NationStates Jolt Archive

In this forum, there are individuals who think that if they truly believe in something, they must push it all the way, no matter how damaging the consequences are to their opponents or even to themselves.

No action can be too cruel or too destructive. I consider these views as extremist positions.

Do these extremists arise because people are not educated about the dose-response relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose-response_relationship)? Using an analogy from toxicology, I argue that extremists are either not aware (more likely) or adamantly refuse to see that no matter how good something is in small doses, when you apply massive amounts of it, it will become a poison.

Here is my detailed analysis (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-extremists-exist-when-you-read.html) of this issue.

What do you think?

Makes sense to me. Everything in moderation.

If by "education" you mean a severe beating, then yes. Otherwise, I'm not so sure :(

No, extremists don't see themselves as extreme so it would hardly matter. They just see the rest of the world as wrong and that they are right and they have their own little theory as to why this is so and how their idea will fix the problems of the world. In fact, there are quite a few extremists who are highly educated so I don't think it is a matter of education.

Often as not extremism is the product of willful ignorance, and so education, no matter how it is thought up, will not help.

People like to hate one another. It fits with the tribal mindset.

Sounds like re-education.

Define 'extremism'.

Your reeducation scheme sounds like a rather extreme point of view.

Sounds like re-education.

Define 'extremism'.

From Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extremism)

extremist

One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

extremism

n : any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies

Familiar?

well since I define myself as being an extremist in relation to my own ideas I would say the best way to get rid of it is for everyone to accept that I'm right and then I won't be considard extreme anymore. or you could just shoot me...

The word extremist is one based upon perspective and opinion. Usually used to refer to minorities with unconventional views. Rarely will you hear a unconventional idea that is held by a majority called "extremist", niether will it label a vocal minority with a conventional idea. I would also be highly resistant to any government trying to define "extremism". Whenever someome says "education" in this context, I hear "Control".

no.

I agree with Montacanos.

Extremism is a far too general term. Additionally, it's heavily dependent upon perspective. A white Southerner during the 1800s supporting emancipation of the slaves might have been considered extreme by his peers.

One man's extremism is another man's principles. "Extreme" is a dangerous label to go throwing around.

i don't see your analog as standing up the reality of the situation. also your analysis assumes that society on a whole is a realively healthy single organism, and that conflicting ideologies can be codified in such a way as to defermine how much of them is helpful or harmful.

i also think human society is more diverse than your theory would allow. some ideologies might be very benificial to some groups while very detrimental to others, just because there might be a net negative effect wouldn't necessarily cause the group that benefits to be inclined to give it up, against their own interests.

extremists are extreme because they believe there is something very wrong with the status quo therefore alot of change is required, moderates think only small change is needed, how would dose theory make these different outlooks agree on how much of which sort of change is needed. its a valid way of looking at the world i suppose, i just don't see how it provides any new answers.

I accidently passed over the dose-response part of your post, so I'll adress it now:

I cannot see any concievable reason why that would reduce the number of people you percieve to be extremists.

If I may, the only way to reduce the number of extremists is to become more aqquainted with other political cultures and why they believe the way they do. When I first began studying politics I noticed there were many extremists, now, there are only a few. ;)

The word extremist is one based upon perspective and opinion. Usually used to refer to minorities with unconventional views. Rarely will you hear a unconventional idea that is held by a majority called "extremist", niether will it label a vocal minority with a conventional idea. I would also be highly resistant to any government trying to define "extremism". Whenever someome says "education" in this context, I hear "Control".

Partially agree.

But I think we should be concerned about vocal minorities who advocate using massive force to resolve political issues. I hope people will think about "effective dose" and "toxic curve" when they use force to solve problems.

"Education" as outlined in my essay is about teaching people about dose-response. "Control" would be to restrain them from disagreeing by force. In this context education is not about control, it is about making a concept available to younger kids.

But I think we should be concerned about vocal minorities who advocate using massive force to resolve political issues. I hope people will think about "effective dose" and "toxic curve" when they use force to solve problems.

Violence is divorceable from extremism. There can be nonviolent extremists who use means other than force to gain their ends (i.e. manipulation, propaganda, etc). That is... unless you're including epistemic violence as part of your definition.

You're also assuming that force is never necessary.

Partially agree.

But I think we should be concerned about vocal minorities who advocate using massive force to resolve political issues. I hope people will think about "effective dose" and "toxic curve" when they use force to solve problems.

"Education" as outlined in my essay is about teaching people about dose-response. "Control" would be to restrain them from disagreeing by force. In this context education is not about control, it is about making a concept available to younger kids.

I would offer no opposition whatsoever to the concept being taught to my children. My hesitation is in modern political double-speak using "Education" to mean "Weeding out behaviors that we disagree with". Eh, I plan to homeschool my kids If I ever have any anyway.

I agree with Montacanos.

Extremism is a far too general term. Additionally, it's heavily dependent upon perspective. A white Southerner during the 1800s supporting emancipation of the slaves might have been considered extreme by his peers.

One man's extremism is another man's principles. "Extreme" is a dangerous label to go throwing around.

Yes but I think you see my point that it is not the nature of the political goal that interests me, but how you achieve it. Emancipation of the slaves is superb yes. But if there is no limit to how much destruction and lost of lives in order to achieve something, no matter how noble, I consider it extremism.

Yes but I think you see my point that it is not the nature of the political goal that interests me, but how you achieve it. Emancipation of the slaves is superb yes. But if there is no limit to how much destruction and lost of lives in order to achieve something, no matter how noble, I consider it extremism.
I see what you mean. Extremism is contingent upon means moreso than the ends, then?

ultimately for this approach to have validity you would have to have some agreed upon model of what a healthy society is, and some way of determining exactly what effect different doses of different ideologies would produce in that society, and exactly how the present state of society differs from the healthy model. without all of these you could not come of any sort of agreement using dose theory. one persons idea of a toxic dose of marxism or islamic law might well be for someone else too small a dose to create the desired therapeutic effects.

Yes but I think you see my point that it is not the nature of the political goal that interests me, but how you achieve it. Emancipation of the slaves is superb yes. But if there is no limit to how much destruction and lost of lives in order to achieve something, no matter how noble, I consider it extremism.
how much destruction and death would be worthwhile to free the slaves. the answer might vary a great deal depending on your own position in society and your preception of how much death and destruction the slavery was already causing.

i don't see your analog as standing up the reality of the situation. also your analysis assumes that society on a whole is a realively healthy single organism, and that conflicting ideologies can be codified in such a way as to defermine how much of them is helpful or harmful.

i also think human society is more diverse than your theory would allow. some ideologies might be very benificial to some groups while very detrimental to others, just because there might be a net negative effect wouldn't necessarily cause the group that benefits to be inclined to give it up, against their own interests.

extremists are extreme because they believe there is something very wrong with the status quo therefore alot of change is required, moderates think only small change is needed, how would dose theory make these different outlooks agree on how much of which sort of change is needed. its a valid way of looking at the world i suppose, i just don't see how it provides any new answers.

