4 ms·
No, and if you click through to the publication, the authors to not assert a causal relationship is demonstrated by their findings. Instead they suggest that ri
by abcc8 6y ago
No, and if you click through to the publication, the authors to not assert a causal relationship is demonstrated by their findings. Instead they suggest that rigidity of thought and interpretation may be a tool useful for identifying individuals at risk for radicalization. If replicated, such an association could be useful, irrespective of causality.
I'm curious why you are attempting to hold the authors to a standard that they do not claim themselves is supported by their data.
- Huwyt_Nashi021 6y agoThat in itself is evidence of their progressive bias. If academia was dominated by those of the opposite persuasion, this study might conclude with suggestions that individuals who are more suggestible and impulsive are prone to having their malleable minds contorted towards progressive radicalisation.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoIt's also evidence that they're doing science properly. You don't declare causation until you have reason to believe the arrow of causality goes a certain way. You can distinguish between “doing science properly” and “progressive bias” by seeing how the authors treat papers where the conclusion could be spun “progressively” via unscientific conclusion-jumping… of which this is one, I think.
- wizzwizz4 6y agoI'm not. I just didn't want to quote that entire section; it's a TL;DR, after all. The title of the article is a little misleading.