anyone watching that <snip> on prime time

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 12:25pm

Grayson wrote: »

The process of being radicalised is strange. Unless a traumatic event causes it it happens over time.
This happens to any group. take religion in Ireland. If I met someone who had no opinion (and indeed had no previous experience of religion) I could discuss the matter with them. they may agree with me but may not. If however i tried to convince an atheist that god is real or tried to convince a very catholic person that God isn't real, I'd get nowhere.
The human brain goes through a process where people reinforce their strongly held beliefs when they hear information that contradicts them. there was an interesting experiment performed in the US during the Bush/Kerry election. They got people to rate how strong a supporter they were. they gave bot sides information which made their politician look bad. they found that those who were of medium support initially dropped in their support. However those who were at an extreme actually came out as stronger supporters.
That means that if someone really, really believes in something and you tell them something bad, they'll believe even more. Whereas moderates like you and i will actually change our opinions, they can't.

It's the same with radicals. They are at the very extreme and they are unbalanced. they will suck in both positive and negative influences but in their mind it'll all strengthen their opinion.

This goes for all radicals. Christians who scream at abortion doctors or blow up clinics, Israeli settlers, members of ISIS, their brains all work in the same way.

Part of the reason for extremist and entrenched positions is because of 'The Availability Heuristic'

The Availability Heuristic is a cognitive process where we give more mental prominance to things which are more commonly encountered and re-inforced in our experience.

Things that we can immediately recall are seen as true, while things that are hard to recall are seen as less true

It's a subconscious process but also easy to manipulate. People who become extremists immerse themselves in one way of thinking, they only read propaganda from one perspective, they repeat and memorise mantras that support one view and oppose all others, they avoid reading material that contradicts their world view unless it is filtered through a source that re-interprets it to fit the agenda.

Music fans, for example can get immersed in a sub culture where the type of music that they like is the only 'good' kind of music. They only listen to this kind of music, they only read magazines and websites that support this kind of music, they judge friendships based on their musical tastes and will hang around other people only if they share their musical tastes, and they are not open to new musical experiences having already pre-judged other kinds of music as 'fake' or 'commercial' or whatever.

A death metal fan will think death metal is the only kind of music worth listening to. if you ask a death metal band to list 10 bands, all of them will be death metal bands, if you ask them to list 10 pop synth bands, they might struggle to name 5. This Availability Heuristic means that the fact that they can immediately recall more death metal bands means that they intuitively believe that death metal music is more important and better than other forms of music.

The same applies to most other sub-cultures, whether it's sporting, art, motor racing, religious etc...

These can become dangerous when there are violent associations with these sub-cultures, for example, the punks vs the mods in the 1980s, or the hells angels and the biker culture in the 80s, or the football hooligan subculture, and now we have an islamic fundamentalist subculture which is sucking in young men and radicalising them

padd b1975 · 09-01-2015 12:30pm

Is Miriam still rocking the "mutton dressed as lamb" look?

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 12:35pm

In relation to my post above, this is one of the main reasons why 'Faith schools' (of all denominations) should not be allowed.

Children who grow up completely immersed in one community with little or no interaction with wider society are far more at risk of becoming radicalised than children who grow up interacting with others from a variety of other backgrounds.

Panrich · 09-01-2015 12:45pm

Akrasia wrote: »

In relation to my post above, this is one of the main reasons why 'Faith schools' (of all denominations) should not be allowed.

Children who grow up completely immersed in one community with little or no interaction with wider society are far more at risk of becoming radicalised than children who grow up interacting with others from a variety of other backgrounds.

And you can bet that this fact is not lost on those that champion these types of schools too.

Grayson · 09-01-2015 12:53pm

drumswan wrote: »

Can you imagine a situation where suicide bombing against civilian targets would be justified?

People, perhaps understandably, simply want to believe the best about Muslims, but the reality is different. We'll get nowhere if we dont start acknowledging the basic reality.

Can you imagine a situation where nuking two civilian cities is ok?