Thanks for your insight. :)

Yes I am comparing society with an organism, but not necessarily a healthy one. When discussing dose-response I am considering society as defective in some way, like a sick person, and actions taken to rectify or ameliorate the situation like substances administered to treat the person.

You are absolutely right that social groups often disregard (and frequently celebrate!) the losses of their opponents. By advocating severe force to defeat their opponents they disregard this important aspect of dose-response relationship - that there is no such thing as "proportional" good when it comes to force. Too much force will lead to a endless cycle of revenge and escalation. Which is analogous to the toxic side effect.

Whether they believe it or not this toxic effect will affect them, no matter how much they convince themselves of a victory.

Yes I know that there are people with unconventional political goals. They may think that the world needs radical change. I am not discouraging that. What I want them to do is think carefully on how they intend to do this. Understand dose-response is helpful because it reminds all of us that no matter how noble the intentions, the approach must be correct. Using brute force all the way will make us sicker than we were before.

Education will not eliminate extreamism.

Some suicide bombers were engineers. Al-Zarq as in Bin Ladens boy I believe is a Doctor.

Education helps but you also have to have the ability to make something of yourself.....

What do you think?

I think you should learn not to reason by analogy.

Violence is divorceable from extremism. There can be nonviolent extremists who use means other than force to gain their ends (i.e. manipulation, propaganda, etc). That is... unless you're including epistemic violence as part of your definition.

You're also assuming that force is never necessary.

You are right that I am most concerned about the use of violence. However, non-violent means of achieving political goals are also subject to dose response effect. Constant manipulation and endless propaganda may affect the effectiveness of your social system as people become confused and lose their trust in each other.

No. I am not against the use of force per se. In fact if you look at the dose curve, there is a minimal dose required to even have a measurable benefit on the person. So you must be decisive and use appropriate force when necessary. I am merely pointing out that there is a limit to how much benefit will result from using force.

You simply cannot advocate a political solution by proposing to kill every last one of your opponents. No matter how lowly you regard them this sort of thinking makes us all sicker than we initially were.

What I am highlighting is not a new idea. Using dose response is just a simpler and more visual way of teaching our kids about it.

ultimately for this approach to have validity you would have to have some agreed upon model of what a healthy society is, and some way of determining exactly what effect different doses of different ideologies would produce in that society, and exactly how the present state of society differs from the healthy model. without all of these you could not come of any sort of agreement using dose theory. one persons idea of a toxic dose of marxism or islamic law might well be for someone else too small a dose to create the desired therapeutic effects.

Again, very insightful. *bows*

You are right to say that opponents may not agree on the quantification of the effect. I was about to say total loss of lives as an analogy of toxic effect, but not everyone can agree on how much loss is "excessive".

I don't have a solution for that. I only recommend that people are given a chance to be aware of the dose-response relationship. Then less people will believe that good can be "scaled" up indefinitely. Of course, this on its own will not result in a less war-torn world.

I think you should learn not to reason by analogy.

I agree that this analogy is not very strong. Perhaps you can help this discussion by listing the problems with this analogy.

I agree that this analogy is not very strong. Perhaps you can help this discussion by listing the problems with this analogy.

'k. not really dude. Reasoning by analogy is flawed ab initio or something. Anyway don't do it is the point.

'k. not really dude. Reasoning by analogy is flawed ab initio or something. Anyway don't do it is the point.

Not really...

Inductive Reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning)

Argument from analogy
An (inductive) analogy proceeds from known similarities between two things to a conclusion about an additional attribute common to both things:

P is similar to Q.
P has attribute A.
therefore
Q has attribute A.
An analogy relies on the inference that the properties known to be shared (the similarities) imply that A is also a shared property. The support which the premises provide for the conclusion is dependent upon the relevance and number of the similarities between P and Q.

It is only a logical fallacy if the analogy is too weak.

I should also say that I don't mind at all if I am wrong, if you show me a good reason. It's all an exercise in vetting ideas.

I should also say that I don't mind at all if I am wrong, if you show me a good reason. It's all an exercise in vetting ideas.

'k fair 'nuff.

look, inductive reasoning doesn't prove anything. It's only useful for guessing why your given case will behave in any set pattern. But any relationship is purely coincedental. It's all ad hoc or something.

NEway, your analogy limps - as all analogies do - because it is not perfectly congruent with the case you are studying (tho' if it was it wouldn;t be an analogy). Extremism is not a one to one function. There are many reasons for it, and each will have its own curve- or lack thereof. And yet the final outcome, despite the proximate cause will look identical to the detached observer. This is just one aspect in which your analogy fails.

Also, you haven't really given any reason why extremism should follow the curves you have described.

'k fair 'nuff.

look, inductive reasoning doesn't prove anything. It's only useful for guessing why your given case will behave in any set pattern. But any relationship is purely coincedental. It's all ad hoc or something.

NEway, your analogy limps - as all analogies do - because it is not perfectly congruent with the case you are studying (tho' if it was it wouldn;t be an analogy). Extremism is not a one to one function. There are many reasons for it, and each will have its own curve- or lack thereof. And yet the final outcome, despite the proximate cause will look identical to the detached observer. This is just one aspect in which your analogy fails.

Also, you haven't really given any reason why extremism should follow the curves you have described.

I should say that I did not propose that political conflicts can be accurately modeled with dose-response. The analogy is only that there is a level of appropriate dose in both politics and toxicology, and to exceed this dose will cause side effects in both politics and toxicology.

However I think you are thinking about how to accurately assess the results, to quantify this, and a single dimension such as total loss of death is not necessarily agreeable to all parties. That is a big hole in my idea.

A even bigger hole is that people have used excessive force and achieved their political goals relatively unscathed. Dropping the atom bomb in Nagasaki, in my opinion is definitely an "excessive" dose.

Yet today there are no Japanese terrorist groups that intend to exert a "toxic effect" on the USA. Exceptions like these weaken my idea considerably.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

In this forum, there are individuals who think that if they truly believe in something, they must push it all the way, no matter how damaging the consequences are to their opponents or even to themselves.

No action can be too cruel or too destructive. I consider these views as extremist positions.

Do these extremists arise because people are not educated about the dose-response relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose-response_relationship)? Using an analogy from toxicology, I argue that extremists are either not aware (more likely) or adamantly refuse to see that no matter how good something is in small doses, when you apply massive amounts of it, it will become a poison.

Here is my detailed analysis (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-extremists-exist-when-you-read.html) of this issue.

What do you think?

