Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims?

[Crazy Eddie]

Is it?

Take two groups. Give group A one book, and group B the other. Wind forward a thousand years. Measure the difference in behaviour.

-Is there a difference between the two groups?
-If so, what are the confounding factors?

So far, we've fallen at the first fence - demonstating a difference between the two groups. All we have are two groups, one of whom occasionally plants bombs by hand, and the other which plant vastly more bombs by dropping them from aircraft. And the confounding variables appear blatent, vast and numerous.

People may feel, intuitively, that the content of the book makes some difference, but there's no evidence for it.

I did not say that the book fully determines the behaviour of the reader/interpreter.

I said that it is the psychology of the reader that is indicative of how a book is interpreted.

Conversely, the information content of a book is indicative of the psychological state of the author, or authors.

The book, if influential, is a catalyst for modifying behaviour. The ideas that are contained in the book resonate with the ideas, hopes, desires of the reader.

Some may find justification for their actions because their holy book sanctions the act of killing infidels, for instance.

I very STRONGLY suspect that if you kept all other factors unchanged -- all of their political and military history, their social and economic conditions, etc -- and except to change all of the former Ottoman states into Christian nations, we'd be seeing a lot of suicide bombers shouting "Jesus is Lord!" before blowing up the local supermarket.

The psychology of the reader is INDEED a major factor in how it's interpreted and we have plenty of evidence for this right here in the U.S. with the Christian Identity movement and its imitators (the Brotherhood of the Sword, Timothy McVeigh, the Branch Davidians, etc). The only difference is that America is relatively prosperous and enjoys a functioning social/democratic structure, which among other reasons makes it very infertile ground for militant radicalization.

So if the Middle East is fertile ground for radicalization, the question is WHY? Is it because Muslims, in high enough concentration, focus on the most violent concepts in their religion and amplify them collectively? Or is it because people forced into a state of extreme deprivation for decades at a time, dealing with crippling despair and crumbling social institutions run by some of the greediest fucks on the planet, are far more prone to resort to violence than their counterparts in suburban Michigan?

 

[DBT]

I did not say that the book fully determines the behaviour of the reader/interpreter.

I said that it is the psychology of the reader that is indicative of how a book is interpreted.

Conversely, the information content of a book is indicative of the psychological state of the author, or authors.

The book, if influential, is a catalyst for modifying behaviour. The ideas that are contained in the book resonate with the ideas, hopes, desires of the reader.

Some may find justification for their actions because their holy book sanctions the act of killing infidels, for instance.

I very STRONGLY suspect that if you kept all other factors unchanged -- all of their political and military history, their social and economic conditions, etc -- and except to change all of the former Ottoman states into Christian nations, we'd be seeing a lot of suicide bombers shouting "Jesus is Lord!" before blowing up the local supermarket.

The psychology of the reader is INDEED a major factor in how it's interpreted and we have plenty of evidence for this right here in the U.S. with the Christian Identity movement and its imitators (the Brotherhood of the Sword, Timothy McVeigh, the Branch Davidians, etc). The only difference is that America is relatively prosperous and enjoys a functioning social/democratic structure, which among other reasons makes it very infertile ground for militant radicalization.

So if the Middle East is fertile ground for radicalization, the question is WHY? Is it because Muslims, in high enough concentration, focus on the most violent concepts in their religion and amplify them collectively? Or is it because people forced into a state of extreme deprivation for decades at a time, dealing with crippling despair and crumbling social institutions run by some of the greediest fucks on the planet, are far more prone to resort to violence than their counterparts in suburban Michigan?

It's a combination of all these factors. But where religions or philosophies like Buddhism may build an environment of tolerance and non violence, others may be perceived to condone violence as a valid form of response according to scripture, culture and history. The social environment fostered by a religion or a political culture is a major factor that shapes our perception of the world and our place within it, and how we tend to respond to its challenges.

