I don’t think it is about flipping a coin between open-minded and close-minded but about radicalization. While it is harder to see with QAnon, radicalization be it right, left (although you have to go really far on the horseshoe), or religious is staunchly anti-intellectualistic. Once you believe in ideas or at least do not see them as really distasteful, it gets easier to go towards more and more batshit insane ideas.
While I am not sure if there is actual research on how age affects radicalization, research on radicalization has identified certain things that make it likelier for a person to be radicalized. Vulnerability, marginalization, and othering are all pretty common. To extend it there might be an age group vulnerability of 45 and up age group because of either being empty nesters or kids at least starting to be a lot more independent.
There is also somewhat of a domino effect. People like to be part of a group. If people don’t give any legitimacy to radicalized viewpoints, it makes it harder to be radicalized. The problem with this is also how hidden ideas can become mainstream as has at least in Western countries happened with the alt-right, they can reach a scary critical mass. Once you have been tempered with completely crazy viewpoints at one point thinking JFK Jr will be resurrected is not that weird anymore.
Over a decade ago when I started to get really worried about the rise of fascism in the West, my mom thought I was insane. Now we have had (not American) actual neo-Nazi as minister and no one of the ministerial parties thought it was a huge enough deal to actually not do it. In my books that means they all are neo-Nazies. My mom also doesn’t think I am insane anymore. The tools they used to gain power are not new. We are just not taught to identify them. I was because it would be a pretty bad idea to have someone in my profession if not aware of signs of radicalization.
We really need to step out of the idea that radicalization only happens to people who are somehow slow or uneducated. It might make you more likely to fall for it, but cognitive ability and education will not mean you will not end up there as well. Issue with the anti-intellectualism of the alt-right is not if someone themselves has education but if they are willing to listen to other people who do. If no one is an expert for example racist ideas of the alt-right about biological differences can’t be refuted. Which is probably partially where it comes from times quite a lot.
Everyone likes to think they have cognitive ability. If we just think radicalization happens only to stupid people, and you are not stupid, getting a person de-radicalized is going to be a lot harder. Thinking that we as people with cognitive ability can’t be radicalized will also make it easier to fall for it because you can’t be radicalized.
Instead of intelligence or education, we should focus on the trifecta of vulnerability, marginalization, and othering. That’s a better predictor.
(And no, I do not actually disagree about the ideas being idiocy, just that falling for them are not just for idiots)
I disagree on the fundamental level that if someone “intelligent” chooses to follow the ideas of idiocy it’s not proof that the intelligent can be swayed, but that the individual is objectively less intelligent that previously assumed. This is reinforced when someone more intelligent isn’t swayed by said idiocy.
It is because radicalization is more than a cognitive process. It is as much social and psychological. Intelligence alone is a pretty bad predictor of a lot of things we like to think only depend on intelligence. While there is some causation, it is not a vacuum or often even the biggest predictor of many things.
Radicalization is the thing that makes you believe in things that can’t be real. Making people believe a lot of things is surprisingly easy. Look into religions. While I don’t believe and you might not, a lot of intelligent people throughout world history have. There might be a correlation between intelligence and atheism these days, but the effect is far from linear.
I would then argue that you’re disassociating emotional intelligence with total intelligence. If someone is emotionally unintelligent enough to be swayed by baseless rhetoric then they aren’t an intelligent person being manipulated they are an emotionally compromised person being manipulated.
They definitely are emotionally compromised person being manipulated but being emotionally unintelligent and being emotionally compromised are not the same thing. While being emotionally unintelligent will affect your risk of being radicalized it does so through your own emotions and capacity to process them in a healthy way.
Radicalization happens in steps. You don’t get from being blind to racism and as the next step participating in genocide. Nor do you go from wondering if you are being lied to for some nefarious reason to believing 5G will kill you. It is a slow and gradual process. A lot of people are following the same playbook. It includes things like moving goalposts, giving the same legitimacy to two viewpoints that are not equal in ethics or evidence, playing on fear and discomfort, and giving convenient fall guy for people’s difficulties. In my language, there is a saying that in a group stupidity condenses. That isn’t because people’s intelligence somehow lessens but because of the social nature of human beings.
It is not like people in Nazi Germany suddenly lose their collective cognitive or emotional intelligence in 20s and 30s. There were pretty clear issues going on that could be seized for populist politics. It is also not like Nazis themselves didn’t have a huge amount of anti-intellectual pseudoscience in their idealogy and, in the case of some members, a lot of occultism going around.
The hard truth is that people in general are really bad at seeing manipulation. You can see the clumsy attempts but the majority of people judge others’ actions based on their view of their intentions. And as in general we would like to think of ourselves as well-intentioned, we are not judging if someone is manipulating all the time. Critical thinking can help but the thing about radicalization is that it speaks to multiple psychological tendencies we naturally have.
And while I deem QAnon shit and even any flavor of alt-right or religious fundamentalism idiocy, the pure fact that they have been as successful as they have tells that their manipulation is quite finessed.