Yet ANOTHER good thread, Xisla. *bows*

America will never conquer extremism until it stops practicing it itself. I mean, really: Wasn't the war in Iraq the ultimate in extremism? After all, there was no proof that could have possibly been given that would have avoided the war.

Yet ANOTHER good thread, Xisla. *bows*

Thank you sir.

*salutes*

However the good people of NSG have rightly pointed out the flaws of my idea. And I noticed some pretty big holes myself. So the dose-response idea is not going to be much help.

I still hope to let people see that sledgehammer solutions have potentially severe side-effects. :(

:( Extremism will only be ended by education when education becomes mind control. To destroy the two far ends of an ideological spectrum through thought control is, in fact, the reverse of the true role of education, which is to encourage all viewpoints. From the radical left to the radical right, and everything in between. A teacher should neither force an ideology or attempt to destroy one. I wish some of my liberal professors would get to hear me say that....

Thank you sir.

*salutes*

However the good people of NSG have rightly pointed out the flaws of my idea. And I noticed some pretty big holes myself. So the dose-response idea is not going to be much help.

I still hope to let people see that sledgehammer solutions have potentially severe side-effects. :(I found no problem with the way you WORDED the specific poll options, personally. I thought about it when i answered and whether or not i was just responding based on slightly too much personal bias. To be fair, i didn't actually read yet through the whole thread. I may not be able to until tomorrow anyway.

America will never conquer extremism until it stops practicing it itself. I mean, really: Wasn't the war in Iraq the ultimate in extremism? After all, there was no proof that could have possibly been given that would have avoided the war.

Yes that is what I was getting at. If someone proposes to eliminate evil by killing all of his opponents, does that mean that evil will completely disappear? What about that guy himself? The "toxic" effect ?

To quote Batman Begins...

Henri Ducard: Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share.
Bruce Wayne: That's why it's so important. It separates us from them.

The American higher education system is dominated by extremist liberalism.

:( Extremism will only be ended by education when education becomes mind control. To destroy the two far ends of an ideological spectrum through thought control is, in fact, the reverse of the true role of education, which is to encourage all viewpoints. From the radical left to the radical right, and everything in between. A teacher should neither force an ideology or attempt to destroy one. I wish some of my liberal professors would get to hear me say that....

:confused:

Please read my idea (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-extremists-exist-when-you-read.html) first, thanks.

You are making the basic assumption that education is about ideology. It is not.

You are making the basic assumption that education is about ideology. It is not.

:confused:

Toxicology isn't ideology. All pharmacists, doctors and nurses study toxicology. Many biologists and chemists study it too.

Substances do produce a dose-response in people. Whether you are left/right/centre/liberal/conservative/communist/capitalist whatever.

Many people don't know about dose-response. The simple lesson here is the dose makes the poison. I suggest teaching this to kids earlier as part of their basic science education. At the very least they will understand why they should leave their parent's prescription medicine well alone, and why eating candy everyday is a bad idea.

I also hope that they can see this effect in society and politics as well, but I obviously do not advocate forcing them to see things that way.

For fear of the "toxic" effect... :D

:confused:

Toxicology isn't ideology. All pharmacists, doctors and nurses study toxicology. Many biologists and chemists study it too.

Substances do produce a dose-response in people. Whether you are left/right/centre/liberal/conservative/communist/socialist whatever.

Mnay people don't know about dose-response. The simple lesson here is the dose makes the poison. I suggest teaching this to kids earlier as part of their basic science education.

I hope that they can see this effect in society and politics as well, but I obviously do not advocate forcing them to see things that way.

Not excessively so anyway :D

ah, I see. To prevent them from falling into the traps that we see that many have fallen into on this forum and around the world. You theory reminds me of the laffer curve. It states that at a 0% tax rate revenue is $0. At a 100% tax rate revenue is also $0. Therefore it is possible to decrease a high tax rate and get more revenue than what you were getting. It is the same principal that you use here. Sometime if you decrease your effort and zeal you will in fact get much better results. Similar? I like it. :D

ah, I see. To prevent them from falling into the traps that we see that many have fallen into on this forum and around the world. You theory reminds me of the laffer curve. It states that at a 0% tax rate revenue is $0. At a 100% tax rate revenue is also $0. Therefore it is possible to decrease a high tax rate and get more revenue than what you were getting. It is the same principal that you use here. Sometime if you decrease your effort and zeal you will in fact get much better results. Similar? I like it. :D

I edited my post to make it clearer.

I am not an economist, can you explain your laffer curve example here for the benefit of other readers? Thanks.

I edited my post to make it clearer.

I am not an economist, can you explain your laffer curve example here for the benefit of other readers? Thanks.


Sure, first of all let me say that I think that your premise is great.

The laffer curve says this....lets say you have a country where there are no taxes. That government would get no income because it does not tax anybody's income. So at a 0% tax rate the government gets no money.
Now lets say that the country increases taxes to 100% of everybody's income. There would be no purpose to work if the government took every penny you earned! So you would not work! and if you did not make any money the government would get no money from you.

so, in theory, the amount of money that a government gets is the same at 0% and 100%tax rates.
Now lets imagine this, the government cuts taxes from 100% to 50%, now you start working. The revenue that the government makes from you goes up even though they cut your taxes.

here is a graph..http://www.dalefranks.com/images/laffer.gif

it shows the same premise as your idea does. Sometimes too much of a good thing is pointless. Extremism gets you nowhere.

True in economics, politics, medicine, and life.

I have to leave. God bless.

Xisla, excellent thread.

As earlier stated, the analogy to toxicology and dose-response is flawed because the body of world politics, ideas and ideologies is not as closed a system as a human body, and political viewpoints are not composed of one "molecule" like a drug. Too many variables.

I do see where you're going, but I wonder how one would determine the "ED50" of an idea? Looking at conditions in Russia, and asking their citizens, for example, might yield the notion that though communism failed there, it was "less toxic" than whatever mishmash of free market, black market and retro-corruption they've got going on now. Perhaps the right "medication" is an adjustment and re-dosing of communism with free-market chasers or something?

I'm also having trouble trying to find the lethal dose of some political ideas. Is there a lethal dose of democracy? Capitalism? I'm assuming your drug-to-ideology comparison was also aimed at religion, given its frequent link to extremism in world affairs -- what's the LD of Islam or Christianity?

Fascinating topic.

How about no.

Extremism doesn't mean anything unless you specify in what (sub)culture and at what time it is considered extreme. For example in Europe during the first half of the 20th century anyone who said that Jews were not a problem or that "interracial" marriages should not be punished was an extremist. In America in the first half of the 19th century wanting to abolish slavery was extremist. And before the 18th century any argument about equality before the law was extremist. So which is it. Are you against equality but for racism and slavery. Or are you happy that the extremists won in the past, so that you now are mainstream and have the privilege of formulating the problems (and thus point out the extremists)? Could you maybe even grant us the grace of continued existence without attempts at getting rid of us?

