the argument that all these dudes, Hitler, Lenin, whoever else you want to name, all they wanted was power, power by any means etc, and that's the common thread. But that kind of renders any kind of political judgement or analysis pointless. (That's kind of what Foucault and the later post-modernists argued right, that politics, ideology etc. were all merely linguistic means to obscure the way that "power" functions in society?)

In regards to Hitler and the Nazis specifically, one element that they did borrow from the socialist/Marxist left quite successfully was the embrace of mass politics, and some of the grassroots ways of organizing the masses that had previously been the purview almost exclusively of the left. That was a brilliant innovation of fascism IMO...previous reactionary movements were extremely elitist and had tried to keep the masses as far away as they possibly could.

You could also argue, as some conservative historians do, that the link between the French Revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Hitler and the Nazis etc is an embrace of mass politics combined with an obsession (originating in enlightenment philosophy of the 17th and 18th centuries) with "perfecting" humanity which (according to them) inevitably leads to totalitarianism and genocide.

************

Rant over lol. I love those galvanizing 19th/20th century ideologies like Marxism, fascism, nationalism etc...so interesting! :D

 

[Jabberwocky]

Now that the thread has gone a bit off the rails I can ask a question like this. Do you find any examples of extremism in this list:

1) 10-15% of kids being diagnosed with ADHD (USA stats) and than most of them put on some kind of stimulant (methylphenidate, amphetamines, atomoxetine or some SNRI/NDRI)

2) Kids that are diagnosed with ADHD and put on psychostimulants being also put on benzodiazepines (for "side effects"/unwanted effects of stimulants) or even antipsychotics

3) Giving kids (age less than 14) "hormonal therapy" to cure this widespread and exponentially arising problem of transgender kids (how can something like that be on such a rise is a true mystery for me...I thought that genes and gene expression take generations to change meaningfully...)

4) Giving psychiatry such power that can be compared to power of priests few centuries ago and letting them to decide (unchecked) who will they force medicate with "antipsychotic medication" (eufimsm for drug that inhibits function of cognition and overall body functioning...retarding any person that is unfortunate enough to take it, justifiably or not)

5) Not informing population that certain medication is known for inducing iatrogenic disease for more than 30 years and making people sick/ruining their lives on major scales. Think of not needed prolonged use of benzodiazepines (I am not saying that benzodiazepines are bad in themselves, on the contrary...) or "oxycodone that does not cause/majorly influence addiction" (again, not saying opioids are bad, they gave us possibility to have surgery and normal lives for people in chronic pain for example). These examples are few examples of misinformation. To be clear about this point - informed person is responsible for his use of substances, but in this day and age of "therapeutical statism" (true and readily understandable) information and responsibility that can come only in couple with that are more often than not withhold from general public.

6) Having stated earlier points (that are either true, somewhat true or false) - is psychology potentially "extremist discipline" itself? It is ground and roots of the "tree of psychiatry" and any country is using it primarily, as I see it, against it's population as a means of control. Sometimes not even that covertly...

I guess I am now calling in question (as @thegreenhand has already done in this thread and what is not really an original thought...far from it...) the legitimacy of psychology and psychiatry in todays context. My view is more aligned with the view of Thomas Szasz as I have lived through the horrors of psychology/psychiatry mishandling "my situation/state" (have differing views on some subjects as I have with everyone with whom I agree on some subjects, but I think he got the gist of psychology/psychiatry right). I have myself been misdiagnosed, forcefully institutionalised and drugged almost to death for years. Than 10 years after got an apology from other members of "psych cast" for misdiagnosis and malpractice that followed. But never got 5 years of my life or brain tissue back (i regret my then still developing PFC most). I understand that I have made this personal and that I am biased cause of my own experience, so please focus (if you will at all) on first 5 points on the list and discard my rant.

 

[novaveritas]

Back to the original study, has anyone here actually read the study and looked at the statistical and other back analysis? If you have why aren't you here discussing the obvious flaws????

I can see serious and errors just on quick scan reading.

The most important one being the absence of a statistically significant result does not confirm the null hypothesis, it actually says nothing when the expected span of error includes zero.

