Lately around here, we have seen accusations of being part of the "extremist right" or "extremist left." But what is the difference between an extremist and a person with healthy convictions?
1. Priorities
- Extremists do not recognize a prioritized list of issues and ideas. All of their positions are equally true, equally important, and equally non-negotiable.
- Healthy people differentiate between what is essential to their outlook, and what is negotiable. They perform a sort of triage on their ideas, and determine which are worth fighting for, and which are actually negotiable
2. The Single Principle Error
- Extremists often apply one true principle in exclusion to others, or out of any sort of context. They fail to recognize that all truths exist in a web of related ideas that limit and clarify them. Without such limits, extremists apply truths "to a fault." For example, the commandment "do not kill" is limited by the commandments to defend the weak from the violent.
- Healthy people recognize that all principles can go awry if you apply them in isolation. They recognize and define the neighboring principles which limit and define the understanding and application of the principle under consideration.
3. Legislation
- Extremists want all of their positions put into law, even the controversial ones. They will often go to the point of martial law, forcing others to capitulate rather than allowing their ideas to win a majority in the public arena.
- Healthy people want only the essentials put into law, and would rather ensure that legislation remains neutral on questionable issues, or takes a path of partial regulation or affirmation of a position (e.g. labeling of games or tax incentives for saving money, resp.)
4. Logic
- Extremists favor sloganeering, parading rhetorical statements, and neglecting to provide data for their assertions. Extremists also fail to argue at the level of their foundational assumptions, and how they logically proceed from them to conclusions. Rather, they argue at the level of their desired ends, rarely examining the validity of their means or assumptions.
- Healthy people provide their foundational assumptions, and a clear path of logic from them to their conclusions. They also seek to validate their means, not just their ends.
5. Data
- Extremists, when they do provide data, are often selective, or fail to
recognize and discuss conflicting data. They often reject data, not
based on criticism of the experimental model or data interpretation,
but based upon their evaluation of the researchers, and which
ideological camp they come from. And while it is acceptable to
question the data from one ideological camp, it is not acceptable to
reject their data and conclusions just because they have an existing
bias – the question is whether or not their conclusions are logical,
and their experiments were designed to not be affected by their bias. - Healthy people entertain all of the data, and discuss the reasons why they have
rejected or accepted various studies. They can also accept that the
data is sometimes inconclusive, and that their opinions have yet to be
validated.
6. Attitude and Maturity
- Extremists often engage in derision, name-calling, ad-hominems, and mockery. Lacking either the maturity, capacity, or will to make a reasoned argument (or lacking a good argument at all), they resort to what is essentially bullying.
- Healthy people focus on the arguments, not the people. They can agree to disagree.
7. Single Polarity v. Balance and Nuance
Most ideological positions fall somewhere on a bipolar scale (though not all can be boiled down to just two alternatives – beware of the logical error of bifurcation or "false dichotomy")
- Extremists will not admit to any sort of principled compromise between their position and their opponent – often, they remain at their extreme pole because a principled compromise means that the issue is not black or white, which they require. Like those who engage the slippery slope argument, they eschew the inevitable vagaries of a principled approach rather than a polar, no exceptions, rule-based approach.
Unfortunately, they ignore the fact that they are so far to the pole that there is NO reasonable position to the right (or left) of them. if you ask them, they are unable to define a more extreme version of their position because, well, they are it. It’s like the old saying, "every group has a person with high emotional needs – if you can’t identify them, it’s probably you." If you can’t identify a position to the ‘outside’ of yours, guess what? You are extreme.
- Healthy people are able to define what the extreme, unhealthy position is, and why their own position is reasonable in comparison. Rather than relying on black and white rules, they use principles to set the scope and limits of their compromise position.
8. The Slippery Slope
- Extremists love to use the slippery slope argument, which states that any concession, even a small one, on their part will lead to a slide down to the pit of error that their opponents represent. Their argument is a lazy, fear-based threat of impending danger and chaos if any latitude on their position is taken.
- Healthy people know that the slippery slope argument is rarely valid, and usually is an intellectual copout for those who would rather not spend the time and energy to define parameters for small compromises that would allow for a little healthy breathing room on their position.
9. Conspiracies and Paranoia
- Extremists often see their opposition, and all criticism, as part of a larger conspiracy against them. In fact, they often disallow criticism from within their ranks (all such critics are "traitors").
