Extremism and intellect

[Technoscience Leftwing]

* In the USSR, where I was born, ideologies were not divided into "extreme and moderate", they were divided into true and false, progressive and reactionary.
* Accordingly, supporters of a true, progressive ideology in such a paradigm are allowed revolutionary, violent methods of action, as well as deception of the enemy (conspiracy and disinformation), without which war is impossible.
* Supporters of a false, reactionary ideology are condemned mainly for their goals, and additionally for cruel methods, if applied.
* Roughly speaking, the insurgent slave is approved for using cunning and violence, and the slaveholder is blamed for it. Soviet and American soldiers approve of the war against the Nazis, including shooting, and deception of the enemy, and bombing. And the Nazis condemn, because they have a false goal, a false project aimed at exploitation, inequality, oppression and suffering of people.
* There are details: some cruel methods are unacceptable for progressive figures, they discredit anyone who uses them. Extreme methods, deception and cruelty, against their own comrades (Stalin was accused at the XX Congress exactly in this).
* And to divide ideas into "extremist and non-extremist" in Russia began only from the year 2000, and of course it is an instrument of billionaires who live well, who do not want radical changes, and therefore forbid oppressed people to think consistently, preventing them from knowing the essence of things and fighting for their interests (“Being radical means knowing the thing at its root,” as Marx noted). Of course, not every radicalism is progressive, there is reactionary radicalism, but the collision of these two poles, two clear antagonistic positions is better than avoiding conflict by banning consistent thinking and logical conclusions.

-----
* Sorry for any errors Google translate.

[Mushet]

It takes a certain amount of critical thinking and knowledge of politics to go outside whatever the dominant strains of politics that one is raised or indoctrinated into. Obviously extremists aren't a pack of geniuses and "moderates" just a bunch of dumbasses but the extremists usually are smart enough to learn an alternative ideology. And the really stupid would just go along with everyone else around them.

[Salus Maior]

From the articles I've read on the topic, and my own experience, radicalism is the result more of lack of social support and social networking than the result of any level of intelligence. There are smart and there are dumb radicals, just like there are smart and dumb moderates. What really influences people's radicalism is that they don't have a social support network and so they don't really have much invested in the continued existence of the societies they live in.

A great example is the Nazis, when you read biographies of them, many of them were what we would call losers, so they sought to change society into something where they could accomplish something, no matter what it was.

Honestly, I think this is the most true and sensible answer.

[North German Realm]

This might be the most presumptuous textbook example of the Galaxy Brain Centrist meme I've ever seen in my life. No. "Extremism" and "Intelligence" are not related to each other. Of course part of that is because Extremism is dependent on a society's political atmosphere, while Intelligence is... less subjective, but in general, as it happens most academics tend to have a hard political leaning so if there was a relation, it would be closer to "The more intelligent you are, the more extremist you'll become", but that too is incorrect.

[Major-Tom]

I've met some brilliant people on all sides of the spectrum. Even extremists, even people whose entire worldview I find completely and utterly repugnant.

Why? Well, I think many have mentioned this phenomenon. That is, I believe that many otherwise intelligent people are drawn into fundamentally radical and dangerous ideologies and thought processes because they feel detached from the world, feel lonely, feel depressed, whatever it may be in that sort of regard.

Fuck, I've been there. I'd say, shit, it was early 2015, about four years ago today. For a good eight months or so, I fell into a trap. A trap of ridiculous right-populism, and I mean fucking stupid ideology. I don't believe I was ever a dullard, but at that age, at that time, a miserable, self-loathing and detached fifteen year old, I was quickly drawn into that sort of thought process. As I suspect many people are, I was drawn into a relatively radical state of mind because there was often a tight-knit community behind it, a community of whackjobs, bigots, and extremists, sure. But for those seeking community, those negative aspects tend to be rendered irrelevant in one's mind.

Obviously, I'm a different person now. In fact, I'd argue that my entire life trajectory, personality and personal life have done a 180. And I'm not at all an extremist. But when I reflect on what I was for a brief period of time, I begin to understand why some otherwise intelligent folk are intrigued by radical ideology, often because of malicious and downright insane ideologues. And I hope that those who are enticed by that do get themselves out of that cesspool, I really do. It's not a pleasant place to be.