I'm not saying that it's ok to think suicide bombing is ok. I'm saying that Muslims are no different to everyone else. Some muslims think that suicide bombing is ok. Some Irish people thought it was OK when the IRA bombed a civilian target. The majority of US people think it was ok to nuke not one, but two, civilian cities.

blacklilly · 09-01-2015 12:54pm

Panrich wrote: »

And you can bet that this fact is not lost on those that champion these types of schools too.

Schools are not the only form of social outlet for children.
There are parents of all faiths that wish for their children to go particular school due to it's ethos and that is completely acceptable and should be provided for.

The vast majorirty of religious people of all faiths are normal non fundamentalist, to suggest otherwise is scaremongering.

mullinr2 · 09-01-2015 12:55pm

Here is were the Muslims are wrong. The war on terror in Iraq/Afghanistan etc is exactly that, a war on terrorism. Its not a war against Islam in which Muslims feel it is. They use this to justify the attacks in Paris. This was an attack on Western principles and culture. The war on terrorism is not a cultural or religious war.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 1:06pm

Akrasia wrote: »

A death metal fan will think death metal is the only kind of music worth listening to

The Bauhaus, Paradise Lost, Carcass and Anna Ternheim albums I just listened to in that order would beg to differ. It's a rubbish theory that if you like something then that's the only thing you like or know about TBH.
How do you know what radical Islamists know if you are not one yourself? You've just invalidated your own theory in the same breath.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 1:08pm

mullinr2 wrote: »

Here is were the Muslims are wrong. The war on terror in Iraq/Afghanistan etc is exactly that, a war on terrorism. Its not a war against Islam in which Muslims feel it is.

Or option 3: it is neither a war or terror or on Muslims.

Sheep Lover · 09-01-2015 1:13pm

I think that <snip> made some interesting <snip> but <snip> and <snip> will never <snip>

<snip> <snip> and ultimately <snip>

irish coldplayer · 09-01-2015 1:20pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Bauhaus, Paradise Lost, Carcass and Anna Ternheim albums I just listened to in that order would beg to differ. It's a rubbish theory that if you like something then that's the only thing you like or know about TBH.

It obviously doesn't apply to ALL the population ALL the time, just in certain situations.
As for it being a "rubbish theory" I presume you can point to several peer reviewed study's in reputable journals that have caused you to conclude that there is no merit in the theory?
Or did you just pluck your opinion out of your arse?
At least google the theory and read about it before dismissing it out of hand.
Here is a few examples to help you on your way.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=The+Availability+Heuristic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=YcWvVNeJEM7e7Aax6oHoBg#q=The+Availability+Heuristic+studies&spell=1

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 1:26pm

irish coldplayer wrote: »

It obviously doesn't apply to ALL the population ALL the time, just in certain situations.
As for it being a "rubbish theory" I presume you can point to several peer reviewed study's in reputable journals that have caused you to conclude that there is no merit in the theory?
Or did you just pluck your opinion out of your arse?
At least google the theory and read about it before dismissing it out of hand.
Here is a few examples to help you on your way.
https://www.google.ie/search?q=The+Availability+Heuristic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=YcWvVNeJEM7e7Aax6oHoBg#q=The+Availability+Heuristic+studies&spell=1

Listen, no point in getting uppity because your theory was instantly flushed down the toilet. All your saying is radicals are radical. Wow. Helpful.
You never did explain how you know what Islamic extremists think when you insist only they can know what they think, did you? Nope.
Wanna try again, this time with logic?

irish coldplayer · 09-01-2015 1:36pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Listen, no point in getting uppity because your theory was instantly flushed down the toilet. All your saying is radicals are radical. Wow. Helpful.
You never did explain how you know what Islamic extremists think when you insist only they can know what they think, did you? Nope.
Wanna try again, this time with logic?

1. I never said I know what Islamic extremists think that would be impossible.
2. I didn't initially present this theory Akrasia did. (although I was previously aware of it). It is a viable argument with a wide range of research, nobody said it was absolute.

You said it was "rubbish" because thats how it initially felt to you but you have still presented no argument as to why it is rubbish other than your opinion.
My point is there are multiple studies that provide evidence that the theory is very real.
My initial 2 questions in my previous post still stand.