- Healthy people know that true conpiracies are rare, even though various power blocks exist in the public arena. At worst, they chalk up such "blindness" to group-think, brainwashing, or self-deception on the part of their opponents. They follow the adage "never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by stupidity."
So, what other characteristics of extremists have I missed? Do you, like me, see yourself in some of these descriptions? Time to wise up!
Related Posts:
"Lately around here, we have seen accusations of being part of the "extremist right" or "extremist left." ——-
my God … I'm shocked, shocked to find "extremist" thought on a political/religious(odd bedfellows) forum! hehehe.
"So, what other characteristics of extremists have I missed? Do you, like me, see yourself in some of these descriptions? Time to wise up!" ——-
why "time" to wise up? or, where in the flow of time do you think we are that these non-moderate characteristics need an application of wisdom?
Here is some of that "more tolerant" and less "extremist" wisdom in action:
Governor Arnold Swartzenegger signed a law banning any reference to 'Mom & Dad' or 'Husband & Wife' in California(schools). Boys and girls will now use the same restrooms and locker rooms. No comments are allowed that may be perceived as negative towards 'gays'. ——-
I guess the RINO governator has been busy reaching across the aisle and formulating this legislation in order to not to be "extreme". I guess traditional family and social views are the unhealthy, naive, and paranoid views … oh and lets not forget, the Christian point of view on what a family is, about homosexuality, all may now be considered hate "thought" in Kaleefornya.
Never ever ever ever compromise your values.
That's because it is hateful.
Traditional Manson family values.
Oh. Good explanation.
Light years better than yours.
umm hmm.
mine was commentary tying into seekers view that compromise leads to advancing issues.
and i agree with you, Awnald's view is hateful.
you must be getting awfully tired carrying that chip on your shoulder …
You must get awfully tired of being a jerk.
i am not a jerk, i am a nazi/pharisee/extremist, remember? the old lefty tact, scream "fascist" at those who do not agree with you.
it seems that most posters here are clones of one another in their thought. i do not feel the way they do, on the important issues to me and am not afraid to state it.
because i do not agree with you i am a jerk? that is very mature louis.
put that chip down man. :)
oh, louis, are you on the Berkeley city council?
I know you are, but what am I?
seekers view that compromise leads to advancing issues
Straw man, ben, that is not my view. My view is that we must determine which items we can compromise on, and which not. You should know full well that I am not a gay apologist. What is your problem? You are so angry you fail to argue well because you strike out at everyone, often misrepresenting them to make your tired points. Try a more "moderate" approach, will you? ;)
Actually, among martians, I think abusive behavior is considered culturally acceptable.
Actually, among martians, I think abusive behavior is considered culturally acceptable.
Seeker, then maybe this a call for a get tough policy on intergalactic illegal immigration? ;)
well now, add Martian to the list of what i am. cool.
i have always backed up what i have said with facts or if not facts, by personal belief which a Christian site should be full of, and many posts were just quick blurbs, like others have posted, without encyclopedic research. being neither a nazi, snide, naive, a trouser monkey, a pharisee(i still really like that one),not having a deep enough understanding of subjects,etc.,etc. i know, i know, i have made this point before, i am just pointing out that I AM NOT THE ONE SLINGING RUBBISH on this site. i post my thoughts. i post my experience. others seem to get a pass with this crap, and i punch back.
i have never called anyone a name other than their name they use in posts. i am the one painted into a corner by those that post here. as for the political names, like Obamessiah … anything i use like that in these
posts is based upon what i have observed in the candidates themselves. come on, Obamessiah … i think you get it.
my posts may seem combative, but are not meant that way … i believe strongly, i speak strongly. i am pretty sure that i could go back and copy and paste many more nasty words or implications towards me than i have ever ever used against anyone here.