[Seythennia]

Of course part of that is because Extremism is dependent on a society's political atmosphere, while Intelligence is... less subjective

Agreed, somewhat. I think that non-establishment thinkers in general are usually more intelligent, or rather apply their intelligence towards politics, as that shows they can think for themselves and not follow the status quo. But of course there are always exceptions - there are very smart people who believe the establishment is best, and there are useful idiots who call themselves extremists but don't know what they're talking about.
...and when the political climate changes, the extremists will become the establishment, and the establishment will become the extremists. So are these new extremists more intelligent because they're extremists?

[Costa Fierro]

I think the trend is that the more politicially informed come off as extreme in most cases because their ideology is self-consistent and they know what to be mad about. I think what we think of as "centrists" or "independents" are mostly people who aren't as informed and don't really have a self-consistent ideology, more a few policies they like.

I don't think that people who are politically informed come off as extreme, far from it. I would say the less educated on a particular subject someone is, the less inclined they are to see reason and the least likely they will tolerate people with opposing points of view. In most instances, extremism thrives off ignorance and visceral, emotional responses, something which people who lack an informed opinion or the capacity or willingness to understand and reason with those they disagree with.

Centrism in of itself isn't an absence of ideology, but rather an absence of dogma, something which cripples those on the left and right. It's an ability to see beyond simple partisan lines and actually take ideas and apply them in a practical manner.

So yes, it's galaxy brain meme time.

Though that's not to say all centrists are like that, obviously.

It's not even "all x are y", it's, if anything, a meme to suggest that centrists are people who aren't willing to "commit".

[Neo Kerala]

From the articles I've read on the topic, and my own experience, radicalism is the result more of lack of social support and social networking than the result of any level of intelligence. There are smart and there are dumb radicals, just like there are smart and dumb moderates. What really influences people's radicalism is that they don't have a social support network and so they don't really have much invested in the continued existence of the societies they live in.

A great example is the Nazis, when you read biographies of them, many of them were what we would call losers, so they sought to change society into something where they could accomplish something, no matter what it was.

Only Mengolore was a beloved man before joining the Nazi party

[Page]

I mean yeah. If you're gonna unironically support something like communism, fascism, anarchism, theocracy etc you can't exactly be fully capable mentally. At best it takes being extremely naive and historically illiterate if not revisionist, but for most people who actually think that some kind of radical societal change based on some dead dude's book is going to do well they're deluded.

I would argue it takes being extremely naive to not see how radically terrible the status quo is and to think the way we live our lives is more or less fine. That's what being a moderate is, really, conceding that human society is basically fine and just needs a few policy changes here and there. A moderate says "This is the almost the best we can do." Now that's naive.

[Esternial]

Honestly I wouldn't be able to make a call on that. "Intellect" is such a vague qualifier you should probably define it properly first. It's a derived attribute, and everybody defines it differently.

[NeuesTeutony]

I think there's a confusion with moderate and pragmatism, a pragmatist can have extreme beliefs yet be fluctuating and support other beliefs, or maybe I heavily misunderstood what OP was getting at. I definitely agree that dogmatism is a huge problem in ideology, and this spans from capitalism to socialism, anarchism to fascism, even democracy can have dogmatic supporters.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

He actually moved to U of Az. The man is also a career academic who's never struggled in his life and as someone who also subscribes to anarchist ideas i could pick his social anarcho syndicast position apart based on the reality of him living in an office and never doing a real days work or seeing the ugly side of life. Part of intelligemce is practical experience. Somethinf Chomsky would know little about first hand. Same goes for ben shapiro but you must hate conservatives so he clearly must be an idiot.

It's funny that you claim to be a moderate when your words betray you as a far-right reactionary. The whole contempt for academia (how dare anyone study such frivolous things as linguistics and sociology instead of doing "real" work) is straight out of the Bill O'Reilly playbook and you are in the esteemed company of young earth creationists.