I don’t think it is about flipping a coin between open-minded and close-minded but about radicalization. While it is harder to see with QAnon, radicalization be it right, left (although you have to go really far on the horseshoe), or religious is staunchly anti-intellectualistic. Once you believe in ideas or at least do not see them as really distasteful, it gets easier to go towards more and more batshit insane ideas.
While I am not sure if there is actual research on how age affects radicalization, research on radicalization has identified certain things that make it likelier for a person to be radicalized. Vulnerability, marginalization, and othering are all pretty common. To extend it there might be an age group vulnerability of 45 and up age group because of either being empty nesters or kids at least starting to be a lot more independent.
There is also somewhat of a domino effect. People like to be part of a group. If people don’t give any legitimacy to radicalized viewpoints, it makes it harder to be radicalized. The problem with this is also how hidden ideas can become mainstream as has at least in Western countries happened with the alt-right, they can reach a scary critical mass. Once you have been tempered with completely crazy viewpoints at one point thinking JFK Jr will be resurrected is not that weird anymore.
Over a decade ago when I started to get really worried about the rise of fascism in the West, my mom thought I was insane. Now we have had (not American) actual neo-Nazi as minister and no one of the ministerial parties thought it was a huge enough deal to actually not do it. In my books that means they all are neo-Nazies. My mom also doesn’t think I am insane anymore. The tools they used to gain power are not new. We are just not taught to identify them. I was because it would be a pretty bad idea to have someone in my profession if not aware of signs of radicalization.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
We really need to step out of the idea that radicalization only happens to people who are somehow slow or uneducated. It might make you more likely to fall for it, but cognitive ability and education will not mean you will not end up there as well. Issue with the anti-intellectualism of the alt-right is not if someone themselves has education but if they are willing to listen to other people who do. If no one is an expert for example racist ideas of the alt-right about biological differences can’t be refuted. Which is probably partially where it comes from times quite a lot.
Everyone likes to think they have cognitive ability. If we just think radicalization happens only to stupid people, and you are not stupid, getting a person de-radicalized is going to be a lot harder. Thinking that we as people with cognitive ability can’t be radicalized will also make it easier to fall for it because you can’t be radicalized.
Instead of intelligence or education, we should focus on the trifecta of vulnerability, marginalization, and othering. That’s a better predictor.
(And no, I do not actually disagree about the ideas being idiocy, just that falling for them are not just for idiots)
I disagree on the fundamental level that if someone “intelligent” chooses to follow the ideas of idiocy it’s not proof that the intelligent can be swayed, but that the individual is objectively less intelligent that previously assumed. This is reinforced when someone more intelligent isn’t swayed by said idiocy.
It is because radicalization is more than a cognitive process. It is as much social and psychological. Intelligence alone is a pretty bad predictor of a lot of things we like to think only depend on intelligence. While there is some causation, it is not a vacuum or often even the biggest predictor of many things.
Radicalization is the thing that makes you believe in things that can’t be real. Making people believe a lot of things is surprisingly easy. Look into religions. While I don’t believe and you might not, a lot of intelligent people throughout world history have. There might be a correlation between intelligence and atheism these days, but the effect is far from linear.
I would then argue that you’re disassociating emotional intelligence with total intelligence. If someone is emotionally unintelligent enough to be swayed by baseless rhetoric then they aren’t an intelligent person being manipulated they are an emotionally compromised person being manipulated.
They definitely are emotionally compromised person being manipulated but being emotionally unintelligent and being emotionally compromised are not the same thing. While being emotionally unintelligent will affect your risk of being radicalized it does so through your own emotions and capacity to process them in a healthy way.
Radicalization happens in steps. You don’t get from being blind to racism and as the next step participating in genocide. Nor do you go from wondering if you are being lied to for some nefarious reason to believing 5G will kill you. It is a slow and gradual process. A lot of people are following the same playbook. It includes things like moving goalposts, giving the same legitimacy to two viewpoints that are not equal in ethics or evidence, playing on fear and discomfort, and giving convenient fall guy for people’s difficulties. In my language, there is a saying that in a group stupidity condenses. That isn’t because people’s intelligence somehow lessens but because of the social nature of human beings.
It is not like people in Nazi Germany suddenly lose their collective cognitive or emotional intelligence in 20s and 30s. There were pretty clear issues going on that could be seized for populist politics. It is also not like Nazis themselves didn’t have a huge amount of anti-intellectual pseudoscience in their idealogy and, in the case of some members, a lot of occultism going around.
The hard truth is that people in general are really bad at seeing manipulation. You can see the clumsy attempts but the majority of people judge others’ actions based on their view of their intentions. And as in general we would like to think of ourselves as well-intentioned, we are not judging if someone is manipulating all the time. Critical thinking can help but the thing about radicalization is that it speaks to multiple psychological tendencies we naturally have.
And while I deem QAnon shit and even any flavor of alt-right or religious fundamentalism idiocy, the pure fact that they have been as successful as they have tells that their manipulation is quite finessed.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Really, this is a great example as to why “intelligence” and “`wisdom” are two entirely separate things.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.
Even education can only do so much to make up for a complete lack of cognitive ability.