 

[Togo]

I very STRONGLY suspect that if you kept all other factors unchanged -- all of their political and military history, their social and economic conditions, etc -- and except to change all of the former Ottoman states into Christian nations, we'd be seeing a lot of suicide bombers shouting "Jesus is Lord!" before blowing up the local supermarket.

The psychology of the reader is INDEED a major factor in how it's interpreted and we have plenty of evidence for this right here in the U.S. with the Christian Identity movement and its imitators (the Brotherhood of the Sword, Timothy McVeigh, the Branch Davidians, etc). The only difference is that America is relatively prosperous and enjoys a functioning social/democratic structure, which among other reasons makes it very infertile ground for militant radicalization.

So if the Middle East is fertile ground for radicalization, the question is WHY? Is it because Muslims, in high enough concentration, focus on the most violent concepts in their religion and amplify them collectively? Or is it because people forced into a state of extreme deprivation for decades at a time, dealing with crippling despair and crumbling social institutions run by some of the greediest fucks on the planet, are far more prone to resort to violence than their counterparts in suburban Michigan?

It's a combination of all these factors. But where religions or philosophies like Buddhism may build an environment of tolerance and non violence, others may be perceived to condone violence as a valid form of response according to scripture, culture and history. The social environment fostered by a religion or a political culture is a major factor that shapes our perception of the world and our place within it, and how we tend to respond to its challenges.

Which is games like Grand Theft Auto ought to be banned. Because although we have no reason whatsoever to believe that they encourage people to be violent, it's just obvious that they must do.

 

[DBT]

It's a combination of all these factors. But where religions or philosophies like Buddhism may build an environment of tolerance and non violence, others may be perceived to condone violence as a valid form of response according to scripture, culture and history. The social environment fostered by a religion or a political culture is a major factor that shapes our perception of the world and our place within it, and how we tend to respond to its challenges.

Which is games like Grand Theft Auto ought to be banned. Because although we have no reason whatsoever to believe that they encourage people to be violent, it's just obvious that they must do.

It's more complicated than that. This issue relates to the nature/ nurture debate. The question of what degree our behaviour is governed by genes and how much is environmental.

Obviously we do have our common to all humans genetic drives, the need for food, shelter, position, etc, which is interacting with our individual, unique experiences through the medium of neural architecture.

Given that it is our environment that is our sole source of sensory information, which shapes our perceptions and beliefs, it isn't a stretch to see that an environment that is conducive to violence as a means of resolving issues is going to produce more individuals that take that option.

I don't mean to say that everyone is likely to take the option of violence, or even a high percentage, but the individuals who are at risk, who are susceptible given that type of environment.

Yet in a society that does not condone violence, that discourages revenge and violent retribution, these individuals would probably be good and decent citizens, brushing off insults to 'prophets' as a minor problem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Which is games like Grand Theft Auto ought to be banned. Because although we have no reason whatsoever to believe that they encourage people to be violent, it's just obvious that they must do.

It's more complicated than that. This issue relates to the nature/ nurture debate. The question of what degree our behaviour is governed by genes and how much is environmental.

Obviously we do have our common to all humans genetic drives, the need for food, shelter, position, etc, which is interacting with our individual, unique experiences through the medium of neural architecture.

Given that it is our environment that is our sole source of sensory information, which shapes our perceptions and beliefs, it isn't a stretch to see that an environment that is conducive to violence as a means of resolving issues is going to produce more individuals that take that option.

I don't mean to say that everyone is likely to take the option of violence, or even a high percentage, but the individuals who are at risk, who are susceptible given that type of environment.

Yet in a society that does not condone violence, that discourages revenge and violent retribution, these individuals would probably be good and decent citizens, brushing off insults to 'prophets' as a minor problem.

Maybe these countries are culturally inbred. Genetically, not certain.

 

[DBT]

It's more complicated than that. This issue relates to the nature/ nurture debate. The question of what degree our behaviour is governed by genes and how much is environmental.

