Ideological Extremism And Metacognition
Next In this article we talk about extremism and metacognition. Today’s political and social conflicts have forced scientists to focus their attention not only on what is happening, but also on how extremists’ brains work.
Until now we didn’t know if the people who support ideological extremism only do it when it comes to ideas and opinions on very specific topics or if it is broader and more complex.
Recent studies show that it’s probably not just about specific topics. Extremists can be radical in almost every aspect of their lives, which raises even more questions. Is there a personality trait associated with this type of behavior? And what does ideological extremism actually hide?
The research we are discussing today focuses on people who adhere to a certain form of ideological extremism and how this correlates with their metacognition.
First, however, we will explain exactly what metacognition is. It is a process by which people learn to reason. It requires constant reflection. It is the knowledge one has about the knowledge itself, about what one does and does not know.
The experiment with ideological extremism
Neuroscientist Steve Fleming and his team from University College London conducted a study to measure the ability of a sample group to identify an error.
The aim was to see whether the individuals who held radical political views had developed certain dogmatic beliefs because they had confidence in their views, or whether their views were the result of problems with metacognition (their thoughts about their own way of thinking). .
The participants completed surveys measuring their beliefs and political ideologies about alternative worldviews. Based on the research results, the researchers identified the individuals whose views were absolutely radical.
Measuring metacognition
When the subjects were divided into groups, the participants were asked to observe two images with small dots and determine which of the two had more dots.
They were then asked to rate their confidence in their own response. Researchers even paid them cash to encourage very precise answers.
They then told the participants which picture contained the most dots. The most radical individuals struggled to admit they were wrong. This was true even when confronted with evidence to contradict them.
Reduced ability to accept new evidence
The research results of Dr. Fleming thus showed that radical people are less able to question the ideas they are convinced of.
People who support some form of strong ideological extremism have a strong resistance to changing their beliefs, even when confronted with evidence that contradicts them.
Thus, the ability to think about yourself and what you think is directly related to the ability to add new evidence to a pre-established belief in order to make more accurate decisions.
The heavy burden of the rigid mind
The results of this study are therefore very interesting. Making decisions based on dots is not something that is very coercive. People don’t think of it as something personal. Yet the most radical individuals defended their wrong answers and completely ignored the evidence.
This invites us all to think. This kind of poor metacognition is a cognitive burden that extends beyond politics.
Other studies on the same topic seem to confirm that people who have cognitive problems are more likely to be authoritarian and nationalistic when adapting to change. It also seems that this translates into a sense of superiority of their own ideology.
José Manuel Sabucedo, professor of social psychology at the University of Santiago de Compostela, devoted many years of his academic life to researching authoritarianism.
He argues that authoritarian attitudes are directly related to the concept of naive realism. This means that people blindly believe that reality is as they perceive it.