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 1:58pm

blacklilly wrote: »

Schools are not the only form of social outlet for children.
There are parents of all faiths that wish for their children to go particular school due to it's ethos and that is completely acceptable and should be provided for.

The vast majorirty of religious people of all faiths are normal non fundamentalist, to suggest otherwise is scaremongering.

Parents are legally obligated to send their kids to school. (in most cases parents are not capable of educating their children at home to the legal standard required) Education is a human right for all children in Ireland, and education is more than about just learning theorums and poetry. Education is about preparing people to become balanced individuals and productive members of society.

Faith schools exist to indoctrinate and isolate children from wider society. While some of the parents of children who go to faith schools might be liberal or moderates, the faith schools themselves are mandated to be conservative and abide by the 'ethos' of their faith

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 2:05pm

irish coldplayer wrote: »

You said it was "rubbish" because thats how it initially felt to you but you have still presented no argument as to why it is rubbish other than your opinion.

Exactly what you said was:

A death metal fan will think death metal is the only kind of music worth listening to.

Since I am a death metal fan and I think other kinds of music are worth listening to which I do myself, I don't need to read any research you want to cite. I know what you said is provably bull**** instantly.
The real reason why it's a **** theory is that it can make absolutely no prediction as to which people will become radicalized. It's 100% post hoc. Radicals are radical because the were radicalised. If it can't predict jack ****, that's about the value of the theory.

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 2:23pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The Bauhaus, Paradise Lost, Carcass and Anna Ternheim albums I just listened to in that order would beg to differ. It's a rubbish theory that if you like something then that's the only thing you like or know about TBH.
How do you know what radical Islamists know if you are not one yourself? You've just invalidated your own theory in the same breath.

Are you an active member of the death metal sub-culture?

Also, I never said that people only know about the things they like, I said that in extreme cases, people who are fully immersed in one subculture choose to associate almost exclusively with other members of that culture, choose to read books and magazines and websites related to that subculture, dress according to the 'uniform' of that culture etc so in their daily experience, a much larger proportion of their lives revolve around this narrow area, and cognitively, the brain perceives this narrow area of life to be much more important than it actually is.

It's how people get 'sucked in'.

The availability heuristic affects everyone all of the time, it's a mental shortcut, and it allows us to function in the worlds we live in, if we have a normal range of daily experiences then 'our world' is relatively balanced between normal human activities, work, friends, family, recreation, education, travelling, varied hobbies of one sort or another,

but when someones world gets narrowed down so much that their whole lives are dominated by thinking about one thing, then it is difficult to withdraw. The thing you are sucked into seems to be the most important thing in the world, whether it's stamp collecting or jihad.

My name is URL · 09-01-2015 2:24pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Was thinking this myself, probably not enough reason to fire him but surprised he is allowed talk so openly like that when he is constantly referred to as a Trinity lecturer.

What's he supposed to be a lecturer of anyway? I can't find any listing or mention of him on the TCD staff pages.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 2:26pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you an active member of the death metal sub-culture?

Also, I never said that people only know about the things they like, I said that in extreme cases, people who are fully immersed in one subculture choose to associate almost exclusively with other members of that culture, choose to read books and magazines and websites related to that subculture, dress according to the 'uniform' of that culture etc so in their daily experience, a much larger proportion of their lives revolve around this narrow area, and cognitively, the brain perceives this narrow area of life to be much more important than it actually is.

It's how people get 'sucked in'.

The availability heuristic affects everyone all of the time, it's a mental shortcut, and it allows us to function in the worlds we live in, if we have a normal range of daily experiences then 'our world' is relatively balanced between normal human activities, work, friends, family, recreation, education, travelling, varied hobbies of one sort or another,

but when someones world gets narrowed down so much that their whole lives are dominated by thinking about one thing, then it is difficult to withdraw. The thing you are sucked into seems to be the most important thing in the world, whether it's stamp collecting or jihad.