To be fair, opposition to certain parts of academia is common among the right, not just to people who would qualify as "reactionary". I oppose certain elements of academia, but I hardly agree with these types of people.

[Gran Virginia]

People can be increadibly intelligent and still believe very stupid things, because they talk themselves into it. In some cases, especially with ideologies, it may very well be easier.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

People can be increadibly intelligent and still believe very stupid things, because they talk themselves into it. In some cases, especially with ideologies, it may very well be easier.

Agreed. There are very intelligent people who support communism, and very intelligent people who support fascism despite the fact that they should know better.

[Crylante]

No, and I feel anyone who unironically believes this may well be overestimating their own level of intellect.

[Torrocca]

Extremism has absolutely no correlation with intellect.

Noam Chomsky is famously an Anarcho-Syndicalist and yet he's insanely intelligent, well-spoken, and frequently cited for his work in regards to political science and the like. Dude yeets on the status quo like it's 1917 all over again (just without the Bolsheviks).

[Internationalist Bastard]

Every ideology has its genius thinkers and it’s idiot followers

[USS Monitor]

I mean yeah. If you're gonna unironically support something like communism, fascism, anarchism, theocracy etc you can't exactly be fully capable mentally. At best it takes being extremely naive and historically illiterate if not revisionist, but for most people who actually think that some kind of radical societal change based on some dead dude's book is going to do well they're deluded.

I kind of hate warning people for "you've got to be dumb to support X" posts, but this one goes over the line because of the choice of words "can't be fully capable mentally," which implies not having a functional brain rather than just not using it.

*** warned for trolling ***

[Joohan]

He actually moved to U of Az. The man is also a career academic who's never struggled in his life and as someone who also subscribes to anarchist ideas i could pick his social anarcho syndicast position apart based on the reality of him living in an office and never doing a real days work or seeing the ugly side of life. Part of intelligemce is practical experience. Somethinf Chomsky would know little about first hand. Same goes for ben shapiro but you must hate conservatives so he clearly must be an idiot.

Academics is real work.

Writing grant applications is hard.

The research is trivial.

When compared to what? Hard when compared to say, the Army? I get that academics can be stressful and hard at times - but most manual blue collar jobs are on a totally different level.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

* In the USSR, where I was born, ideologies were not divided into "extreme and moderate", they were divided into true and false, progressive and reactionary.
* Accordingly, supporters of a true, progressive ideology in such a paradigm are allowed revolutionary, violent methods of action, as well as deception of the enemy (conspiracy and disinformation), without which war is impossible.
* Supporters of a false, reactionary ideology are condemned mainly for their goals, and additionally for cruel methods, if applied.
* Roughly speaking, the insurgent slave is approved for using cunning and violence, and the slaveholder is blamed for it. Soviet and American soldiers approve of the war against the Nazis, including shooting, and deception of the enemy, and bombing. And the Nazis condemn, because they have a false goal, a false project aimed at exploitation, inequality, oppression and suffering of people.
* There are details: some cruel methods are unacceptable for progressive figures, they discredit anyone who uses them. Extreme methods, deception and cruelty, against their own comrades (Stalin was accused at the XX Congress exactly in this).
* And to divide ideas into "extremist and non-extremist" in Russia began only from the year 2000, and of course it is an instrument of billionaires who live well, who do not want radical changes, and therefore forbid oppressed people to think consistently, preventing them from knowing the essence of things and fighting for their interests (“Being radical means knowing the thing at its root,” as Marx noted). Of course, not every radicalism is progressive, there is reactionary radicalism, but the collision of these two poles, two clear antagonistic positions is better than avoiding conflict by banning consistent thinking and logical conclusions.

-----
* Sorry for any errors Google translate.

It seems like the Soviet propaganda machine worked on you, as you're still not thinking for yourself despite the Soviet Union's fall.

[East Gondwana]

In my experience, there are people of all intellects and education levels amongst both moderates and extremists.

The major factors that influence whether someone holds moderate or extremist beliefs is more to do with personal experiences and values, as extremism is usually fuelled by strong emotion (rather than rationality; that is not to say that an extremist viewpoint has no rationality, or that moderate viewpoints are inherently rational, just that it is emotion that usually causes people to radicalise their beliefs).