Besides, using concepts from one science in another context without defining it in the new context generally gives you false conclusions. What effects should be seen as "toxic" or "beneficial" is what ideological debates are about. If you make up some relevant definitions for those things your definitions will just be part of your ideology and not bring us any closer to the "truth" or whatever we are trying to establish.

In this forum, there are individuals who think that if they truly believe in something, they must push it all the way, no matter how damaging the consequences are to their opponents or even to themselves.

No action can be too cruel or too destructive. I consider these views as extremist positions.

Do these extremists arise because people are not educated about the dose-response relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose-response_relationship)? Using an analogy from toxicology, I argue that extremists are either not aware (more likely) or adamantly refuse to see that no matter how good something is in small doses, when you apply massive amounts of it, it will become a poison.

Here is my detailed analysis (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-extremists-exist-when-you-read.html) of this issue.

What do you think?
I think there are always going to be a few people who are batshit crazy no matter what you try to do for them. Such people often tend toward the extremes. Many of them are compelling and persuasive in their madness, and they will usually be able to attract followings from the weaker elements of society.

However, I do think quality education dramatically reduces such craziness, and also reduces the number of people who are weak enough (and gullible enough) to follow along with extremist regimes. In the modern world, education represents increased opportunities and a richer future, and people who are educated thus have more to lose by following an extremist leader...people who have nothing to lose are, logically, going to be more willing to follow along with anything that offers to better their lot.

Education would certainly have some impact on those who are most affected by extremeism the poor (and uneducated). However many of the more famous extremists actually have a high standard of education, after being educated in the West. I say do away with religious freedoms and you've most of the problem solved!!!!!

Education would certainly have some impact on those who are most affected by extremeism the poor (and uneducated).
What kind of education? Wahabiism ("Al-Qaida") was created in a kind of universities, it is the product of the wrong kind of higher education.
I say do away with religious freedoms and you've most of the problem solved!!!!!
No. Religion (just about any religion) is a very useful tool if you want to produce extremists, but limiting the number of viewpoints that people are exposed to only makes it easier to turn them extremist. And the people who you use to enforce your religious unfreedom will be in the perfect position to be tyrants, so by this method you are creating the problem that you wanted to solve.

Xisla, excellent thread.

As earlier stated, the analogy to toxicology and dose-response is flawed because the body of world politics, ideas and ideologies is not as closed a system as a human body, and political viewpoints are not composed of one "molecule" like a drug. Too many variables.

I do see where you're going, but I wonder how one would determine the "ED50" of an idea? Looking at conditions in Russia, and asking their citizens, for example, might yield the notion that though communism failed there, it was "less toxic" than whatever mishmash of free market, black market and retro-corruption they've got going on now. Perhaps the right "medication" is an adjustment and re-dosing of communism with free-market chasers or something?

I'm also having trouble trying to find the lethal dose of some political ideas. Is there a lethal dose of democracy? Capitalism? I'm assuming your drug-to-ideology comparison was also aimed at religion, given its frequent link to extremism in world affairs -- what's the LD of Islam or Christianity?

Fascinating topic.

Yes, other posters have already pointed out the problems with my analogy. I already realize that dose-response cannot be a good model for social/political systems for numerous reasons.

Still, I hope my idea has stimulated people to think about this sort of stuff.

Thank you. *bows*

I think there are always going to be a few people who are batshit crazy no matter what you try to do for them. Such people often tend toward the extremes. Many of them are compelling and persuasive in their madness, and they will usually be able to attract followings from the weaker elements of society.

However, I do think quality education dramatically reduces such craziness, and also reduces the number of people who are weak enough (and gullible enough) to follow along with extremist regimes. In the modern world, education represents increased opportunities and a richer future, and people who are educated thus have more to lose by following an extremist leader...people who have nothing to lose are, logically, going to be more willing to follow along with anything that offers to better their lot.

Insightful. *bows*

In addition to having more to lose, educated folks are also (hopefully!) reasonably well-read and are able to see issues from multiple perspectives. If they can do this they are less likely to have an unwavering belief in anything.

Wow I'm fortunate to be in such good company today. Thank you. :)

What kind of education? Wahabiism ("Al-Qaida") was created in a kind of universities, it is the product of the wrong kind of higher education.

No. Religion (just about any religion) is a very useful tool if you want to produce extremists, but limiting the number of viewpoints that people are exposed to only makes it easier to turn them extremist. And the people who you use to enforce your religious unfreedom will be in the perfect position to be tyrants, so by this method you are creating the problem that you wanted to solve.

I agree with you. Enforced state atheism in the Soviet Union had resulted in the worship of Stalin instead. So the freedom of religion is still very important. Curbing religious freedom with excessive force will make a state sicker than it started out.

I think education is very important, but I don't think it has anything to do with dose-response. People with very extremist views quite often simply haven't been exposed to anything else, or to anyone else who holds different views. They are often raised from an early age to think that members of other groups are evil and hate them and so on and so forth. The type of education that is necessary is really just exposure to other people and other ideas. Even if a person still believes that they are absolutely right and that others are wrong, someone who has actually been exposed to others isn't as likely to try and push those views in an extremist manner.

In this forum, there are individuals who think that if they truly believe in something, they must push it all the way, no matter how damaging the consequences are to their opponents or even to themselves.

No action can be too cruel or too destructive. I consider these views as extremist positions.

Do these extremists arise because people are not educated about the dose-response relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose-response_relationship)? Using an analogy from toxicology, I argue that extremists are either not aware (more likely) or adamantly refuse to see that no matter how good something is in small doses, when you apply massive amounts of it, it will become a poison.

Here is my detailed analysis (http://freshbrainz.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-extremists-exist-when-you-read.html) of this issue.

What do you think?

I don't believe that taking ideas in moderation is the key.

The key is subtlety in your thinking. Too many people contrast different ideas as idealogical opposites where a more subtle line of thinking will reveal similarities.

So, it is not the over-indulgence of one belief that causes problems, it is the complete lack of acceptance of other beliefs.

The only way to eradicate extremism is to challenge the beliefs of the muslims, but it's un PC to do so therefor Extremists will remain.

I think there are always going to be a few people who are batshit crazy no matter what you try to do for them. Such people often tend toward the extremes. Many of them are compelling and persuasive in their madness, and they will usually be able to attract followings from the weaker elements of society.

I have no doubt that there are genetic predispositions towards absolute devotion and extremist beliefs, and while I won't say that genetic traits cannot be overcome, it may take more than education.

The only way to eradicate extremism is to challenge the beliefs of the muslims, but it's un PC to do so therefor Extremists will remain.

LOL, are you under the impression that Islam is the only religion/philosophy/political ideology for which there are extremist adherents?

LOL, are you under the impression that Islam is the only religion/philosophy/political ideology for which there are extremist adherents?