Replicates of random parameter variation of models does not provide greater accuracy of the modeled estimate, they add noise and give the impression of increased accuracy but there is no new information added therefore the estimate cannot be more accurate. This is one of the most prevalent errors in modern scientific analysis.

Regression tends to be magnetically drawn to the those rare factors with the most rare occurrence but the largest variance, but these things can be given a false importance because they are simply rare.

A quick check shows the study is highly under powered.
What would be the reasonable expectation for the number of people holding 'extremist' views in a self selecting sample of 334 people living in the USA? This is drawn from 522 people previously selected by the co-author.

I would say near as dammit zero, unless extremist is defined as anything not ultra conformist and ultra-centrist, hence all the bullshit metrics. It is a tautology that anyone not holding exactly center views has some more extreme views but the use of extremist here is a liberal dogwhistle.

This tells us more about the subjective judgement and prejudice of the authors than the subjects.

I though this paper would be a classic under the hood and reviewing it doesn't disappoint. I will probably use it going forward as an example of what is generally referred to as a gold covered dogshit, the gold here is statistical and mathematical but that doesn't mean it is not still a dogshit underneath and you definitley don't want to open it up sniff it or stamp on it.

The delicious irony is this paper makes connections with dogmatic and arguably irrational behavior by relying on tools and precepts that are totally dogmatic and irrational. Because of closed perception the authors and the echo chamber effect the authors cannot see this or if they can they choose not to write about the issues with interpretation of their paper, this also tells me the echo chamber extends to posters on bluelight too.

Psychology is not a science. Political psychology is a the non-science of psychology combined with subjective and partisan nonsense.

"What we found is that demographics don't explain a whole lot; they explain roughly 8% of the variance." She added, "Whereas, actually, when we incorporate these cognitive and personality assessments as well, suddenly, our capacity to explain the variance of these ideological world views jumps to 30% to 40%"

ha ha ha.... No

 

[MsDiz]

Back to the original study, has anyone here actually read the study and looked at the statistical and other back analysis? If you have why aren't you here discussing the obvious flaws????

I can see serious and errors just on quick scan reading.

The most important one being the absence of a statistically significant result does not confirm the null hypothesis, it actually says nothing when the expected span of error includes zero.

Replicates of random parameter variation of models does not provide greater accuracy of the modeled estimate, they add noise and give the impression of increased accuracy but there is no new information added therefore the estimate cannot be more accurate. This is one of the most prevalent errors in modern scientific analysis.

Regression tends to be magnetically drawn to the those rare factors with the most rare occurrence but the largest variance, but these things can be given a false importance because they are simply rare.

A quick check shows the study is highly under powered.
What would be the reasonable expectation for the number of people holding 'extremist' views in a self selecting sample of 334 people living in the USA? This is drawn from 522 people previously selected by the co-author.

I would say near as dammit zero, unless extremist is defined as anything not ultra conformist and utra-centrist, hence all the bullshit metrics.

This tells us more about the subjective judgement and prejudice of the authors than the subjects.

I though this paper would be a classic under the hood and reviewing it doesn't disappoint. I will probably use it going forward as an example of what is generally referred to as a gold covered dogshit, the gold here is statistical amd mathematical but that doesn't mean it is not still a dogshit underneath and you definitley don't want to open it up or stamp on it.

The delicious irony is this paper makes connections with dogmatic and arguably irrational behavior by relying on tools and precepts that are totally dogmatic and irrational. Because of closed perception the authors and the echo chamber effect the authors cannot see this or if they can they choose not to write about the issues with interpretation of their paper, this also tells me the echo chamber extends to posters on bluelight too.

Psychology is not a science. Political psychology is a the non-science of psychology combined with subjective and partisan nonsense.

"What we found is that demographics don't explain a whole lot; they explain roughly 8% of the variance." She added, "Whereas, actually, when we incorporate these cognitive and personality assessments as well, suddenly, our capacity to explain the variance of these ideological world views jumps to 30% to 40%"

ha ha ha.... No

I’ve actually emailed them with a few questions. Still haven’t got back to me.

 

[novaveritas]

I’ve actually emailed them with a few questions. Still haven’t got back to me.

yeah me too, asking a couple of quick qs about the priors they used in their analysis and the power calculation and estimates for their study sizing.