People who do a lot of one thing don't tend to do so much of other things? I don't really get the newsworthiness of that TBH.
Can any of these available heuristics (giggle) theories predict which people will become single issuers? If not then it is an entirely post hoc assessment. He's a radical because he was radicalised. How does that help anyone predict anything, which is the fundamental basis for testing any theory?

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 2:29pm

My name is URL wrote: »

What's he supposed to be a lecturer of anyway? I can't find any listing or mention of him on the TCD staff pages.

You'll find anybody who's given a lecture somehow manages to get "Lecturer" on their CV...

Magico Gonzalez · 09-01-2015 2:29pm

It's good that we give the salafi muslims a voice, so we can see how antiquated and irrelevant their interpretation of islam is.

Freedom of speech guarantees debate and understanding, I'd have him on every week so people can see what a bitter sectarian fool he is, so people are educated enough to make better choices.

Salafism, wahhabism and other extreme forms of islam are the problem. There are other more peaceful forms of the religion. Sadly in the west we have got into bed with the Saudis, horrible bunch of wahhabi extremists.

Grayson · 09-01-2015 2:31pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

People who do a lot of one thing don't tend to do so much of other things? I don't really get the newsworthiness of that TBH.
Can any of these available heuristics (giggle) theories predict which people will become single issuers? If not then it is an entirely post hoc assessment. He's a radical because he was radicalised. How does that help anyone predict anything, which is the fundamental basis for testing any theory?

He helps dealing with radicals. There are people who have been de-radicalised.
It can also help spotting people. If we learn how people react at certain stage and can occasionally recognise it, then we can stop it.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 2:37pm

Akrasia wrote: »

the brain perceives this narrow area of life to be much more important than it actually is.

I'm 100% atheist, but who are you exactly to decide how important something is to somebody? Would you say the same thing to somebody who has dedicated their life to helping war orphans or cancer sufferers?

strobe · 09-01-2015 2:45pm

Whoa whoa whoa, it was the Snips that did it? I've been woefully misinformed. Who are these Snip fellas and what are their demands?

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 2:46pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

People who do a lot of one thing don't tend to do so much of other things? I don't really get the newsworthiness of that TBH.
Can any of these available heuristics (giggle) theories predict which people will become single issuers? If not then it is an entirely post hoc assessment. He's a radical because he's we radicalised. How does that help anyone predict anything, which is the fundamental basis for testing any theory?

It's easy to test -

Behavioural psychologists have conducted studies similar to below and they usually get the same results

1. Rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 10

2. List 20 attributes about yourself that you think are positive

3. List 5 attributes about yourself that you think are negative

4. rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 10

The person in the above scenario will almost always rate him/herself lower the second time because it's much easier to fill a short list than a long list.

The brain struggles to compete the list, and subconsciously, it thinks that because it can't think of 20 positive attributes, then then they must be uncommon, and because most people could easily think of 5 negative attributes about themselves, these must be common.

When someone gets sucked into a cult or other insular sub-culture, there is constant positive re-inforcement about why the sub-culture is better than everything else, and constant negative re-inforcement about why everything else is worse than the sub-culture, so if someone asks a member of an islamic extremist sect to list 10 reasons why Islamic culture is better than Islam, he will have no problem, but if he is asked to list 10 reasons why western culture is better than Islamic culture, he will have to work much harder, and subconsciously his brain will assume that islam is obviously better than the alternative.

The point is that constant re-inforcement of one position is one of the key requirements to form an extremist clique/cult. This is why cults often live in compounds and socialise together and read prescribed texts and gather together regularly in order to re-affirm their committment to the cult.

Its also why people who escape from the cult can often recover very quickly as their horizons are lifted and they can see beyond the narrow view of the world they had before.

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 2:54pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm 100% atheist, but who are you exactly to decide how important something is to somebody? Would you say the same thing to somebody who has dedicated their life to helping war orphans or cancer sufferers?

Our brain evolved to allow us to survive in the wild. Importance in this context relates to survival and flourishing as a species. If you live in a jungle, it is very important to know what plants are toxic and which animals you can eat, and which are best avoided. An early human who found himself on the permafrost who didn't consider shelter and warmth to be important would not survive very long.