Nope, i'm trying to say that Islam is a belief that no one dares to challenge. (unlike christianity)

The only way to eradicate extremism is to challenge the beliefs of the muslims, but it's un PC to do so therefor Extremists will remain.

Muslims are not the only extremists.

Do the names McVeigh, Kaczynski, or Rudolph mean anything to you?

Nope, i'm trying to say that Islam is a belief that no one dares to challenge. (unlike christianity)

Islam is not infallible just because you get shouted down for challenging characatures.

Islam is not infallible just because you get shouted down for challenging characatures.

No, but other fundamentalist ideas are being challenged all the time and thus eventually will be lowered considerably. Islamic fundamentalism is never challenged whatsoever, therefor extremism will stay higher in Islam.

Nope, i'm trying to say that Islam is a belief that no one dares to challenge. (unlike christianity)

All sorts of people challenge it - as they do any belief. Just as many many Christians challenge the ideas of extremist Christians, many Muslims challenge the ideas of the extremist Muslims. And so on...

Of course, it isn't really accepted to just be like, "Whatever, all the Muslims are teh stoopid," but that doesn't fly with belief.

All sorts of people challenge it - as they do any belief. Just as many many Christians challenge the ideas of extremist Christians, many Muslims challenge the ideas of the extremist Muslims. And so on...


Not enough publicly though.

I would suggest that if you do modify your ideas to try to account for the problems that other NSers have mentioned, that you also use a different word than 'extremism', especially since you seem to only be concerned with violence and thought control, which aren't solely related to extremism.

The American higher education system is dominated by extremist liberalism.Liberalism is by definition not extreme (unless you're saying that they're extremely not extreme.) I presume you mean that the American higher education system is dominated by extremist leftism, but that's only partially true.

The laffer curve says this....lets say you have a country where there are no taxes. That government would get no income because it does not tax anybody's income. So at a 0% tax rate the government gets no money.
Now lets say that the country increases taxes to 100% of everybody's income. There would be no purpose to work if the government took every penny you earned! So you would not work! and if you did not make any money the government would get no money from you. Except, of course, for the fact that getting money isn't the only reason that people work.

Political extremism is relative to the political status quo, so your initial premise that it can be equated with the fallacy of advocating "too much of something good" is flawed.

Muslims are not the only extremists.

Do the names McVeigh, Kaczynski, or Rudolph mean anything to you?

Don't forget Meir Kahane, David Koresh, and Jim Jones

Except, of course, for the fact that getting money isn't the only reason that people work.
You might work for many other reasons than to get wages. Before industrialism very few people recieved monetary wages, and most of those who did had as a goal to not need to work for wages any more. But if such reasons are your only reasons to work you will not ask for wages, so there will be no wages to tax.

Not in the U.S. public school system. Extremism is what they pass off as "education" nowadays. Try disagreeing with Darwinism as being proven scientific "fact" and see just how much free speech you're really allowed therein afterwards.

Except, of course, for the fact that getting money isn't the only reason that people work.

The laffer curve has been proved to be accurate thrice. The economic policies of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II prove it. Taxes were cut with the result being increased revenue.

Not in the U.S. public school system. Extremism is what they pass off as "education" nowadays. Try disagreeing with Darwinism as being proven scientific "fact" and see just how much free speech you're really allowed therein afterwards.

And ironicly you would be both in the majority and labled an "extremist" if you dissented from the evolutionary theory. Sort of like last February when I heard Ted Kennedy bellowing on Cspan about how Justice Alito was an extremist.....when in fact he had the majority of the American people favorable to his nomination.

Not in the U.S. public school system. Extremism is what they pass off as "education" nowadays. Try disagreeing with Darwinism as being proven scientific "fact" and see just how much free speech you're really allowed therein afterwards.

What is Darwinism?

Oh, you must be talking about evolutionary theory. No one in education suggests that evolutionary theory is proven fact. It cannot be, as science doesn't deal with "proven facts." It deals with theories and observed phenomena. Science is an exercise in disproof, not proof. Someone didn't teach you the scientific method very well.

I sincerely doubt that education will fundamentally alter the profligacy of extremism. Shockingly, western schools are not advocating a jihad. Extremism is fostered within the family and ethnic group, and whilst counter-information, and the generation of genuine nationalism in education may remedy such indoctrination, it will not allay it.

Arrested and convicted terrorists ought to be summarily shot, as should their families.

Not in the U.S. public school system. Extremism is what they pass off as "education" nowadays. Try disagreeing with Darwinism as being proven scientific "fact" and see just how much free speech you're really allowed therein afterwards.
Man, I know how you feel! I tried explaining to my geography teacher that it is important to teach the debate on Flat Earth Theory, but the facists wouldn't hear anything I had to say. Same thing happened in physics class, when my teacher refused to even give mention to the Theory of Intelligent Falling.

Whenever somebody starts talking to you about empirical reality, or verifiable natural phenomena, that's when you know you're talking to a crazy extremist.

Science-lovers are notorious for rejecting hypotheses simply because those hypotheses have been disproven by data, even if the hypotheses are believed to be true by a majority of the population! And they're not even ashamed of their bigotry! They come right out and tell you that they don't believe the facts are determined by popular vote!

Arrested and convicted terrorists ought to be summarily shot, as should their families.
Even if they weren't involved with, or had any knowledge of, their terrorist activities?

[/B]
Even if they weren't involved with, or had any knowledge of, their terrorist activities?

Frankly, I sincerely doubt that the families of Islamic fundamentalists do not harbour similar sentiments, and the terror it would instil would preclude all but the most ardent and proficient of terrorists.

Frankly, I sincerely doubt that the families of Islamic fundamentalists do not harbour similar sentiments, and the terror it would instil would preclude all but the most ardent and proficient of terrorists.

Killing the families of criminals would place us at moral low-point no higher than (if not below) terrorists. It would also justify further terrorism - especially in the minds of those who have already been brought up to think that we're all evil.

Killing the families of criminals would place us at moral low-point no higher than (if not below) terrorists. It would also justify further terrorism - especially in the minds of those who have already been brought up to think that we're all evil.
More importantly (IMO), it wouldn't work. That is to say, killing the families of terrorists will not reduce the net number of terrorists, nor will it reduce the likelihood that terrorists will try to strike at the US. Indeed, I would venture to guess that such practices by the US would dramatically increase the number of terrorists and terror attacks.

But we'd have the joy of knowing that we've killed innocent people who were related by blood to individuals who had harmed us. So I guess we'd be the real winners, right?

Killing the families of criminals would place us at moral low-point no higher than (if not below) terrorists. It would also justify further terrorism - especially in the minds of those who have already been brought up to think that we're all evil.

Morals have no place in politics. It is expediant to take hostages for the purposes of interrogation and example, hence we ought to do so.

