Psychology, politics and extremism
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 38
- Views: 386
- Politics
- Messages
- 29,245
Psychological ‘signature’ for the extremist mind uncovered
Researchers have mapped an underlying “psychological signature” for people who are predisposed to holding extreme social, political or religious attitudes.
“… Across all ideologies investigated by the researchers, people who endorsed “extreme pro-group action”, including ideologically-motivated violence against others, had a surprisingly consistent psychological profile.
The extremist mind – a mixture of conservative and dogmatic psychological signatures – is cognitively cautious, slower at perceptual processing and has a weaker working memory. This is combined with impulsive personality traits that seek sensation and risky experiences.
Added Zmigrod: “There appear to be hidden similarities in the minds of those most willing to take extreme measures to support their ideological doctrines. Understanding this could help us to support those individuals vulnerable to extremism, and foster social understanding across ideological divides.”…”
- Messages
- 29,245
Despite vast ideological differences, political extremists exhibit similar brain processing
A new study shows that when processing political content, the brains of people with extreme views — regardless whether they identify as left or right — show more similarities than those of political centrists.
Despite vast ideological differences, political extremists exhibit similar brain processing
A new study shows that when processing political content, the brains of people with extreme views — regardless whether they identify as left or right — show more similarities than those of political centrists.
www.brown.edu
“When someone is so entrenched in their own extreme beliefs, it can be hard to think about how others might see the world,” FeldmanHall said. “I think it might be shocking to know that the way that their brain is processing information is very similar to someone who is on the other side of the spectrum, and who holds ideological beliefs that are diametrically opposed to theirs. And in that sense, it might be a useful way of making a vast political divide a little smaller.”
- Messages
- 29,245
The Psychology of Extremism
The Psychology of Extremism
New research claims that adverse developmental conditions in one’s early life combined with a lack of protective factors can set the stage for radicalization.
“Few would disagree that preventing extremism is a laudable goal, but even discussing extremism and radicalization may seem problematic within the field of psychiatry. Psychiatry’s legitimacy is largely based on its impartiality and independence from power structures associated with political regimes and religious organizations. Without this independence, there is a clear worry that it could become merely another tool of oppression used by the in-group in power to define behaviors, opinions, and beliefs that characterize the out-group as being in some way deviant from what is considered normal or even a form of sickness to be “cured.”
If a totalitarian regime were actively committing genocide, for example, it would seem wrong to label those fighting against it as extremists, and it would seem just as wrong to grant the regime the power to do so.
This difficulty is part of the reason why there is no agreement within science or society as to what specifically constitutes extremism, though there are some core elements that do enjoy consensus. Most would agree that the term does not merely denote an individual who has opinions that are considered outside of the norm, who is to the far end of one side of the political spectrum, or who is overzealous in their religious beliefs. Rather, the concern is that these beliefs in some way increase one’s propensity for violence against other groups, and, just as importantly, that this behavior occurs within a culture where such violence is not tolerated or expected. As potentially objectionable as they are, the dangers of extremism and radicalization are not about the beliefs espoused by the individual alone but about the fear that these beliefs will make them more inclined to participate in acts of violence, particularly in the form of terrorism.…”
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,690
In other news, water is wet. People with extreme views care more about what they are watching. Whoa.
- Messages
- 29,245
“… A recently published paper by Andreas Beelmann, “A Social-Developmental Model of Radicalization: A Systematic Integration of Existing Theories and Empirical Research,” strives to accomplish this end. In his paper, Beelmann argues that the radicalization process takes place in three steps: “ontogenetic development processes, proximal radicalization processes, and as a result, extremist attitudes/opinions and behavior/action.”The Psychology of Extremism
The Psychology of Extremism
New research claims that adverse developmental conditions in one’s early life combined with a lack of protective factors can set the stage for radicalization.www.psychologytoday.com
“Few would disagree that preventing extremism is a laudable goal, but even discussing extremism and radicalization may seem problematic within the field of psychiatry. Psychiatry’s legitimacy is largely based on its impartiality and independence from power structures associated with political regimes and religious organizations. Without this independence, there is a clear worry that it could become merely another tool of oppression used by the in-group in power to define behaviors, opinions, and beliefs that characterize the out-group as being in some way deviant from what is considered normal or even a form of sickness to be “cured.”
If a totalitarian regime were actively committing genocide, for example, it would seem wrong to label those fighting against it as extremists, and it would seem just as wrong to grant the regime the power to do so.
This difficulty is part of the reason why there is no agreement within science or society as to what specifically constitutes extremism, though there are some core elements that do enjoy consensus. Most would agree that the term does not merely denote an individual who has opinions that are considered outside of the norm, who is to the far end of one side of the political spectrum, or who is overzealous in their religious beliefs. Rather, the concern is that these beliefs in some way increase one’s propensity for violence against other groups, and, just as importantly, that this behavior occurs within a culture where such violence is not tolerated or expected. As potentially objectionable as they are, the dangers of extremism and radicalization are not about the beliefs espoused by the individual alone but about the fear that these beliefs will make them more inclined to participate in acts of violence, particularly in the form of terrorism.…”
What interests me, in particular, is the first step: ontogenetic development processes—the steps to maturity from childhood to adulthood. Beelmann claims that adverse developmental conditions in one’s early life, combined with a lack of protective factors, are what set the stage for the remaining two steps. He lists three distinct risk factors:
- Societal risk factors (e.g., real intergroup conflicts, intergroup threats, the prevalence of ideologies legitimizing violence)
- Social risk factors (e.g., violence in the home, the experience of group discrimination, minimal social diversity)
- Individual risk factors (e.g., personality characteristics that favor domination/authoritarianism, self-esteem problems, antisocial behavior)…”
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,690
Has this person ever met people with extreme views? They know very well that they process information similarly to their extremist opponents. That's why they are out in the street tussling. Communists and Nazis fought on the streets of Germany. Charlottesville attracted weapon toting thugs on both sides.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,418
That's pretty interesting, but it seems to cast a pretty wide net. We should ask the folks here that legitimize violence like assassinating supreme Court Justices or Trump, etc. if they experienced things like violence in the home, self-esteem problems, etc. Based on a very small sample size, it seems like it has some correlations.