A person's personal experience or connection to an issue is also a factor, as someone who is not emotionally invested in something is unlikely to hold an extremist view on it, but if they have a personal stake in it, then they are more disposed to radicalise their views.

Then of course there's the social environment. One must consider what is considered to be a "normal" belief and what actually constitutes "moderate" and "extreme" in that person's social environment, how often their views are challenged, and how the sort of information that they recieve. We've all heard of echo chambers, but they exist outside the internet too.

tl;dr: a person's beliefs and opinions usually have more to do with their social environment and experiences than their internal individual characteristics.

[East Gondwana]

I've met some brilliant people on all sides of the spectrum. Even extremists, even people whose entire worldview I find completely and utterly repugnant.

Why? Well, I think many have mentioned this phenomenon. That is, I believe that many otherwise intelligent people are drawn into fundamentally radical and dangerous ideologies and thought processes because they feel detached from the world, feel lonely, feel depressed, whatever it may be in that sort of regard.

Fuck, I've been there. I'd say, shit, it was early 2015, about four years ago today. For a good eight months or so, I fell into a trap. A trap of ridiculous right-populism, and I mean fucking stupid ideology. I don't believe I was ever a dullard, but at that age, at that time, a miserable, self-loathing and detached fifteen year old, I was quickly drawn into that sort of thought process. As I suspect many people are, I was drawn into a relatively radical state of mind because there was often a tight-knit community behind it, a community of whackjobs, bigots, and extremists, sure. But for those seeking community, those negative aspects tend to be rendered irrelevant in one's mind.

Obviously, I'm a different person now. In fact, I'd argue that my entire life trajectory, personality and personal life have done a 180. And I'm not at all an extremist. But when I reflect on what I was for a brief period of time, I begin to understand why some otherwise intelligent folk are intrigued by radical ideology, often because of malicious and downright insane ideologues. And I hope that those who are enticed by that do get themselves out of that cesspool, I really do. It's not a pleasant place to be.

I've had some similar experiences. I've been sucked into the rabbit hole of extreme left ideologies and although I've never been stuck in that mindset for more than a few days at a time, I've noticed my politics become more radical sometimes and I have to constantly check myself and get off the computer to clear my head and, well, go outside. It's all too easy to just keep recieving bias confirming headlines and single sentence "hot takes" from the same people and not have it questioned.

And that really goes to the heart of it. We all have biases, both conscious and unconscious, and that is really how extremism spreads. It uses and plays on those biases, confirms them, finds ways to twist knowledge into half-truths and it subtley changes your worldview.

Which is why we all need to check ourselves, and our sources, and consider our biases, and always get outside perspectives, even if we don't agree with them, to get ourselves out of those ideological bubbles. With the internet it's now so easy for extremism to creep into your frame of thought.

[Murray land]

Academics is real work.

Writing grant applications is hard.

The research is trivial.

When compared to what? Hard when compared to say, the Army? I get that academics can be stressful and hard at times - but most manual blue collar jobs are on a totally different level.

Real. Only reason my "working class" ass went to college was because of scholarships. Compared to the bs labor jobs i worked through hs and in college. Class was a walk in the fucking park.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

It seems like the Soviet propaganda machine worked on you, as you're still not thinking for yourself despite the Soviet Union's fall.

Of course it worked. But at least I can see it and take it into account. Although the inhabitants of bourgeois countries are completely confident in what they themselves think, but their consciousness is also shaped by the media, the education system, the customs and the conditions of their upbringing.

[Phoenicaea]

@Murray Land, no. apart i may have..'conflict of interests' in saying this, the core fact is this doesn t make any sense. what should 'moderate' mean?

in my country, 'moderates' is not what you mean in yours. other than this, indicates anything apart party definition. in what should 'radical' in front of 'moderate' ideology should differ?

i don t know how to say it in an other language, there is a saying 'pensiero debole', literally something as 'week thinking'.

it means you can t falsificate claims that doesn t accomplish any thesys. 'half-thinking' is not 'moderate', nor any ideology may ever be more..'diluted' in front of an other.