Posted on 05/12/2020 4:49:08 AM PDT by sevinufnine
Radical political views of all sorts seem to shape our lives to an almost unprecedented extent. But what attracts people to the fringes? A new study offers insight into one characteristic of those who hold extreme beliefs—their metacognition, or ability to evaluate whether or not they might be wrong. This finding suggests that the metacognition of radicals plays a part in shaping their beliefs. In other words, they actually can’t question their own ideas the same way more moderate individuals can. (Imagine that!)
“Widening polarization about political, religious, and scientific issues threatens open societies, leading to entrenchment of beliefs, reduced mutual understanding, and a pervasive negativity surrounding the very idea of consensus,” the researchers write. Understanding the role that metacognition plays in this polarization may help us step back from it.
(Excerpt) Read more at whoa.popsci.com ...
They studied two different groups of people—381 in the first sample and 417 in a second batch to try to replicate their results. They gave the first sample a survey that tested how conservative or liberal their political beliefs were. Radicalism exists on both ends of the spectrum; the people at the furthest extremes of left and right are considered “radical.”
After taking the questionnaire, the first group did a simple test: they looked at two different clusters of dots and quickly identified which group had more dots. Then they rated how confident they were in their choice.
People with radical political opinions completed this exercise with pretty much the same accuracy as moderate participants. But “after incorrect decisions, the radicals were less likely to decrease their confidence,” Fleming says.
Unlike political beliefs, which often have no right or wrong answer per se, one group of dots was unquestionably more numerous than the other. But regardless of whether or not there was an objective answer, the radicals were more likely to trust their opinion was correct than to question whether they might have gotten it wrong.
“But regardless of whether or not there was an objective answer, the radicals were more likely to trust their opinion was correct than to question whether they might have gotten it wrong.”
That attitude has generally been known in society as “bull-headedness” or being a horse’s ass.
Usually extreme views are emotion-fed, at least to some degree. It’s hard to analyze the “thinking” behind them because, to the extent it exists, it is tangled up in illogical, irrational, emotional response.
I’ll bet you every Leftist journalist and extreme democrat looks at this and thinks,
“Yup. damn conservatives will never change their minds.”
And you won’t be able to convince the Leftists that they are wrong.
Exhibit A: TDS.
The purpose of Marxism and the Democrat party is to destroy the concept of right and wrong.
The only evil is the idea of evil.
Snowflakes don’t like to be challenged. They know you’re wrong. They know they’re right. This is sort of cultural trend created by political correctness and the indoctrination in the public schools where divergent thinking is not welcome. So I expect extremism to continue.
I recognize that this stuff happens on the Right as well, but I really think we have fewer True Believers.
Just like the guy who wrote the article.
If there were an "objective answer" does that mean that it was so obvious that one could call it without fail?
These geeks sit down and count little dots, then show them to a group of people, and ax the group to select which one has the most dots.
If they are very close {and in order to pick different results, they must be close} then it's no wonder that someone {anyone} would stick with their own opinion {guess}.
The sheep in the middle of the pack are more easily led {surprise, surprise, surprise} to change their opinion.
Radical conservative: “There are ten dots.”
Radical socialist: “There might as well be a hundred dots, because they are growing exponentially due to climate change. I refuse to accept there are ten dots, just because you see ten dots now means nothing.”
Is that about what you found, professor?
Entrenchment leads to deeper entrenchment, left or right.
[[[“Widening polarization about political, religious, and scientific issues threatens open societies, leading to entrenchment of beliefs, reduced mutual understanding, and a pervasive negativity surrounding the very idea of consensus,” the researchers write.]]]
Describes the modern left perfectly. The left drives the polarization. The leftist media to be exact. The left is through arguing policy. They just want you to sit down and shut up now.
“open societies”
Isn’t that a Soros buzzword?
“Usually extreme views are emotion-fed, at least to some degree. It’s hard to analyze the “thinking” behind them because, to the extent it exists, it is tangled up in illogical, irrational, emotional response.”
100% correct.
Daily you can see people on this site emoting rather than thinking.
Dare not challenge them. Just observe and walk away.
In other words, they actually can’t question their own ideas.
That fits the left to a tee their ideas are like their children no matter how bad they are they still love them.
Extremism is in the eye of the beholder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.