Likely a matter of your powers of discernment since I haven't seen anyone here legitimately threaten violence here. You're just a fucking snowflake.
- Messages
- 3,416
I don’t find any of this surprising. But I do find it pretty useless.
What is “extreme” in this context? Would Potter Stewart tell us “extreme” is hard to define but we know it when we see it? And this discussion seems to revolve around right vs left, what about right vs wrong?
What is “extreme” in this context? Would Potter Stewart tell us “extreme” is hard to define but we know it when we see it? And this discussion seems to revolve around right vs left, what about right vs wrong?
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,418
Well threaten violence is different than legitimize violence. I'm starting to question your powers of discernment.
I don't doubt it. It's hard to recognize and appreciate traits you don't have.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,418
It must be.
Yeah. You pretty much proved it when I challenged your opinion that people here legitimized violence, you backed off immediately, then accused me of lacking discernment.
gtyellowjacket
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,418
No. You don't even need to use the search function. You challenged my opinion that people on here threatened violence. That's not what I wrote. I wrote the people legitimize violence. You weren't able to discern the difference.
Last edited:
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,690
Exactly right. Every single study of extremism requires a definition of "extreme." In the recent past, this was not all that difficult to define. But now that we are ruled by extremists who intend to cling to power at any cost, what is extreme?
By far the most extremist political action in my lifetime was Trump v. United States, in conjunction with Whole Women's Health v. Jackson. The latter case was a unilateral negation of the 14th Amendment, at least partly, which was the product of a bloody civil war for which many, many people gave their lives. The former, of course, is close to a repudiation of the entire constitution. And what the Supreme Court has done in 2025 is basically a frontal assault on the rule of law. Generally speaking, the unitary executive theory is one of the most extremist, bizarre and pro-death ideas ever to gain purchase in our government. And why do they do it? Because nobody can stop them. It's as simple as that.
Of all the public figures in America, two of the very most extreme are Thomas and Alito. Some of the other justices slide in a little bit lower, but all six of the pro-tyranny faction are extremists. They have such bizarre views -- you don't hear about all of them reported in the press -- and they have life tenure, and discern few limits on their power (except when they claim they have no power to stop the tyranny, which is more humblebragging than legitimate judicial opinion). So what should a rational person do? Just sit back and watch them ransack the society that was built over 200+ years?
Of course, the executive branch is currently being occupied by a group of extremists hell bent on destroying American democracy. Is it extreme to want to fight back, or should we all do non-extreme things like watch them establish concentration camps and police the streets with military troops who answer only to the dictator?
ZenMode
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,111
"But many scholars have also proposed that emotion—especially negative emotion such as fear or anger—plays a powerful role. Emotional reactions can shape how people interpret news, view political opponents, and form alliances. In this study, the researchers asked whether people on the far left and far right not only hold strong beliefs but also experience political information in similarly emotional ways."
I've always wondered if emotional people tend to be drawn, or susceptible, to the outrage news machine that currently exists on cable, social media, etc. It's an easy way to get that outrage fix they're itching for, on demand.
superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,690
1. I am certain that I would confound their study. They'd probably exclude me because of autism, but if they did include me, they are going to get a lot of noise in their data because I am very much sui generis.
2. Imagine if there were some people who didn't want to pay taxes. They don't fill out their tax forms, and when the government comes to enforce the lien on their property (having acquired the lien in court for non-payment) they open fire on the agents from entrenched positions. That seems pretty fucking extreme.
Now imagine a different set of people who didn't want to pay taxes. Instead of just not paying them, they sneaked onto a boat and dumped the entire contents of the boat into the ocean. Then they declared that they are no longer subject to any of the laws that apply to them, that in fact they aren't even part of the country any more, and then they took up arms against the government and killed thousands and thousands of people in their "war for independence." These guys make those other ones described above look like cautious amateurs. Pretty fucking extreme, yes?
Imagine a third set of people. These people thought slavery was an abomination and must be defeated for the sake of basic humanity and as a matter of grace from a God who decreed slavery to be an ultimate sin. The slavers were like, "eh, you do your thing, we'll do our thing. If you don't like slavery, don't do it." But the extremists were not interested in that deal. So they went to war. Hundreds of thousands of people died in this revolutionary campaign, which was founded on a contestable and contested philosophical premise that all men are created equal -- which, by the way, happened to be written by an unabashed proponent of political violence who thought it not merely acceptable but good (or I guess "not bad").
Pretty fucking extreme, no?
3. You see the problem here? I think maybe even you can get it.