Re:Engineers of Jihad: Connection between Violent Extremism ...
by br_smartass on Saturday February 27, 2016 @09:44PM
(#11189557)
"Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry." — Charles Sanders Peirce, "First Rule of Logic"
What does studying people who "can't calculate a tip" has to do with understanding extremism/intolerance? Seems the cap fits.
Edit: I'll also add that I'm STEM and I don't agree that "binary thinking", "intolerance of ambiguity", etc are bullshit things, so watch out when you put a whole category of people in your camp. I'm rigorous in rationality and I've come to this stuff through my own questioning, watch out because the non-conservative can also put an aggressive rethoric to use.
Re:Engineers of Jihad: Connection between Violent Extremism ...
by eru on Saturday February 27, 2016 @09:02PM
(#11189425)
> Defense of any principles (right, left, or religious) is considered extremist and dangerously reactionary these days.
Economic orthodoxy being is also considered radical and extremist by the mainstream.
The explanatory and predictive power of, "just sore losers" seems weak.
A review of the book (FT, paywalled) summarized other arguments about polarized, binary thinking, and an inability to accept culture, ambiguity, and a lot of what I see as sanctimonious bullshit the way non-STEM students do.
Defense of any principles (right, left, or religious) is considered extremist and dangerously reactionary these days.
One would hope that before laying the critical foundations to discredit educated conservatives (who largely take STEM degrees), academia might dedicate some thought to resolving why there are people with debt-funded $100k+ graduate degrees who read horoscopes, Piketty, and can't calculate a tip.