I'd like to understand why so many young people find extremist content so persuasive and engaging. I can't stand it, and I instantly close any website that allows for extreme content.
As someone who was a teen on the internet in the 2000s, I think it at least partially has to do with lack of perspective or a reference point — extremism isn’t registering as extremism due to not having a measuring stick.
Additionally, anything that engages an individual’s emotions is likely to be attractive at that stage of life, thanks to teenagers on average having emotional centers that are overdeveloped relative to the rest of their brains.
A lot of this extends into a person’s early 20s as well, depending on how quickly they mature, their life experiences, etc. Personally speaking, in retrospect I didn’t have my head screwed on even remotely right until at least age 26 or so.
This last 2 year window has been particularly frustrating for young people and blaming "others" is frequent in these situations. I think externalising things to an out-group is just human nature (which of course needs to be confronted and denied)
Normally, it would be a minority who were in the position of the extent of time we're spending online, in discussions. More people in the space, more opportunity for pervasive negative messages, and racist/extremist messages to do their insidious work.
Why to they find it engaging and persuasive? because its recruiting, and so they get responses which are positive feedback. And, it provides an "unimpeachable" blame for the problem state young minds find themselves in: its those other people. Not you: you're one of us.
This is it. Take abortion, one side thinks that it is extreme to kill what they perceive as children, and the other side thinks that it is extreme to limit women’s rights to what they perceive as a medical procedure.
When you get to the bottom of these things you find different axiomatic beliefs. Some of these axiomatic beliefs are not based in truth but that is not relevant to the people who hold them.
There’s also a kind of tidal motion insofar as some beliefs move from the fringes to the mainstream (e.g. lgbt rights) and other beliefs move from the mainstream to the fringes. There’s always going to be some people who disagree with that motion, indeed many elderly people hold “extreme” beliefs (overt racism, etc) they are just not politically active usually.
This is well studied. The summary is that they target isolated or vulnerable people. It's the same with cults, diploma mills, and multi-level marketing schemes.
I’d be interest in those studies. I have experience with all three.
MLMs. My experience is that MLMs victimized people with high levels of trust and connection.
It often stars with a relative or church member. Or a workmate. The sort of people that are hard to say no to.
They use high pressure sales tactics, combine with exploiting social capital.
Diploma mill. People who don’t have experience with post secondary education, and high trust for authority.
I’m not aware of any network affects. It’s not like your sister in law is pressuring you to get a Ph. D from Baleful University.
I have seen legitimate schools marketed this way: “if you don’t get your kids into Yuppyville Elementary, they wont have a chance at Harvard.”
I’ve seen cults … too many.
Most mainstream religious organizations have people at the margins. People who are mentally ill. Have drug issues. Etc.
It’s hard to incorporate them into the mainstream of church life. But most churches feel they are obligated to reach out to people like that.
Para-church organizations are becoming more popular. Like knights of Columbus (they’re old). If someone wants to start up a para church org, there’s not much anyone can do to stop them. They piggy back on mainstream denominations.
Combining people with issues with unmanaged para-church orgs can be toxic, and lead to cults quickly.
I know most people on HN probably have a negative view of religion, and don’t make much of a distinction between “good religion” and “bad cult.”
But a good example is anti-vaccination ideas. Almost no major religious body rejects COVID vaccines. It’s the para church orgs doing that.
It’s the same environment that creates predatory groups like “I the leader, and like Abraham must have multiple wives … and I chose all of you as my wives.”
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I feel like you're describing the intellectual vacuum that is Reddit. I've found conversation here to be much more nuanced, at least since the start of 2021.
I've found people here to engage more and explore religion respectfully most of the time. Reddit however, I might be looking in the wrong place but respect is not something I find. Often people pick the most expressive terms they can to ensure everyone is aware of their lack of respect.
Because it's a lure of empowerment. My vote doesn't matter. Media is controlled by corporate interests. But I can bully/attack/kill some other group and make a real impact.
The above is obviously not at all my own opinion just trying to explain the rational. It used to be that you could "make a difference" at a local level. But local "sense of community" has been replaced by online communities.
I have a close friend who briefly flirted with (actual) extreme right wing beliefs, and has, thankfully, settled on a less warlike disposition. The question he asked, and which was never given a straight answer, was (in paraphrase), “why are others allowed to say, and even wish and will evil things upon my identity, but I am forbidden from even mild criticism of other identities, under pain of real material loss?” It is a real question, describing a real phenomenon, and since no one “respectable” could give him a straight answer, or even acknowledge the legitimacy of the question, he turned to people who did, even as they answered wrongly.
Honestly, because of inequality. When it becomes too difficult for people to live the life that society tells them everyone should live, people begin to lose faith in the system and that's when extremism takes root.
People will latch on to whatever 'tribe' they feel they belong to and create a scapegoat for whatever they think is the problem. Think communists vs. capitalists, ethnic group A vs ethnic group B, religion A vs religion B, vaxxed vs anti, etc...
Revolutions happen after an economic shock, not when things are going well.
Beware of trying to explain everything with a single variable (in this case, inequality). For example, the 1968 unrest in France did not happen because of an economic shock. And some economic shocks did not produce meaningful mass movements.
Young people tend to be edgy in general and they lack the experience to recognize the slippery slope potential from edginess towards dystopia. Most of the time, the edginess stays on the Internet, though, and only a tiny percentage overflows to the streets. The human civilization is trending away from the "active rioter" towards the "keyboard warrior" mode of operation. Riots used to be much worse, even in the 1980s, than they are now. Possibly the Internet acts as a surrogate channel for all that hate?
What inequality does is, IMHO, help recruit older and more experienced people to a radical movement that would otherwise fizzle out without massive support. The Yellow Vests in France were a good example. Once the lower middle class lost the ability to support their lifestyle, they lashed out in a way more destructive way that random students could.
During the 1960's the gini coefficient in France was nearly 50. Now it's in the 20's.
Considering the French protests were started by leftists literally complaining about inequality, and that inequality was much higher then than today, I think my explanation holds up.
I think any explanation should also explain all the instances of countries where protests did not happen, even though inequality was high.
The best evidence for causality would be to demonstrate some kind of "dose and response effect", which isn't easy. The dreaded word "culture" tends to creep in, because some countries seem to have a lot more riot-y history than others. (France vs. UK vs. Spain).
You're right, social mobility and overall standard of living matters as well. Also, how strong the state itself is and how decisively they can put down insurrection...
Additionally, anything that engages an individual’s emotions is likely to be attractive at that stage of life, thanks to teenagers on average having emotional centers that are overdeveloped relative to the rest of their brains.
A lot of this extends into a person’s early 20s as well, depending on how quickly they mature, their life experiences, etc. Personally speaking, in retrospect I didn’t have my head screwed on even remotely right until at least age 26 or so.