The brain does not have limitless capacity, it needs to focus on what is most urgent. when the basic needs are met, then there is spare capacity to focus on other things and we can assign our own degree of importance based on our own interests and morals and personality etc

In modern society, we have developed all kinds of structures and systems aimed at keeping us alive so we are free to focus our importance on other things and society is all the better for it. But this does not mean importance is entirely subjective. Someone who thinks that the most important thing in the world is to be as thin as possible will end up starving to death. The person who thinks the most important thing in the world is to please his/her god is capable of anything (depending on what version of god he/she believes in)

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 3:01pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Our brain evolved to allow us to survive in the wild. Importance in this context relates to survival and flourishing as a species. If you live in a jungle, it is very important to know what plants are toxic and which animals you can eat, and which are best avoided. An early human who found himself on the permafrost who didn't consider shelter and warmth to be important would not survive very long.

The brain does not have limitless capacity, it needs to focus on what is most urgent. when the basic needs are met, then there is spare capacity to focus on other things and we can assign our own degree of importance based on our own interests and morals and personality etc

In modern society, we have developed all kinds of structures and systems aimed at keeping us alive so we are free to focus our importance on other things and society is all the better for it. But this does not mean importance is entirely subjective. Someone who thinks that the most important thing in the world is to be as thin as possible will end up starving to death. The person who thinks the most important thing in the world is to please his/her god is capable of anything (depending on what version of god he/she believes in)

Why have you quoted my post in your reply? What has any of this filler to do with who decides what is the "right" thing for people to dedicate their lives to other than complying with the law of the land?

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 3:03pm

Akrasia wrote: »

The point is that constant re-inforcement of one position is one of the key requirements to form an extremist clique/cult. This is why cults often live in compounds and socialise together and read prescribed texts and gather together regularly in order to re-affirm their committment to the cult.

So do boy scouts, armed forces, priests and married couples.
You are judging whether they are cults or not based on what they dedicated to, not their dedication.

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 3:17pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why have you quoted my post in your reply? What has any of this filler to do with who decides what is the "right" thing for people to dedicate their lives to other than complying with the law of the land?

Ok, you obviously have little interest in this topic. All you're doing is picking up on individual words and missing the point of what I was saying.

Evolutionarily speaking, importance relates to survival and reproduction. In modern culture, importance has many meanings and you could spend all day discussing what the word means.

Similarly with 'right'.

I wasn't passing any judgement when using these words, only trying to explain some of the mechanics of human cognition and how individuals can sometimes get sucked into a very narrow world view.

Akrasia · 09-01-2015 3:29pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So do boy scouts, armed forces, priests and married couples.

It's a matter of degree. I'm not deciding at what exact point an interest or relationship becomes an unhealthy obsession, it's different depending on circumstances.

Lets take the example of marriage.
A healthy marriage absolutely requires re-inforcement from both parties. A married couple should spend time together and demonstrate their committment to one another on a regular basis, but there is undeniably a point where a healthy relationship could become an obsession.

If a marriage required each person to pray to worship the other 5 times a day. if the marriage forbade either party from making friends outside of the marriage, if both parties of the marriage constantly told each other that they are the only pure people in the world and everyone else was evil or unworthy.....

You are judging whether they are cults or not based on what they dedicated to, not their dedication.

exactly the opposite. I am not judging anyone, I am only describing how the human cognitive faculties can misfire and lead to obsession under certain circumstances.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 4:11pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, you obviously have little interest in this topic. All you're doing is picking up on individual words and missing the point of what I was saying.

Evolutionarily speaking, importance relates to survival and reproduction. In modern culture, importance has many meanings and you could spend all day discussing what the word means.

Similarly with 'right'.

I wasn't passing any judgement when using these words, only trying to explain some of the mechanics of human cognition and how individuals can sometimes get sucked into a very narrow world view.

You weren't passing judgement when you said the devoted (to whatever) see what they are devoted to is, and I quote:

much more important than it actually is

Sorry mate, that's exactly what you did. You don't get to decide what's important to people.

anyone watching that <snip> on prime time

Comments