Obviously we do have our common to all humans genetic drives, the need for food, shelter, position, etc, which is interacting with our individual, unique experiences through the medium of neural architecture.

Given that it is our environment that is our sole source of sensory information, which shapes our perceptions and beliefs, it isn't a stretch to see that an environment that is conducive to violence as a means of resolving issues is going to produce more individuals that take that option.

I don't mean to say that everyone is likely to take the option of violence, or even a high percentage, but the individuals who are at risk, who are susceptible given that type of environment.

Yet in a society that does not condone violence, that discourages revenge and violent retribution, these individuals would probably be good and decent citizens, brushing off insults to 'prophets' as a minor problem.

Maybe these countries are culturally inbred. Genetically, not certain.

Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but what is certain: it is the environment that their children are born into, educated and have their experiences of the world. The environment in which they form their values and beliefs as they grow and learn during their formative years .

 

[Togo]

Which is why games like Grand Theft Auto ought to be banned. Because although we have no reason whatsoever to believe that they encourage people to be violent, it's just obvious that they must do.

It's more complicated than that. This issue relates to the nature/ nurture debate.

Not very closely though. We're looking at cultural and enviromental factors, such as the situation and culture in various Muslim countries, and asking whether the precise words written in a holy book are a significant factor amongst all the others. They're all nuture. You can bring in genetics if you want, but I don't see that it changes anything.

The arguements being produced in this thread are just the same as those produced by those who wanted to ban violent or smutty films, computer games, and other aspects of a (youth) culture that was alien to them. It's Mary Whitehouse and Congressional speeches against 'Satanic' music all over again. There is no evidence that the content of these, or of Islam, has any effect on the outcome whatsoever.

I appreciate that it may seem intuitively obvious to some posters that Islam contains things that would make people more violent, just as it seemed intuitively obvious that people might be harmed by rock lyrics such as 'suicide is painless', comic books about horrible murders, or computer games that feature beating up and robbing prostitutes. It's also obvious that teenagers have no respect these days, that 20 cats is an entirely reasonable number for one person to have, and that those darned kids need to stay off of your lawn.

 

[DBT]

It's more complicated than that. This issue relates to the nature/ nurture debate.

Not very closely though.

There is nothing else. It is an interaction of genes and environment through the medium of brain activity forming mind and consciousness. Genetic information builds the biological architecture and neural processing of information gathered from the environment provides the 'software' - self identity, language, culture, religon, philosophy, beliefs, etc, etc

We're looking at cultural and enviromental factors, such as the situation and culture in various Muslim countries, and asking whether the precise words written in a holy book are a significant factor amongst all the others. They're all nuture. You can bring in genetics if you want, but I don't see that it changes anything.

It is both, genetic makeup is not identical between individuals. Two people having grown up the same culture placed in the same situation probably won't agree on the best course of action because they are individuals with different personalities characters and dispositions, party something they born with and partly developed through experience.

The nature nurture debate, how much, or precisely what, is determined by genetic makeup or environment and how these elements interact, is nothing new.

 

[Nexus]

The only difference is that America is relatively prosperous and enjoys a functioning social/democratic structure, which among other reasons makes it very infertile ground for militant radicalization.

Central and south America are not prosperous nor enjoy functioning social/democratic structure. Some parts abysmally bad in the recent past yet your prediction that Christians would radicalize in Jesus name like Muslims for team Mohammad never happened.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The only difference is that America is relatively prosperous and enjoys a functioning social/democratic structure, which among other reasons makes it very infertile ground for militant radicalization.

Central and south America are not prosperous nor enjoy functioning social/democratic structure. Some parts abysmally bad in the recent past yet your prediction that Christians would radicalize in Jesus name like Muslims for team Mohammad never happened.

There is big time non-christian influences in those countries, African, native American. There's actual religious competition and syncretism, non authoritarian on a state scale, very different. It's not the same in Muslim countries.