study shows how fanaticism is caused

[sfzombie13 307]

from the article -

"A new series of nine experimental studies indicates that “discordant knowing”, certainty about something one perceives as opposed by the majority of others, predicts greater fanaticism. The studies showed that experimental manipulation of participants’ views, i.e. putting them in a situation where they are set to see their views as being in opposition to the majority, increased behavioral indicators of fanaticism, such as aggression, determined ignorance and wanting to join extreme groups in service of one’s view. The study was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Dogmatic beliefs, fanaticism and similar phenomena have been attracting interest of social psychologists for a long time. Tendencies of some people to maintain their beliefs in opposition to the views of the majority of people in their environment has been linked to these phenomena. Some studies proposed that people adopt such isolating behavior in an effort to satiate desires for certainty, control and uniqueness.

One concept proposed to explain this is “discordant knowing”. It consists of “felt knowledge” – being sure about an opinion or viewpoint – and “opposition” – perceiving one’s claim as being generally opposed by other people. While previous studies have focused very much on “felt knowledge”, a concept associated with dogmatism, rigidity, overclaiming and similar traits, psychological processes linked to holding minority viewpoints have not attracted much research attention."

certainly explains a lot if true. 

[Phil1111 913]

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

from the article -

"A new series of nine experimental studies indicates that “discordant knowing”, ...

certainly explains a lot if true. 

A similar concept of human psychology has been studied and known for a long time. Lawyers are taught this in a fourth year 1/2 class called "Jury manipulation for massive verdicts". .Or what is commonly refereed to as "How to fund your multigenerational inheritance with one winning case".

In essence you prime a group of people and challenge them to show how outraged they are over some situation. That they will individually show their human compassion by suggesting verdicts that are bigger than the last suggestion.Each person in the jury trying to outdo the last person, the last $$$ verdict suggestion.

Here is a story in Nature on how Brent and Slim developed their anti science internalized beliefs.

"How Trump damaged science — and why it could take decades to recover  The US president’s actions have exacerbated the pandemic that has killed more than 200,000 people in the United States, rolled back environmental and public-health regulations and undermined science and scientific institutions. Some of the harm could be permanent. "

Edited October 23, 2022 by Phil1111

[sfzombie13 307]

1 hour ago, Slim King said:

Who paid for this study? Has it been Peer reviewed?

like the old prggo commercial used to say..."put your nose against the jar, it's in there", meaning rtfm, or article in this case.  i linked to the article, and the link in the text shows a link tot he actual study so you can read the whole thing yourself.  i have no idea if the publication is reputable.  it's a discussion forum for a reason, discuss it.  i can't read it for you, but i can give you every opportunity to read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

[sfzombie13 307]

11 minutes ago, Slim King said:

Did you spend the $15 to read it?

no, but i read the article.  did you do a <favorite search engine> search for it to see if the publication was reputable or are you just being purposefully obtuse?  i know, but i want to hear your excuse.  if you want me to do the work for you, you're barking up the wrong tree.  enjoy your answers.

[Phil1111 913]

30 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

... if you want me to do the work for you, you're barking up the wrong tree.  enjoy your answers.

He farms out his thinking to FOX, the GOP, Truth Social, the FSB, etc. So you don't have to worry about him using you.

[sfzombie13 307]

3 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

He farms out his thinking to FOX, the GOP, Truth Social, the FSB, etc. So you don't have to worry about him using you.

i guessed, but was really looking for a discussion.  your thoughts on it?

[Phil1111 913]

6 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

i guessed, but was really looking for a discussion.  your thoughts on it?

It's consistent with how the anti-science, anti-government, views develop among certain political groups in the US. As well as those who like to espouse anti MSM views.

[sfzombie13 307]

13 hours ago, Slim King said:

So you have no idea who financed the study, no peer reviews to show after two years and you didn't bother to even read the study itself....???? Sounds legit to me ... LOL

i read it, i just didn't pay for you to read it.  piss off.

 

anyone else care to comment on it?  almost anyone else, that is.  it seems i have attracted something.

[Phil1111 913]

25 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

.... almost anyone else, that is.  it seems i have attracted something.

You had been warned.

It's like when you look at a horse in the pasture. Because its acting odd. Walking in circles. You might step on some fresh manure. So the flies will be pursuing you thereafter. They will bother and harass you. All the swatting doesn't help. When you get in your truck there is still that stink.