I expect crickets

I can tear their entire study into shreds just based on the published data in the paper and the archived content of Ian Eisenbergs Github, they got lucky with who ever peer reviewed it and rubber stamped it or maybe peer review for psychology is always this weak?

so I expect they know this and will assume the ostrich position.

 

[MsDiz]

yeah me too, asking a couple of quick qs about the priors they used in their analysis and the power calculation and estimates for their study sizing.

I expect crickets

I can tear their entire study into shreds just based on the published data in the paper and the archived content of Ian Eisenbergs Github, they got lucky with who ever peer reviewed it and rubber stamped it or maybe peer review for psychology is always this weak?

so I expect they know this and will assume the ostrich position.

It’s a shame because it is an interesting subject and when I first posted it I hadn’t read it fully. Since then I obviously have and you are right in your comment that there are so many flaws.

I was going to comment here when they have replied to me but still nothing. I am gonna push them though because that is poor form. Especially when I’m emailing them from my work address.

 

[w01fg4ng]

“You see this kind of boom in conspiracies whenever there’s political or social unrest throughout history,”

Conspiracy theories, explained

Americans are embracing dangerous conspiratorial beliefs, from QAnon to coronavirus denial.

www.vox.com

The krazy karens aren't going away anytime soon.

 

[thegreenhand]

This also tells me the echo chamber extends to posters on bluelight too.

tbh mate I don’t think I was equipped enough to dismantle their statistical analysis at the levels you just did. I have enough background to recognize that what they were doing is probably not the best but clearly you have the stats knowledge to break it down completely. I don’t think most of us are trying to keep the echo chamber going, most of us just lack the proper knowledge to critique these things at an adequate level

 

[MsDiz]

tbh mate I don’t think I was equipped enough to dismantle their statistical analysis at the levels you just did. I have enough background to recognize that what they were doing is probably not the best but clearly you have the stats knowledge to break it down completely. I don’t think most of us are trying to keep the echo chamber going, most of us just lack the proper knowledge to critique these things at an adequate level

I actually find it interesting to see how people react to such things too.

 

[thegreenhand]

I actually find it interesting to see how people react to such things too.

Could you elaborate? I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “such things” lol. The flawed studies themselves or the criticisms of them?

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

It's simple. Empty vessels make the most noise...

 

[novaveritas]

It’s a shame because it is an interesting subject and when I first posted it I hadn’t read it fully. Since then I obviously have and you are right in your comment that there are so many flaws.

I was going to comment here when they have replied to me but still nothing. I am gonna push them though because that is poor form. Especially when I’m emailing them from my work address.

I had the feeling there was something darker afoot, so I did a bit of checking, there is public evidence to sugest Ms Zmigrod is not an impartial or independent seeker of the truth at all.

The lead author Leor Zmigrod is funded by the Bill Gates Foundation (that man again) and is a member of a group called APCEN, Academic-Practitioner Counter Extremism Network. A UK government funded group of tame and vetted scientists there to support the UK government line whatever that becomes. The ulterior purpose of the group is to provide scientific top cover for repressive 'counter extremism' measures by the UK government and to further the pushing of any non conformist thought or positions into being defined as a psychological disorder or deficit.

Launch of new academic and practitioner network to tackle extremism

The Commission for Countering Extremism has launched a pilot network bringing together experts in counter-extremism to help align policy, practice and research.

www.gov.uk

the current version says that the APCEN terms of reference were published in error...... what is in those terms of reference that the UK govt don't want public?
this is a mealy mouthed document, that implies they academics involved are not impartial at all but are UKGov mouthpeices in a you help us we help you kind of way.

thanks to the way back machine we can see the terms of reference

The Academic-Practitioner Counter Extremism Network: terms of reference (accessible version)

web.archive.org

.....
For researchers, membership provides exposure and access to policy-makers and practitioners across government, and a better understanding of policy priorities and challenges. It will provide the opportunity to receive input on research design and questions (FROM THE UK GOVT!) . Where appropriate, support may be available for research projects or for research grant applications where appropriate. Membership of APCEN may provide the potential for policy-impact case studies to support REF submissions. For all members, the potential for formal or informal joint working on projects may be possible as APCEN develops beyond the pilot stage.