silver,
"Ben, it is not that we resent the fact you state your differing beliefs. Rather it is that you do not back up most of your claims and that you take a rather insulting and combative attitude towards others on this site. It is tiresome, weak, and disrespectful." ——-
in the only real discussion we had, you posted a huge reply which i had not the time to reply honestly to, so i picked your comment on weaponry, a very serious point of contention to me, on which to comment on. i think i did show my side very well and would be glad to discuss this point and any others(which i planned to do with your lengthy post, but was then cut off)in which there is to discuss. i have spent 20+ years of my life working to keep the 2ndA healthy. not only the gun owners are affected by the 2nd, but the whole Bill of Rights and those who want to keep those freedoms, unabridged and free, since the 2nd puts the "bite" in the mouth of the 1stA. Can you imagine Gov intrusion on our speech here? When you threw the old line of "grenade launchers" into a discussion about owning small arms, well, its just an old tired tactic thats been used many times in my experience. It reminded me of ole Hil's comment a month or so ago to a question from a person in her audience, about "assault" weapons … she stated that a deer doesn't wear kevlar, i guess trying to make some point. first we all must recognize something, the 2ndA and RKBA is not about target shooting, collecting, hunting or skeet shooting, although it works to protect those things. it just pains me to no end that America is losing its soul, of which the freedom to have weapons is a reflection of the esprit of that soul, and the constant degrading of all that is good and honorable in our culture by "compromising" it away.
so silver, i hope that it was just emotion that was coloring your argument toward "semi's" and not something else. i hope my benefit of the doubt i offer to you is not misguided.
no troll here. i just do not agree on major policy stance of American gov that lately have been issues on this site, and the damaging, to me, stances of posters. so i comment. keith and i have had spirited discussion on illegal imms. sometimes it got a little heated. it was good.
this whole discussion started, if i remember correctly, about conservatives/compromise/McCaniac supporters, and how conservatives will put aside their feelings and sidle up to "him". me thinks not, unless someone Reagan like in policy, youthful in appearance(a huge stretch)is his VP pick. i digress …
as i have said, if i am viewed as extremist(a silly notion)it is only because i am different from those who post here, as i see no other views(that i can remember)that i see as conservative. to me conservative and Christian thought are very much intertwined but differ when pragmatism dictates, as JC did not want ones to be foolish with their lives or possessions, national or private.
any who … seeker, as the definition of "straw man" is to misrepresent someones view and then make a silly nonrelated argument to try and prove a point, is something i did not do(please point this out and i will gladly apologize), let me offer the same hand to you as i did silver and vice versa, i give you the benefit of the doubt.
now, since our little intervention is over, LETS GET IT ON!(sorry if that was a bit extreme).
Textbook personality disorder.
Ben, I think i was clear about your straw man statement (you did not knock it down directly, but it was vague and misleading enough to not require such) in My comment.
You can quibble about whether or not that fits the legal definition of straw man, but I basically felt you misrepresented my position, so I restated it.
seeker, point it out. i am missing your example. is this what you are speaking of?:
"Straw man, ben, that is not my view. My view is that we must determine which items we can compromise on, and which not. You should know full well that I am not a gay apologist. What is your problem? You are so angry you fail to argue well because you strike out at everyone, often misrepresenting them to make your tired points. Try a more "moderate" approach, will you? ;)" ——-
is this about compromise and my feelings on it? gay apologist? i never said that, and if you were, fine.
i do not know full well anything about you, only what you have posted here and what i have seen over the past month or so. thats all i know. really, its hard to get a feel for you. i be new here.
and i beg your pardon, i do not argue poorly. i have only commented in length on illegal immigration(an immoral proposition) and the 2ndA(a God given right that some are willing to piss away).
this has been you and i think, silvers opinion. louis only snipes in short phrases that are usually snotty, i guess because i find homo sex immoral based on my Christian upbringing. so be it.
as far as quibbling, i was not. words mean things and when straw man was used, i had to refute. you have mis-interpreted me. if my points are too "tired" for this forum, then maybe i will leave it to the 3 musketeers(keith,seeker,silver)and your side kick D'artagnan. So much for the 1stA, heh?
louis, are you really Dr. Phil?
one last thing …
as a Conservative, on political issues, and the questions that a McCain nomination stirs in "those like me"(shiver), i have compromised much over the last 8 years just in order to keep a bozo like Kerry out of office. because of that compromise, we now have the situation where a 2 year hyper-lib senator from a state where the hyper-lib citystate of Chicago holds the mostly conservative population in the rest of the state hostage, may win in a landslide.
No more compromise as a Conservative. No more compromise just to drift left in the political spectrum, and then have the likes of BigMac poke us in the eye. Drifting into the left just to have "our" point of view ignored is not a workable strategy to "us".
No mas mi amigos(thats for Juan Hernandez)and any of our illegal friends who may be reading(oh wait, that requires a working knowledge of English).
Never ever ever ever compromise on your values.
"The hyper-lib citystate of Chicago"?
Actually, Ben's rants are becoming quite amusing. It's kind of fun watching someone so wildly right-wing in his views spout off.