[DougH 270]

29 minutes ago, sfzombie13 said:

i read it, i just didn't pay for you to read it.  piss off.

 

anyone else care to comment on it?  almost anyone else, that is.  it seems i have attracted something.

I would suggest you don't debate the merits of your sources with people who get the backing for their ideologies from cereal box decoder rings, and reading patterns in the dog shit that got stuck to the bottom of their shoes.

You seem like a nice guy, and I don't want you choking to death on the irony.

[sfzombie13 307]

3 hours ago, DougH said:

I would suggest you don't debate the merits of your sources with people who get the backing for their ideologies from cereal box decoder rings, and reading patterns in the dog shit that got stuck to the bottom of their shoes.

You seem like a nice guy, and I don't want you choking to death on the irony.

i used to hang out here a lot, but after a few months, you can predict how every thread would go and who would say what to about 95% accuracy.  i left due to being sick and stayed gone after my conversion.  i did think at least one good discussion would come from it.  guess i was wrong.  enjoy the day.

[mbohu 77]

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

i used to hang out here a lot, but after a few months, you can predict how every thread would go and who would say what to about 95% accuracy.

Yup.

1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

i did think at least one good discussion would come from it.

I'll give it a try. First though, the only thing that is accessible without pay, is the single paragraph summary, and the PsyPost Article, right? So that is what we are discussing, right?

On 10/23/2022 at 2:48 PM, sfzombie13 said:

The studies showed that experimental manipulation of participants’ views, i.e. putting them in a situation where they are set to see their views as being in opposition to the majority, increased behavioral indicators of fanaticism, such as aggression, determined ignorance and wanting to join extreme groups in service of one’s view.

So, first, I would say, that seems relatively obvious and common sense, no?

All that is saying is that if someone holds a strong view (right or wrong...or unknown), and you put them into a situation where they are being confronted with a much larger group of people in opposition to that view, they will get more aggressive and defensive about defending their view.
That seems not at all surprising, does it? I mean, if you put a group of fighters up against a much larger group of fighters, the members of the smaller group will (need to) fight much harder and do whatever they can to oppose the perceived threat.--no?

Now, what I find interesting is that this says nothing about the correctness of the view. Just that it is strongly held and that it is not held by a majority.
However, later it becomes clear, by the actual issues mentioned and by the assumption one can make about what the authors think the "correct" views are, that they were starting with the assumption that the minority views are incorrect (or they were only interested in cases where the minority views were incorrect--or perceived as such). 

To use an example from the article: They deemed Jehova's Witnesses as “members of a fanatical religious group”, and then concluded that they are more fanatical and their views are in the minority (seems like a conclusion already included in the setup, no?)
But it seems to me that the study then also concludes, that if "evangelical Christians" would live in a society dominated by Jehova's Witnesses, and therefore hold the minority view, the evangelicals would then become more fanatical, and the Jehova's Witnesses less so, right?

So I am a bit confused about what the new insight is, here. Is it just: When you hold a view, and then find out that you are in the minority, there is a good likelihood that you will become more fanatical about it as a defense against being in the minority--no matter if your view is correct or not?

If so, my own reaction would be: Yes. That makes sense...but also: duh!

Is there more to it in your estimation?

[sfzombie13 307]

18 hours ago, Slim King said:

But earlier you said you read the article and not the study itself............. Which is it?

typical right wing idiot thinking there, why not both?  is it possible for both to be true?  if you want someone to think for you, i doubt you could afford me or would like the results.  i have friends, and some of them even have college degrees, while one is a professor.  access to a jstor account isn't that hard to get when you have friends.  i suggest getting one.

16 hours ago, mbohu said:

Yup.

I'll give it a try. First though, the only thing that is accessible without pay, is the single paragraph summary, and the PsyPost Article, right? So that is what we are discussing, right?

So, first, I would say, that seems relatively obvious and common sense, no?

...

If so, my own reaction would be: Yes. That makes sense...but also: duh!

Is there more to it in your estimation?

yep, only the article.

all studies that show something of this nature appear to me to be common sense, so yes, it does appear that way. 

i believe the new insight is that it doesn't matter what the opinion is; as long as it's not the mainstream opinion it will lead to fanaticism more easily.   honestly, i just can't discuss it now, i'm over it.  i had some things in mind a few days ago, but have since moved on and that's about all i can muster now.  appreciate the banter.  reminds me to stay the hell out of this part of the forum.