Indeed, if Islamic fundamentalism already villifies the west as "evil", and is intransigent in this conviction, what precludes our living up to it?

Indeed, if Islamic fundamentalism already villifies the west as "evil", and is intransigent in this conviction, what precludes our living up to it?
1)Because many think only the western govts and not the people are evil.
2)Because many rather think the west lacks morals, but is not evil.
3)Because only a tiny minority actually wants to oppose "the West".
4)A tiny minority of these act uppon these feelings.

5)By acting more evil we will increase nrs 3&4, and harm many inocent people on all sides.

----------
It takes courage to walk the path of peace.

More importantly (IMO), it wouldn't work. That is to say, killing the families of terrorists will not reduce the net number of terrorists, nor will it reduce the likelihood that terrorists will try to strike at the US. Indeed, I would venture to guess that such practices by the US would dramatically increase the number of terrorists and terror attacks.

That's what I meant by justifying further terrorism. Sinking to such a level would just reinforce the idea that the US is evil and deserving of such attacks - and it would increase the number of people looking for revenge.


Morals have no place in politics.

Really? So you would stand for a government that randomly murdered infants?

Indeed, if Islamic fundamentalism already villifies the west as "evil", and is intransigent in this conviction, what precludes our living up to it?

If we live up to it, then they are perfectly justified in attacking us.

1)Because many think only the western govts and not the people are evil.
2)Because many rather think the west lacks morals, but is not evil.
3)Because only a tiny minority actually wants to oppose "the West".
4)A tiny minority of these act uppon these feelings.

5)By acting more evil we will increase nrs 3&4, and harm many inocent people on all sides.

----------
It takes courage to walk the path of peace.

"On both sides"? I shouldn't imagine so.

Indeed, given that the majority of terrorists are ethnic nationals, surely their distress, and that of their families, would be confined to the west? Furthermore, in light of the hostage taking proclivities of the Islamic world, and the stance assumed by the populaces therein, how would the west be unjustified in aping this?

5)By acting more evil we will increase nrs 3&4, and harm many inocent people on all sides.

Well, according to TbC, morals don't matter, so it doesn't matter how many innocent people we harm.

Of course, what he ignores is that it isn't politically expedient to harm innocents - even outside of the ethical/moral problems with doing so. The more innocents we harm, the more people we'll have out for revenge that otherwise wouldn't have dreamed of attacking us.

That's what I meant by justifying further terrorism. Sinking to such a level would just reinforce the idea that the US is evil and deserving of such attacks - and it would increase the number of people looking for revenge.

Bingo. I can't believe there are people who have endured the last 5 years without learning this lesson.


Really? So you would stand for a government that randomly murdered infants?

Power for power's sake and all that, I suppose. We're "right" if we win. The winners are "good" by definition, while the losers were obviously "evil."

And to think that liberals get bitched out for believing in "moral relativism."


If we live up to it, then they are perfectly justified in attacking us.
I would sooner see my nation die for its principles than see it survive by utterly abandoning them.

That's what I meant by justifying further terrorism. Sinking to such a level would just reinforce the idea that the US is evil and deserving of such attacks - and it would increase the number of people looking for revenge.

I sincerely doubt it. Terror is a most effective deterrent.

Really? So you would stand for a government that randomly murdered infants?

Don't be facile. Essentially, where Islamic fundamentalism is concerned, the ends justify the means.

If we live up to it, then they are perfectly justified in attacking us.

Not as such, since our actions are in self-defence, in light of their casting the first stone.

I sincerely doubt it. Terror is a most effective deterrent.

Yeah, you can see how well terror has worked when it comes to deterring America. Why, ever since 9/11 we've had no country at all! We used to fight terrorism all the time, but all such militaristic activity was quickly put to an end when the terrorists employed their effective tactics against us.

:P

Well, according to TbC, morals don't matter, so it doesn't matter how many innocent people we harm.

Of course, what he ignores is that it isn't politically expedient to harm innocents - even outside of the ethical/moral problems with doing so. The more innocents we harm, the more people we'll have out for revenge that otherwise wouldn't have dreamed of attacking us.

I do believe I pointed out the failry salient point that, given that fundamentalism is not taught in schools, but is inevitably fostered in youth, surely the families are culpable.

"On both sides"? I shouldn't imagine so.

Indeed, given that the majority of terrorists are ethnic nationals, surely their distress, and that of their families, would be confined to the west? Furthermore, in light of the hostage taking proclivities of the Islamic world, and the stance assumed by the populaces therein, how would the west be unjustified in aping this?
Where have you been in the Islamic world??!
Hostage taking??!
That only happens in area's of conflict, let us ponder the hostages that are taken in South America for example

I did not notice any Muslims wanting to take me hostage during the time I lived in Egypt.

They did try to present me with tea though...
The only attack was on my teeth considering the amount of sugar in the tea... :D

Where have you been in the Islamic world??!
Hostage taking??!
That only happens in area's of conflict, let us ponder the hostages that are taken in South America for example

I did not notice any Muslims wanting to take me hostage during the time I lived in Egypt.

They did try to present me with tea though...
The only attack was on my teeth consisering the amount of sugar in the tea... :D
My Muslim office-mate has yet to try to take my hostage. Although, suspiciously, he also has assaulted my dental work with large amounts of sugar, as he brought me a gift of chocolate from his native Trinidad after his last vacation home...

I think we may have stumbled onto the true Islamofacist conspiracy! They are going to sneak in through the cracks in our bridge work! They will infiltrate the highest levels of our dental community, and bring our nation to its knees through facistic flossing initiatives!!!!

In response to the OP:

Read this. And then you'll see that the answer is yes. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670034827/sr=1-1/qid=1155659810/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9701140-8820625?ie=UTF8&s=books)

I do believe I pointed out the failry salient point that, given that fundamentalism is not taught in schools, but is inevitably fostered in youth, surely the families are culpable.

Sad, no clue what so ever

allow me to be concise

The current form of Fundamentalism, presents itself as a universal Islam. This form of Islam is seldom fostered by the families, for these usualy have regional forms of Islam. There are four main schools of thought in Islam and many regional variants...

Young people that do not feel at home in their current society, nor in the world of their parents, look for a new community or Ummah. They will find it on the internet. There they will find this new universal form of Islam. Violent Salafism is a product of the West...

any questions? ;)

My Muslim office-mate has yet to try to take my hostage. Although, suspiciously, he also has assaulted my dental work with large amounts of sugar, as he brought me a gift of chocolate from his native Trinidad after his last vacation home...

I think we may have stumbled onto the true Islamofacist conspiracy! They are going to sneak in through the cracks in our bridge work! They will infiltrate the highest levels of our dental community, and bring our nation to its knees through facistic flossing initiatives!!!!

