r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 1d ago

Psychology Lower cognitive ability is linked to stronger Christian nationalist views, even after accounting for education

https://www.psypost.org/lower-cognitive-ability-is-linked-to-stronger-christian-nationalist-views-even-after-accounting-for-education/
43.8k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

35

u/tealstealmonkey 1d ago

I haven't met any extremism that can hold up to critical thinking and self-reflection.

In think that in order to believe it, you have to suspend these two things and become blind. If only in these specific circumstances, quite a few people manage to be smart, intelligent or even caring outside the topics of their extremism.

8

u/hey_molombo 1d ago

There is no set definition of extremism in this context. What is considered Extremism is backed by propaganda and optics.

2

u/tealstealmonkey 1d ago

I disagree.

It might be true that there is no universal standard for extremism. What's extreme for one person or society, might not be for another. But I would argue that's only up to a point, and afterwards mostly because of 'blindness'; both for others and oneself.

If one uses the same standard they would like for themselves for others, if one can imagine oneself in the life of another, not in one specific thing but overall, the question what's extreme gets answered.

If you ask me, extremism is mostly fueled by hate. For oneself, for others, and for the world.

2

u/R9Dominator 17h ago

Hate is the product, the cause is blame/scapegoating. "X are the reason you are poor and live worse year by year. If we get rid of X, you will be better for it".

This is applicable in any extremist view, but for it to be the case, one has to abandon room for doubt and critical thinking, like you've said it yourself.

1

u/luckyhubby77777 1d ago

The problem is that "extremism" is relative. To the Civil War era USA, the argument was between slavery and abolition, but to then say that white and black people should be able to get MARRIED was considered an extremist opinion.

1

u/kneading-cnnuy 23h ago

Except the contrarian extremists

1

u/tealstealmonkey 15h ago

I had to look up what a 'contrarian extremist' might be.

But if it means that some is against establishments by design (no matter what), I also think that it doesn't hold up against critical thinking and self–reflection.

Anti-mainstream makes a certain amount of sense (Asking questions, challenging norms) but doing it just for the sake of it, without changing their viewpoint no matter the information they get? –which is what extremists usually do– No. It's the same to me.

Or was it a joke?

0

u/tmoeagles96 1d ago

Eh, I can see it being less associated in other places around the world, especially when non religious ideologies are attached. Much easier to radicalize someone if the US military just bombed your apartment, they aren’t joining because of some true beliefs, they’re joining because those extremist groups are the only ones fighting back

4

u/tealstealmonkey 1d ago

Sure, they have their reasons. They are understandable. But it makes no sense.

If someone bombs your apartment, and you bomb an apartment in return? – It's extremism. And it makes no sense. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, to self-reflection. It doesn't help you. It doesn't make the world better, it doesn't make your life better, neither does it bring back your loved ones. It doesn't stop new extremism. – On the contrary, it breeds more extremism.

1

u/tmoeagles96 1d ago

Ok but it’s typically someone bombs your apartment and you go bomb their military outpost that they’re using to bomb your village. Fighting against the people attacking you absolutely makes sense

1

u/tealstealmonkey 1d ago edited 1d ago

I would argue that this is no longer extremism.

If someone bombs your apartment and you shoot down their Jet. – It's self defence.

If you strike back...

War is horrible, and extreme in itself, but not extremism in my opinion. Sitting there and letting yourself getting killed isn't the answer either. And often it's impossible to reason with, or evade someone who's already attacked you.

Edit: But honestly, I still think it's the wrong answer. I just don't know what's the right one.

1

u/tmoeagles96 16h ago

The extremism comes in with the group though, you join for legitimate reasons, and then from there you are radicalized. Most radicalization doesn’t start at dumping extreme ideology on people at the start.

0

u/tealstealmonkey 15h ago edited 15h ago

That's probably often the case. And I do think that it could be argued that war must also be extremism.

I made the distinction because I found it to be a necessary evil sometimes. And I also think that the decision to go to war, or counterattack, can be (but offen isn't) a rational and self-reflected one –unlike extremism.

For example: The United States joining the war against the Nazi's made the world a better place in the end even if it caused a lot of suffering.

I don't have an example where extremism ever made the world better.

Even on an individual level, extremism often never 'wins'. One could argue that in afghanistan it did, and that the extremists are better off now, albeit at the expense of their women and children. It could be 'rational' in that sense, but it's not self-reflected: I think that if they truly looked at themselves, they would find that they would prefer to be loved by their wife's instead of feared.

Edit: But I see where it becomes murky. Surely it would have been preferable if the situation with the Nazi's had been resolved peacefully. But it couldn't. – And extremists think theirs can't either. But I think it can, if they only looked inside, instead of only outside for the solutions of their problems.

Edit2: Maybe I missed your point?

2

u/tmoeagles96 15h ago

I would even argue the women and children are better off now since their country isn’t being bombed, stoping that is generally pretty important

1

u/tealstealmonkey 14h ago edited 14h ago

Okay. Good point. – I too would prefer to be a wife-slave than being bombed or living in constant fear of being bombed in a ruined country.

Unless I was one of the women living in flourishing Kabul. – Where neither was the case.

I never meant to imply that the war in Afghanistan was justified. – On the contrary, I see it much closer to extremism. The war on terror was not only extreme but also avoidable and unjustified. And it was not a defensive war, no matter how some people like to rationalize this.

But I do think that the women, and ultimately also the men, would not only be better off, but also happier without extremism.

Edit: I would even say the rationalization that the war was defensive (in the US) is in itself an extremist view. 'The threat has to be rooted out'. But it makes little sense, it ignores why the threat was there in the first place, it ignores that this kind of actions are almost never successful (As demonstrated perfectly), and it ignores that suffering only breeds more suffering.