I would recommend some sort of anti-psychotic, but I wouldn't want to miss out on the fun.
Dr. Freud mebbe?
Wild right winger … add it to the list … i dig the Che Guevara/Cuban flag in Obamessiah’s Houston office.
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2008/02/che-guevara-flags-in-obamas-houston-offi/
One needn't be a trained analyst to spot what's happening with you. I'm not the only one here to tell you to get sane.
Any swastikas hanging in Republican offices?
Ben reminds me of Henry Clay who declared he'd rather be right than president. Turns out, he was neither.
btw: Lincoln "only" served 4 terms in the Illinois state House and one in Congress (both for Illinois) before losing twice in runs for the U.S. Senate. Not much of a resume for what happened later. Resumes don't matter much. If they did, Bush 41 would have been one of our greatest Presidents.
1)One needn't be a trained analyst to spot what's happening with you. I'm not the only one here to tell you to get sane.——-
coming from what I have read in this forum, that is not a very comforting thought.
2)Any swastikas hanging in Republican offices?
nope. because if we were to flip the script, and this was Huckabee's office, MSM would be crucifying him about now.
only Obamessiah gets a pass. and a certain lib who posts here.
Put the chip down, doc.
Why obsess with my chip? What about your boulder?
i am not obsessing. i am trying to show you the way out of the darkness … walk toward the light, louie, walk toward the light …
if you were nice you would help me with that boulder, real or imagined. but, i guess, that may be too much to ask ….
the first step is admitting you have a problem, not allowing your critics to pay attention to you… ;)
sorry man, no can do. no compromise. strong views to not equate to a problem where i come from. not even under the tender care and comment of dr. louie.
So. We see in Ben the extremism seeker sought to define in his post. An interesting irony.
well fellas, if being a christian conservative makes me extreme, then thank you, thats a badge i wear with pride. tis' all relative.
no compromise on those values which define me.
i understand that in some "parts" of the country my views would make me a "trouser monkey(?)", but then those who choose to define us with silly names prove who they are and so are defeated with out a shot.
that is what is lost on the "enlightened" moderates and of course, the Che Guevara party, we actually have principles.
Just keep piling up the evidence…
gladly.
if being a christian conservative makes me extreme,
Actually, it does not make you extreme. What makes you extreme are the ways in which your postings match the descriptions of extremity up top.
Both Aaron and I consider ourselves christian conservatives, but we exhibit a somewhat lower extremity level than your "9 out of 10" extremism.
I think you should
a. re-read the post and see how or if you match the description, and
b. if you disagree with my definitions of extremism, add some clarity.
i checked. seems all very relative. and louis arguing for my being insane only helps me feel i am on the correct track.
any and all comments i have made here, i feel deeply about, based on my principles. i am comfortable with any and all assumptions about me, that is fine. i think over time even louis will learn to love me(phile).
Feeling deeply, no problem. Having favored principles, no problem. But namecalling, taking the furthest to the right position on every issue, being unable or unwilling to consider, discuss, or understand compromise on any issue, being seemingly unwilling to prioritize issues and give people latitude on lesser ones, using consistently emphatic language and superlatives, all signs of unhealthy extremism.
i am right of those here, i have no doubt, from the comments i have read in my short time here. i have reduced my tone, i hope. i think i am used to a little different forum, more combative.
i, as the nazi trouser monkey pharisee insane extreme right wing all around bad dude, can agree with the name calling point. hehehe.
as far as any issue, there was only 2 that i discussed in any detail … and no, i will not compromise on guns or illegal immigration. to do so would be immoral to me.
well, maybe 3 including conservatism/Mc support, but that is up to Mc. i will support if he shows respect and a desire to lead me, not bully me.
we owe him nothing other than respect.
Well, he now favors torture, so that should make you like him.
i do not consider waterboarding torture, if that is what we are speaking of.
BTW, I did not call you a Pharisee, I said your approach to immigration was Pharisaical in that it was correct according to the letter of the law, but lacked the compassion that goes with the spirit of the law.
That's not namecalling.
compassion goes both ways, and i find it more compassionate to those people of my country, who i choose to defend first, to enforce the laws of my country. if not, have no border.
i do not think that you explained your stance totally on the subject. if you want to revisit, cool.
dang it all, that was the one name i liked! and now you are saying you didn't call me that? cruel, very cruel. let the extremist dog have his day …