Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People with extremist views less able to do complex mental tasks

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–23 of 23 posts

Re: People with extremist views less able to do complex mental tasks

#21

Post by wizzwizz4 »

abcc8 wrote: post #4
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #3

TL;DR: > In some cognitive tasks, participants were asked to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible. People who leant towards the politically conservative tended to go for the slow and steady strategy, while political liberals took a slightly more fast and furious, less precise approach. > “What we found is that demographics don’t explain a whole lot; they only explain roughly 8% of the variance,” said Zmig…

No, and if you click through to the publication, the authors to not assert a causal relationship is demonstrated by their findings. Instead they suggest that rigidity of thought and interpretation may be a tool useful for identifying individuals at risk for radicalization. If replicated, such an association could be useful, irrespective of causality. I'm curious why you are attempting to hold the authors to a standar…

I'm not. I just didn't want to quote that entire section; it's a TL;DR, after all. The title of the article is a little misleading.

Re: People with extremist views less able to do complex mental tasks

#22

Post by wizzwizz4 »

Huwyt_Nashi021 wrote: post #7
abcc8 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, and if you click through to the publication, the authors to not assert a causal relationship is demonstrated by their findings. Instead they suggest that rigidity of thought and interpretation may be a tool useful for identifying individuals at risk for radicalization. If replicated, such an association could be useful, irrespective of causality. I'm curious why you are attempting to hold the authors to a standar…

That in itself is evidence of their progressive bias. If academia was dominated by those of the opposite persuasion, this study might conclude with suggestions that individuals who are more suggestible and impulsive are prone to having their malleable minds contorted towards progressive radicalisation.

It's also evidence that they're doing science properly. You don't declare causation until you have reason to believe the arrow of causality goes a certain way. You can distinguish between “doing science properly” and “progressive bias” by seeing how the authors treat papers where the conclusion could be spun “progressively” via unscientific conclusion-jumping… of which this is one, I think.
Post reply on HN