We may even have to start a thread on the profiling of beverages with high sugar content... :D

I sincerely doubt it. Terror is a most effective deterrent.

Is it? It's sure stopped us from living our lives, hasn't it?

Seriously, after a terrorist attack, or a hostage taken, etc., we really don't see much terror. What we do see is anger - lots of it - and many calls for revenge. Pretty similar to what happens when innocents die on either side.

Don't be facile.

I'm not. If the ends of a government always justify the means (as in, no morality is ever involved), there would be nothing inherently wrong with a government that murdered infants on a regular basis.

Essentially, where Islamic fundamentalism is concerned, the ends justify the means.

(a) It is impossible to make a statement that any ends justify the means. There is always the possibility of going to far.

(b) Your means wouldn't accomplish the ends you seek. Most likely, they would accomplish the opposite.

Not as such, since our actions are in self-defence, in light of their casting the first stone.

LOL. So, if a man raped your wife, you would be perfectly justified to rape his wife in self defence? Most of us see the actions of terrorists as deplorable - specifically because they target civilians, employ torture, etc. Sinking to that level makes us exactly like them - and deserving of any actions taken against us.

Your comments are naive and childish. "Don't hit your brother." "BUT MOOOOOMMMMM!!!! HE HIT ME FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Your comments are naive and childish. "Don't hit your brother." "BUT MOOOOOMMMMM!!!! HE HIT ME FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
*Sulk*

They started it.

You might work for many other reasons than to get wages. Before industrialism very few people recieved monetary wages, and most of those who did had as a goal to not need to work for wages any more. But if such reasons are your only reasons to work you will not ask for wages, so there will be no wages to tax.True, but on the other hand, that would just mean more taxes for my employer to pay, unless said wages were reinvested into the company.

The laffer curve has been proved to be accurate thrice. The economic policies of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II prove it. Taxes were cut with the result being increased revenue.As far as the last two go, (and probably all three) the increase in employment was pretty much due to the greater availability of jobs, not to people simply deciding to work again.

Extremism is a fascist term made by the equally extreme, "mainstream" to ostracise those who don't fit into their ideological police state.

Is it? It's sure stopped us from living our lives, hasn't it?

Seriously, after a terrorist attack, or a hostage taken, etc., we really don't see much terror. What we do see is anger - lots of it - and many calls for revenge. Pretty similar to what happens when innocents die on either side.



I'm not. If the ends of a government always justify the means (as in, no morality is ever involved), there would be nothing inherently wrong with a government that murdered infants on a regular basis.



(a) It is impossible to make a statement that any ends justify the means. There is always the possibility of going to far.

(b) Your means wouldn't accomplish the ends you seek. Most likely, they would accomplish the opposite.



LOL. So, if a man raped your wife, you would be perfectly justified to rape his wife in self defence? Most of us see the actions of terrorists as deplorable - specifically because they target civilians, employ torture, etc. Sinking to that level makes us exactly like them - and deserving of any actions taken against us.

Your comments are naive and childish. "Don't hit your brother." "BUT MOOOOOMMMMM!!!! HE HIT ME FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

I disagree.

The problem in regards to Islamic terror is that it is implacable. Unlike the IRA, in the west it has no professed goal beyond terror itself. Indeed, it may primarily be a reactionary movement, however it nonetheless is impossible to negotiate with.

Hence, beyond preventative measures, what does one do?

Resort to terror. Irrespective of its relative reprehensibility, the NKVD succeeded in cowing any opposition in Russia in the purges, hence why not apply a similar premise at present?

I disagree.

The problem in regards to Islamic terror is that it is implacable. Unlike the IRA, in the west it has no professed goal beyond terror itself. Indeed, it may primarily be a reactionary movement, however it nonetheless is impossible to negotiate with.

Hence, beyond preventative measures, what does one do?

Resort to terror. Irrespective of its relative reprehensibility, the NKVD succeeded in cowing any opposition in Russia in the purges, hence why not apply a similar premise at present?

The problem with negotiations is that we have advanced the status quo far beyond what these fundamentalists want. They see any Western intervention into the culture and politics of the Arab world as being an evil encroachment on their lives.

The West, on the other hand, has moved in to take vast amounts of control over the area and are now saying, "If you stop fighting, we will stop fighting."

How did that style of negotiations work out for the Native Americans?

The problem with negotiations is that we have advanced the status quo far beyond what these fundamentalists want. They see any Western intervention into the culture and politics of the Arab world as being an evil encroachment on their lives.

The West, on the other hand, has moved in to take vast amounts of control over the area and are now saying, "If you stop fighting, we will stop fighting."

How did that style of negotiations work out for the Native Americans?

Vast control over the Islamic world? I would dispute that.

However, we do therefore return to the problem that negotiations are rendered futile by the fact that the fundamentalists have no genuine goal; all they achieve through suicide bombings is to demontrate their discontent.

Vast control over the Islamic world? I would dispute that.

However, we do therefore return to the problem that negotiations are rendered futile by the fact that the fundamentalists have no genuine goal; all they achieve through suicide bombings is to demontrate their discontent.

They have a vague goal of protecting their religion and culture.

That is what Jihad is, fighting for one's beliefs and values.

They have a vague goal of protecting their religion and culture.

That is what Jihad is, fighting for one's beliefs and values.

Nope. Jihad was originally a reconquest of lost terrirtory. It finds its roots in the aftermath of the first crusade. Jihad has been warped into its current perversion to justify fundamentalism.

Incidentally, thank you for demonstrating my point. Quite how do we negotiate with a movement whose goals are as wooly as the above?

Nope. Jihad was originally a reconquest of lost terrirtory. It finds its roots in the aftermath of the first crusade. Jihad has been warped into its current perversion to justify fundamentalism.

Jihad has been warped by western connotations to mean war over territory. Jihad is a religious struggle in general, falling into several types. The external Jihad, the "lesser Jihad" is the one we are concerned with.

Islam separates the world into two parts, Dar al-Islam, where Muslims are free to live and pursue their religion, and Dar al-Harb, where they are not. Jihad is only justified in defending Dar al-Islam and converting Dar al-Harb.

It has nothing to do with the reacquisition of land, or physical land in general. It has everything to do with societies and the protection of the muslim faith within these societies.

Therefore, even the "lesser Jihad", the actual physical "holy war" that we lump all of the forms of Jihad into, is fully based in defending one's faith and one's ability to practice their religion.

That is the goal. Even if the methods are wide and varied, that is the goal.

Jihad has been warped by western connotations to mean war over territory. Jihad is a religious struggle in general, falling into several types. The external Jihad, the "lesser Jihad" is the one we are concerned with.

Islam separates the world into two parts, Dar al-Islam, where Muslims are free to live and pursue their religion, and Dar al-Harb, where they are not. Jihad is only justified in defending Dar al-Islam and converting Dar al-Harb.