The question then becomes is APCEN there to inform the UK government or is it a mechanism for UKGov to direct and steer "science and debate" drop stories to pliant media like the guardian and bolster whatever bullshit the UK government has decided to do, claiming it is following the science.
UKGov want to be involved in creating the very evidence they will then rely on in an evidence based policy to justify repressive policies. Weaponizing psychology once again. SPI-B is another example.

So yeah I don't reckon you will get a proper answer and given your republican sympathies (like me you support taverns and public houses) you probably don't want to directly attack or question this UKGov asset too much...

I still think it is scientifically sporting for the author to answer the questions posed, but I think it won't happen.

 

[novaveritas]

It's simple. Empty vessels make the most noise...

only if you hit them.....

 

[Sky God]

I have met physics professors with far left extremist views. It seems questioning anything has became an extremist view . If you don't follow the masses you are deemed an extremist

 

[✿Dai₷y✿]

The government in UK define it as “the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

Not sure where you’re from but this is a great article on extremism.

We need to better understand extremism in the UK

ARMIDA VAN RIJ and BENEDICT WILKINSON: A shared definition of extremism will help us respond to it effectively, with community support

www.kcl.ac.uk

I wonder who the "our" in this UK statement refers to....who decides what these specific fundamental values are and how these values change over time as the population demographic does.

 

[MsDiz]

I wonder who the "our" in this UK statement refers to....who decides what these specific fundamental values are and how these values change over time as the population demographic does.

Who the fuck knows lol! It’s a bit ridiculous.

 

[MsDiz]

Could you elaborate? I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “such things” lol. The flawed studies themselves or the criticisms of them?

I guess I’m a people watcher. I tend to sit back and observe. I enjoy seeing what people take out of certain things. The fact people rightly wanted to know what the definition of extremism was.

Of course, I always love reading what other people take out of studies.

 

[thujone]

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

New or old, possibly just a continuation of Pax Americana. The question is how much further left we go before the socio-political pendulum swings back toward more conservative mores.

Where did marx ever advocate for slavery?

I don't remember which text it was in precisely. I do remember it was part of a passage describing the transitory state bridging the revolutionary government to the realized communist state.

This I can understand, I have a problem with their blatant equating of conservatism and extremism together, one as an example of the other. I mean a segment of the right IS an example of it, but so is a segment of the left.

This type of scapegoating becomes more reminiscent of the early 20th century the more that left and right drift further apart.

The question then becomes is APCEN there to inform the UK government or is it a mechanism for UKGov to direct and steer "science and debate" drop stories to pliant media like the guardian and bolster whatever bullshit the UK government has decided to do, claiming it is following the science.
UKGov want to be involved in creating the very evidence they will then rely on in an evidence based policy to justify repressive policies. Weaponizing psychology once again. SPI-B is another example.

Good research. I like to call them the new Nomenklatura --

...forming a de facto elite of public powers in the former Eastern Bloc; one may compare them to the western establishment[4] holding or controlling both private and public powers (for example, in media, finance, trade, industry, the state and institutions).

Evidence based policy is propaganda for the internet age. Everyone can do their own research now so, as a result, it was necessary for the elites to control the research that gets published and taint other avenues of exploration with the misinformation label.

Likewise, if conservative sources gets associated with the extremism label, the less likely that the average person will be to consider any ideas under the conservative banner to be legitimate.

It's like how everyone knows you could learn how to build a bomb online, but few people look into it because nobody wants to "end up on a list".

The growth of right-wing "free speech" social networks seems to suggest that evidence based policy is backfiring, and more people are beginning to consider government a bad-faith actor.

 

[✿Dai₷y✿]

Meh...I can't say for sure because I just base opinions on what I have been exposed to but the more libertarians there are around the worse off everyone else is.

It seems these people are very adept at manipulating any other view that is not theirs as extremist, offensive, stupid or such like .

If anything, anyone who lacks the ability to challenge others ideals openly causes people to become "extremist" and extremism becomes anything that is not these peoples narrative.

Real Extremism is a dire problem in areas of the world displaced by war, many displaced by American involvement in local issues. They make their own enemies and should realise they are just as bad as autocratic regimes.

Ugh, studies like this are not doing anything but using a header of a study to hang shit on people, write them off as invalid before they even open their mouth. Who funds these things I wonder.