It has nothing to do with the reacquisition of land, or physical land in general. It has everything to do with societies and the protection of the muslim faith within these societies.

Therefore, even the "lesser Jihad", the actual physical "holy war" that we lump all of the forms of Jihad into, is fully based in defending one's faith and one's ability to practice their religion.

That is the goal. Even if the methods are wide and varied, that is the goal.

Fair enough. My understanding of it was solely in regards to the crusades, so I consider myself appraised.;)

The notion of a homogenous Jihad is still facile, however.

The notion of a homogenous Jihad is still facile, however.

That is true, Muslims are far too diverse a group for that not to be true.

Extremism is only called so relative to a society's prevalent norms. Living in a society of utter oppression would lead anyone who advocated social freedom to be deemed an extremist. Can this be educated "out" of their system? I don't think so. Yes, education can have an effect on a child. However, besides environmental factors, a person is also made up of genes, many of which pre-determine their behavioural patterns. So it is perfectly possible that even in a society where education tries to suppress every free mind, some will still flourish.

An example? Bernard Marx in Brave New World or the main character of 1984. These may not have been real characters, but I think they adequately reflect how weeds may always grow among fields of "flowers."

Why would such a suppression of free thought even be deemed necessary though? It essentially "kills" all non-conformists or visionaries. How totalitarian.

Extremism is only called so relative to a society's prevalent norms. Living in a society of utter oppression would lead anyone who advocated social freedom to be deemed an extremist. Can this be educated "out" of their system? I don't think so.

Well, then the question could be rephrased, "Can education help shift the mainstream? Can education contribute to a reworking of the prevalent norms, such that current 'extremes' are no longer extreme?"

This very phenomenon is causing quite a stir among evangelicals in the United States. See, the overwhelming majority of children reared in evangelical communities are leaving their churches as soon as they are legally able, and the number one reason is education. The children are exposed to alternatives, and to a vision of the world that is different from the fundamentalist religious vision they are taught in their home communities...and they choose to opt out of the extremist religiosity. This is why many extremely religious parents are increasingly desperate to home-school their kids and have them attend "Christian" colleges that will keep the children ignorant of alternatives.


Yes, education can have an effect on a child. However, besides environmental factors, a person is also made up of genes, many of which pre-determine their behavioural patterns. So it is perfectly possible that even in a society where education tries to suppress every free mind, some will still flourish.

I think you radically overestimate the contribution of genetics in this matter. What is far more important is going to be the social conditioning and personality formation that has already taken place by the time a child reaches grade school. Leaving aside individuals who have neurological/physiological disorders, none of us are "genetically" destined to be extremists. It just doesn't work that way.

At the same time, however, extremism IS heritable. You don't get it from your parents' genes, but you can get it from your parents none the less.


An example? Bernard Marx in Brave New World or the main character of 1984. These may not have been real characters, but I think they adequately reflect how weeds may always grow among fields of "flowers."

Each human being is unique. Even human beings who have identical DNA are still individual from one another, and unique as much as any of the rest of us.

Because we are all different, we all will respond differently to the same situations. We all will have slightly different emotional reactions. Different memories may be evoked for us. We may reach different conclusions even if our emotional responses are very similar.

Put two people in identical situations, and you'll often see them make very different choices. Totalitarianism cannot change this simple reality. People are not identical, and never will be. What's really funny is that people's differences tend to come out even more strongly as you increase the stress of a situation. Trying to force all people to be identical is, obviously, going to generate a whole hell of a lot more stress than if you simply let people do what comes naturally. You'll also end up with a situation where sameness is valued so much that even very small deviations are blown way out of proportion. So, ironically, trying to force all people to be identical is actually MORE likely to result in people strongly expressing disent and deviation from the norm.


Why would such a suppression of free thought even be deemed necessary though? It essentially "kills" all non-conformists or visionaries. How totalitarian.
A great many people feel that there are no important thoughts in the world other than their own.

Well, then the question could be rephrased, "Can education help shift the mainstream? Can education contribute to a reworking of the prevalent norms, such that current 'extremes' are no longer extreme?"

Education is a result of cultural norms, not a precursor to them. A shift in education will only occur when there is a prior shift in the mainstream.

I think you radically overestimate the contribution of genetics in this matter. What is far more important is going to be the social conditioning and personality formation that has already taken place by the time a child reaches grade school. Leaving aside individuals who have neurological/physiological disorders, none of us are "genetically" destined to be extremists. It just doesn't work that way.

I would agree that noone is genetically predetermined to be an extremist. That does not rule out, however, the possibility that someone has genetic tendencies towards extremism. It can be said that, without intervention, someone will become an extremist, and to say that we can intervene in all cases is not feasible.

So while no individual is genetically destined to become an extremist, any genetic predilections will mean that a population is destined to contain some extremists.

The problem in regards to Islamic terror is that it is implacable. Unlike the IRA, in the west it has no professed goal beyond terror itself. Indeed, it may primarily be a reactionary movement, however it nonetheless is impossible to negotiate with.Osama bin Laden gave 3 reasons why he masterminded the September 11th attacks.

Osama bin Laden gave 3 reasons why he masterminded the September 11th attacks.

This form terror cannot be defeated without defeating the idea it represents... This has been done quite poorly actually..

Education is a result of cultural norms, not a precursor to them. A shift in education will only occur when there is a prior shift in the mainstream.

I don't know about that. I think it's a bit of both; the education children receive is going to shape the people who they grow up to be, and the people they grow up to be are going to be the people who define society as we know it...and who, in turn, decide what education the next generation will receive.


I would agree that noone is genetically predetermined to be an extremist. That does not rule out, however, the possibility that someone has genetic tendencies towards extremism. It can be said that, without intervention, someone will become an extremist, and to say that we can intervene in all cases is not feasible.

So while no individual is genetically destined to become an extremist, any genetic predilections will mean that a population is destined to contain some extremists.
Could be.

This form terror cannot be defeated without defeating the idea it represents... This has been done quite poorly actually..Are you saying that the reasons he gave weren't the real reasons he did it?

Osama bin Laden gave 3 reasons why he masterminded the September 11th attacks.

Bombs explode.

Any other points or expansions you wish to make?

Bombs explode.

Any other points or expansions you wish to make?That if those things didn't occur, then it's conceivable that we wouldn't be dealing with terrorism right now, or at least not much of it.

That if those things didn't occur, then it's conceivable that we wouldn't be dealing with terrorism right now, or at least not much of it.

Possibly. Assuming this was published subsequent to 9/11, I would contend it is twaddle.

Al Quaeda did not exist as a social club and networking group prior to that.

Possibly. Assuming this was published subsequent to 9/11, I would contend it is twaddle.

Al Quaeda did not exist as a social club and networking group prior to that.The reasons that he listed occurred prior to 9/11.